Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for deletion and that sucks.
It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed every again.
If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back on VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to place GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put Childlove movement on there till we get rid of it.
Ta bu shi da yu
[[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]]
-Snowspinner
On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:26 PM, csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for deletion and that sucks.
It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed every again.
If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back on VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to place GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put Childlove movement on there till we get rid of it.
Ta bu shi da yu
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ya, I know. But if it's officially sanctioned that GNAA can go onto VfD as many times as people want, then that's not disruption, right? So then a precedent is set.
Snowspinner wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]]
-Snowspinner
On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:26 PM, csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for deletion and that sucks.
It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed every again.
If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back on VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to place GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put Childlove movement on there till we get rid of it.
Ta bu shi da yu
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
csherlock@ljh.com.au said:
Snowspinner wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]]
Ya, I know. But if it's officially sanctioned that GNAA can go onto VfD as many times as people want, then that's not disruption, right? So then a precedent is set.
You have to take into account intent. I nominated GNAA for the fifth time. I nominated what appeared to me to be a clear candidate for deletion. Had I known its full history I would not have done so. If a more experienced editor had done so, I think you'd have a good point about disruption to make a point. With me, the intent to disrupt was not there.
Tony, sorry, the comment wasn't directed at you. I know you did this in good faith. I'm addressing this to the other people people who placed it on VfD 3 times already.
TBSDY
Tony Sidaway wrote:
csherlock@ljh.com.au said:
Snowspinner wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]]
Ya, I know. But if it's officially sanctioned that GNAA can go onto VfD as many times as people want, then that's not disruption, right? So then a precedent is set.
You have to take into account intent. I nominated GNAA for the fifth time. I nominated what appeared to me to be a clear candidate for deletion. Had I known its full history I would not have done so. If a more experienced editor had done so, I think you'd have a good point about disruption to make a point. With me, the intent to disrupt was not there.
Deliberate disruption of WP by rampant deletionists seems to be tollerated for now. I guess it will have to cause even more damage before anything is done. Mark
--- "csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Ya, I know. But if it's officially sanctioned that GNAA can go onto VfD as many times as people want, then that's not disruption, right? So then a precedent is set.
Snowspinner wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a
point]]
-Snowspinner
On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:26 PM, csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Guys, how many times are we going to list this
before we stop this
abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the
article has been on
votes for deletion and that sucks.
It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop
till it's gone. I
would like to propose that after this vote, we
never allow it to be
listed every again.
If we don't, then I'm considering putting
[[Childlove movement]] back
on VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly
if we're allowed to
place GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be
fine to put
Childlove movement on there till we get rid of
it.
Ta bu shi da yu
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Mark Richards said:
Deliberate disruption of WP by rampant deletionists seems to be tollerated for now. I guess it will have to cause even more damage before anything is done. Mark
Again I am forced to correct a false statement to the effect that the recent listing of GNAA was a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. As a relatively new editor and no deletionist, I listed the article in ignorance of all but its most recent (three months ago) VfD history, on the merits. I would not have listed it for a fifth, a fourth, or even a third time. I have voted Keep and suggested that others opposed to vindictive listings do otherwise, irrespective of the merits. A line must be drawn somewhere.
Tony, I don't think that Mark was talking about you :) It's cool... we know that you are a very good and consientious (spelling?) contributor to Wikipedia! At least, I think you are anyway.
Ta bu shi da yu
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Mark Richards said:
Deliberate disruption of WP by rampant deletionists seems to be tollerated for now. I guess it will have to cause even more damage before anything is done. Mark
Again I am forced to correct a false statement to the effect that the recent listing of GNAA was a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. As a relatively new editor and no deletionist, I listed the article in ignorance of all but its most recent (three months ago) VfD history, on the merits. I would not have listed it for a fifth, a fourth, or even a third time. I have voted Keep and suggested that others opposed to vindictive listings do otherwise, irrespective of the merits. A line must be drawn somewhere.
Well, as a member of the Peerage Cabal (or "Team Peerage") I'm hardly a deletionist, but I voted for its deletion. I do this because the behavior of the GNAA sickens me, particularly the manner in which they harrassed those who favored deletion the last time.
When I was a moderator at Slashdot (and I suppose I still accure mod points now and then), the GNAA comprised the sorts who thought it was the height of hilarity to make nonsense racist posts (e.g. YOU LOSE FAGGORT) or showcase their latest efforts at obscense ASCII art. They were notable only--ONLY--if you read at a 0 or -1 threshold. They are notable on Wikipedia only because of their repeated trollings, particularly on VfD. Is ass-hattery notable, in and of itself? If it is, then we should set up an article about Willy on Wheels, because he's been a far greater thorn in our side then the sainted members of the GNAA (don't take that wrong SPUI, I admire your contributions to railroading articles).
