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(a)ljh.com.au" <csherlock(a)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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!