[WikiEN-l] Re: GNAA on VFD for the fifth time

Sun Dec 26 05:03:39 UTC 2004

> 
> 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