The GNAA is a passing, and adolescent, phenomena. They deserve mention in the Slashdot trolling phenomena article, which I believe still exists, but not in their own article. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, right? Do we reward them with their own article for a flagrant violation of policy? The situation is similar to Sollog, except that Sollog is the real deal. He has money and influence. He's been arrested by the Secret Service. If the GNAA could actually get themselves into real trouble, I might be impressed.
-Charles Fulton (aka Mackensen)
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:26:47 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for deletion and that sucks.
It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed every again.
If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back on VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to place GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put Childlove movement on there till we get rid of it.
Ta bu shi da yu
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Charles,
I agree that the GNAA are immature twerps, however they are significant enough to have survived VfD this many times. And they will survive again this time because MANY of us object to the amount of times that they're article have been on VfD and we think they are notable enough.
My question stands: just how many times are we doing to list the dratted page before we give up entirely? You speak of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" - how exactly is the listing on VfD 5 times by various users who are offended by the GNAA not violating this principle?!
Ta bu shi da yu
Charles Fulton wrote:
Well, as a member of the Peerage Cabal (or "Team Peerage") I'm hardly a deletionist, but I voted for its deletion. I do this because the behavior of the GNAA sickens me, particularly the manner in which they harrassed those who favored deletion the last time.
When I was a moderator at Slashdot (and I suppose I still accure mod points now and then), the GNAA comprised the sorts who thought it was the height of hilarity to make nonsense racist posts (e.g. YOU LOSE FAGGORT) or showcase their latest efforts at obscense ASCII art. They were notable only--ONLY--if you read at a 0 or -1 threshold. They are notable on Wikipedia only because of their repeated trollings, particularly on VfD. Is ass-hattery notable, in and of itself? If it is, then we should set up an article about Willy on Wheels, because he's been a far greater thorn in our side then the sainted members of the GNAA (don't take that wrong SPUI, I admire your contributions to railroading articles).
The GNAA is a passing, and adolescent, phenomena. They deserve mention in the Slashdot trolling phenomena article, which I believe still exists, but not in their own article. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, right? Do we reward them with their own article for a flagrant violation of policy? The situation is similar to Sollog, except that Sollog is the real deal. He has money and influence. He's been arrested by the Secret Service. If the GNAA could actually get themselves into real trouble, I might be impressed.
-Charles Fulton (aka Mackensen)
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:26:47 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for deletion and that sucks.
It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed every again.
If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back on VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to place GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put Childlove movement on there till we get rid of it.
Ta bu shi da yu
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree that the GNAA are immature twerps, however they are significant enough to have survived VfD this many times. And they will survive again this time because MANY of us object to the amount of times that they're article have been on VfD and we think they are notable enough.
No, they haven't survived because they're significant. They've survived because they've proven very effective at sockpuppetry and abusing Wikipedia's good faith in regard to VFD votes.
Seeing as it looks like an attempt is being made to minimise sockpuppetry on both sides this time around, it seems that the odds of it being deleted have gone up markedly. Furthermore, it's about damn time.
-- ambi
My question stands: just how many times are we doing to list the dratted page before we give up entirely? You speak of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" - how exactly is the listing on VfD 5 times by various users who are offended by the GNAA not violating this principle?!
Well, it's been listed four times by my count--surely we aren't counting May 1st, which occurred during the first VfD debate. As far as I know, it has not been repeatedly listed by the same person, group, or cabal (Tony Sidaway admits he had no idea that it had been listed so many times, and I see you've pestered him on his talk page about that). What this suggests to me is that a number of people found the group--and the article--troubling enough to merit deletion. I don't regard that as disruption to make a point.
When it was up back in late September/early October, I suggested that it be merged with Slashdot trolling phenomena, and I would still endorse such a measure. That's because they're a footnote, nothing more. I mean, are we really writing an encyclopedic article about the exploits of a trolling group? Who's verifying the information? Is this original research? What value or utility is there to chronicle the efforts of such a group? I mean, the bums haven't even been threatened with legal action, I don't think.
I truly do not regard the GNAA as notable enough for their own article. So they've crapflooded a server or three, trolled Slashdot, and raised hell on VfD. Big deal, anyone can do that. We give them an article, we have to have an article on every half-assed sockpuppet army that attacks VfD. That's not a precedent I like much.
-Charles Fulton
Wrong. They also forced 4chan.org to shut down. They forced CowboyNeal to delete ALL his comments from his talk page. They have a last measure script. They caused a kerfuffle when they released fake OS X 10.4 screenshots. They are a regular pain in the neck on Slashdot.org. Heck, these guys have their own IRC server! They COORDINATE their attacks. I think the fact that they shut down a site to be VERY significant.
