Snowspinner 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.

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: point]] before we stop this article has been on till it's gone. I never allow it to be [[Childlove movement]] back if we're allowed to fine to put it. 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

Mark Richards said: 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(a)ljh.com.au <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 >

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?!

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(a)ljh.com.au <csherlock(a)ljh.com.au> wrote: