Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/MediaWiki Administrator's Handbook

MediaWiki Administrator's Handbook

 * Delete This should be part of the Help namespace. Gerard Foley 23:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It already is: Help:Administration. Uncle G 07:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep - Give it more than 18 hours.... Rernst 04:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cancel VFD - I know that Project:Deletion policy is only a proposed policy, but it does say that modules must be at least one week old to be eligible for VFD. In this case, that means that this module is ineligible for VFD before about 30 or 31 December. I propose cancelling this vote and keeping this module. --Kernigh 02:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This appears not to belong in the "Help" namespace because it is about Wikimedia, not MediaWiki. --Kernigh 20:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - OK, I don't mind somebody getting upset and throwing up a VfD on this, but please state exactly why from a clear argument viewpoint why this Wikibook should be deleted. And no, I don't think this belongs in the "Help:" namespace because this is, as I stated, a "How to admin" book, not just user help.  This is not official policy, but general suggestions from one admin to another in a much more informal setting and I don't want to make this seem "official" in any possible way.  By moving it to the help namespace it would lose that approach and turn it into official policy.  I also don't want to get into the politics of trying to edit m:Help:Administration, and I would also like to get into much more depth of how to do these tasks.  This is intended to be a book about administration.  --Rob Horning 15:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has the potential to be an invaluable resource, in a much more inviting format then the current Help: pages, and the available pages at meta. -- 02:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All your saying is that the help pages are crap (true); we should fix them instead of writing a new book. Gerard Foley 02:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the only effort to write information about how to use MediaWiki software should be restricted to just the Wikimedia Meta Wiki? That there is no role at all that could ever be done for writing a Wikibook instead?  That the current format for help pages on Meta is the only way content of that nature should be written?  That this is also official and enforced policy and there is no exception to this rule? --Rob Horning 07:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that the help pages are crap, i am simply saying that the help pages are reference material, and not a learning guide. I consider this new book to basically be an annotated explanation of the help pages with more information then we should squeeze into the help pages. -- 13:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think anything in this book can be written in the Help namespace including How to admin, but if other people want this book then fine. Gerard Foley 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that everything in the Help namespace must be (by proclaimation on the help pages themselves) edited on Meta, and there are several policies in place that also try to accomplish many different goals, including the attempt to be a generic quick guide for all MediaWiki users (not just Wikimedia Foundation sister projects). To the point, Gerard, I would like to have a very clear argument as to why it must be in the Help namespace other than it just seems to be the right place in your opinion.  I am asking why Wikibooks contributors are being told to stop adding content like this by users who mainly contribute on another Wikimedia project.  I would also like a very clear justification as to why this sort of content should not be developed on Wikibooks when the very mission of this project seems to scream that this is precisely the mission of Wikibooks.  How-to manuals are specificially mentioned in WB:WIN as something that is what Wikibooks is about.  Why is writing about MediaWiki software or aspects of Wikimedia project organization somehow off limits on Wikibooks? BTW, While I don't mind fighting this issue in the VfD forum, it was very premature to put on the VfD and in violation of Wikibooks proposed polcies, and general concensus among most Wikibooks contributors for a very good reason.  If this had been added by a new contributor, I would have simply stopped the whole discussion by deleteing the VfD from the beginning... and I've done that already in the past.  As it is, this VfD has killed any progress in this Wikibook at all, even positive developments that perhaps could be rolled into the Meta Help pages.--Rob Horning 02:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To the point, Gerard, I would like to have a very clear argument as to why it must be in the Help namespace other than it just seems to be the right place in your opinion.
 * This is my only objection to the book. To me it sceams silly to give help to people both in this book and Help.
 * I am asking why Wikibooks contributors are being told to stop adding content like this by users who mainly contribute on another Wikimedia project.
 * I hope your not talking about me, because I contribute fairly equally to Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wiktionary.


 * And about the proposed policy, I never read that part, I think it's silly to have to wait a week to start vfd but if that's what people want... Gerard Foley 14:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait too short, and you will discourage the (already few) contributors. Wait too long, and it is just deleted in 8 days instead of 1 day. Of course, if something is blatently out there, then it needs a speedydelete, but this is not the case. If we were going to use a speedy delete, then it wouldn't be on vfd. 1 week is fine, not to mention, you can always talk with the author if you think it is duplicating efforts or whatnot. And in a week, you can put it back on vfd if you really want to. --Dragontamer 16:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The main reason for the delay in placing a VfD on content that is not blatant vandalism (like a display of the goatse.cx pic and other similar nonsense) is that writing a book is a much harder task to accomplish, and sometimes the beginnings of a Wikibook can come from a variety of sources that are hard to put together. It has also been used in the past in a fashion (like this one) to stir the pot when you simply don't like the content for some reason, or in some cases when you have a person grudge against a particular user who is creating the content in the first place.  I have advocated, and continue to advocate for, a full month delay on all but the most serious kinds of violations of content before you put on a VfD to give it a chance to develop.  If it seems like a situation where it is a blatant violation of WB:WIN (like duplicating content on another Wikimedia project like posting the full text of the Bible on Wikibooks) there may be some leeway to get the ball moving somewhere else instead.  In addition, it is better to try and deal directly with the author first before a VfD... and that doesn' matter what Wikimedia project you are talking about.  If you don't get any progress that way the VfD then becomes a tool to bring it to the wider community.  That was also not done with this Wikibook.  And while WB:WIN may be proposed, it is a defacto policy at the moment and it is only the full text that needs a wider vote from the community to become enforced.  That is all that it is missing now, and has been developed over the course of the entire history of the Wikibooks project.  Also... Wikibooks is not Wikipedia, so you need to know the local policies before you start to assume anything here.  --Rob Horning 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Consider it like any other how-to book, such as how-to be a stellar seller on eBay, or how to run a moderated discussion board. Writing how-tos is one of the main goals of this project. That the subject just happens to seem a little self-referential shouldn't change that. The book is a complement to offical policy, not a substitute for it: we need both. --MShonle 18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, but I reserve the right to change my vote if there isn't actual content at some future date. Gentgeen 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.. Help files and text books serve separate purposes. There is room for both. Irrevenant 10:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepLooks apropiately titled, formatted, and filled with information. Although it is not complete, much of it is, and it looks like a good resource for admins. CatastrophicToad 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Concensus is to keep. I will archive this discussion in 1 week. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)