I don't like them, but these guys are notable.
Ta bu shi da yu
Charles Fulton wrote:
My question stands: just how many times are we doing to list the dratted page before we give up entirely? You speak of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" - how exactly is the listing on VfD 5 times by various users who are offended by the GNAA not violating this principle?!
Well, it's been listed four times by my count--surely we aren't counting May 1st, which occurred during the first VfD debate. As far as I know, it has not been repeatedly listed by the same person, group, or cabal (Tony Sidaway admits he had no idea that it had been listed so many times, and I see you've pestered him on his talk page about that). What this suggests to me is that a number of people found the group--and the article--troubling enough to merit deletion. I don't regard that as disruption to make a point.
When it was up back in late September/early October, I suggested that it be merged with Slashdot trolling phenomena, and I would still endorse such a measure. That's because they're a footnote, nothing more. I mean, are we really writing an encyclopedic article about the exploits of a trolling group? Who's verifying the information? Is this original research? What value or utility is there to chronicle the efforts of such a group? I mean, the bums haven't even been threatened with legal action, I don't think.
I truly do not regard the GNAA as notable enough for their own article. So they've crapflooded a server or three, trolled Slashdot, and raised hell on VfD. Big deal, anyone can do that. We give them an article, we have to have an article on every half-assed sockpuppet army that attacks VfD. That's not a precedent I like much.
-Charles Fulton
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:26:47 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed every again.
I'm a self-professed deletionist, and I voted to keep the article. We "deletionists" aren't a bloc, as is true for almost all groups. There isn't some shadowy order of deletionists out to slash and burn Wikipedia.
--Slowking Man
The latest listing was my idea, and I want to make it clear that it was made on the merits in my ignorance of all but the inconclusive results of the previous VfD nomination three months ago. I did not know that it had been nominated several times in the past and I have stated in the VfD article that I would not have knowingly nominated an article that had withstood so many attempts at deletion, whatever I thought of it. I have also put my money where my mouth is and voted KEEP. I do not consider myself a deletionist. I nominated the article for deletion because it is self-evidently a vanity article about a minor phenomenon that would be better covered under the heading of Slashdot trolling. I am a longtime Slashdot user and no doubt thanks to that site's excellent anti-troll system I have never encountered these people's posts. I most likely bumped into the article by scanning either Random Page or Recent Posts.
Ah. Well, that clears up that mystery :) Thanks for clarifying Tony.
TBSDY
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The latest listing was my idea, and I want to make it clear that it was made on the merits in my ignorance of all but the inconclusive results of the previous VfD nomination three months ago. I did not know that it had been nominated several times in the past and I have stated in the VfD article that I would not have knowingly nominated an article that had withstood so many attempts at deletion, whatever I thought of it. I have also put my money where my mouth is and voted KEEP. I do not consider myself a deletionist. I nominated the article for deletion because it is self-evidently a vanity article about a minor phenomenon that would be better covered under the heading of Slashdot trolling. I am a longtime Slashdot user and no doubt thanks to that site's excellent anti-troll system I have never encountered these people's posts. I most likely bumped into the article by scanning either Random Page or Recent Posts.
When i first heard about GNAA on some slashdot post (or mailing list or something, i cant remember...), i didnt have a clue what it was talking about, so the first thing i did was go to [[GNAA]]. Equaly as this thread has progresed SOLLOG was mentioned and i went to [[SOLLOG]], and both times i found exactly what i wanted to know to put the origanal posts in context. I would much prefer blanking of the article and a redirect to slashdot trolling (or whatever). It is important the next person who comes along can type in [[GNAA]] and find the info they want. For me wikipedia is the new google. When i dont understand a term, i wikipedia it, and i think that this is something that should be kept in mind on VfD.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:26:47 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for deletion and that sucks.
Here's the thing: the GNAA aren't exclusively a trolling phenomenon on slashdot, so redirecting to ./ trolling phenomenon would be misleading.
TBSDY
Robin Shannon wrote:
When i first heard about GNAA on some slashdot post (or mailing list or something, i cant remember...), i didnt have a clue what it was talking about, so the first thing i did was go to [[GNAA]]. Equaly as this thread has progresed SOLLOG was mentioned and i went to [[SOLLOG]], and both times i found exactly what i wanted to know to put the origanal posts in context. I would much prefer blanking of the article and a redirect to slashdot trolling (or whatever). It is important the next person who comes along can type in [[GNAA]] and find the info they want. For me wikipedia is the new google. When i dont understand a term, i wikipedia it, and i think that this is something that should be kept in mind on VfD.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:26:47 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for deletion and that sucks.