Wiki143 talk:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (4th nomination)

Ladies and Gentlemen, this weekend I am not going to be able to monitor this vote due to lack of a computer. Any admin will do, however, as I have laid out the basic groundwork. I will be back on Monday to continue monitoring what is going on. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)

I can also watch it if you want. I am not going to vote either, since I have fixed up the article a bit. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 07:14 (UTC)

Cool... have also asked Dragons flight. Either way, both of you would be very good! Just remember to apply the 100 edit rule carefully, if removing the vote add a reasoning. Don't engage in commentary (my bad), remove all anonymous editor voting to the correct section and instantly remove any commentary that might be construed as trolling (I have removed several suggestions that slashdot and GNAA members may not vote by anonymous editors). Thanks in advance! - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)

Based on what I am seeing, many are voting to get this over and done with, and that your changing the VFD rules. Do I hear a 7th VFD coming soon? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

Why not start it right now? That way we'd have three VfD's for the price of one. Vote early and often. siafu 9 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

Not going too, a WP:RFC sounds good. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

I have shown sufficient impartiality in my actions as admin of this page. As an administrator I have a fair amount of leeway in VfD, and as I have shown myself to be without fear or favour in my administration of this vote another VfD based on irregularities of this VfD would need some very good reasoning behind it.

This said, there is some method behind my madness. As a rule, anonymous users can be counted when it comes to VfD. This VfD is different, mainly because past VfDs have shown that anonymous editors have harassed editors who voted in those VfDs. Their have been accusations that this effected the vote. This time, I am not allowing anonymous users because it is more than probable that they are GNAA ring-ins - the GNAA, by their members' own admission is a trolling organisation designed to harass and cause problems for Internet based websites. I will not let the GNAA membership cause this vote to fail. The irony here is that for this vote to have a good chance of succeeding, the GNAA would do well to stay out of it because, based on what I have seen in the previous 5 VfDs, the Wikipedia community wishes to keep the article. If the GNAA edits the article, they will only hurt themselves as they will make the vote appear less legitimate.

I am also removing, on sight, anything which may be construed as a personal attack. Again, I will not let unsavoury behaviour affect the legitimacy of this vote.

I would like to take a moment to point out that anonymous editors may still makes civil comments in the "Comments" section. Editors who participate in this VfD should be aware that the purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action and that the votes themselve are merely a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves. It would pay for everyone to keep this in mind when participating in this VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)

That is normal policy, which seems to have been disregarded for this particular VfD in favor of an 'iron-fist' and strictly-by-the numbers voting methodology--by none other than yourself. I'm not saying I disagree with this completely--by the 6th VfD it's about time to get a final and unambiguous decision. But I do think some people will question your rather arbitrary modification of the rules--especially since it seems to favor a keep decision.--TexasDex July 9, 2005 18:31 (UTC)

At this moment in time (and everything may change as the vote continues) There are more disqualified keep votes than delete ones. So I don't see how it favors a keep vote over a delete one. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are you only counting disqualified votes in your analysis of the situation? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. --Jacj 00:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

OK then, please give an explanation of why the rules of this vfd favor a keep vote? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 07:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It pretty much will be kept. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well yes. That's becuse more regular wikipedians want it kept than want it deleted. But this has nothing to do with the rules of this vfd has it? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 07:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not think it has to do with the rules of VFD. The admins are running this with strict accordance to VFD and sockpuppetry rules. If people are bitching about this vote, again, then we need to figure out what to do next. I do not propose setting up another pointless VFD, but see if we need to get higher-ups involved, try to have people vote on the basis of article merit, not because they want this shit to be over and done with, and explain fully how VFD works. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey I dont suppose any of you have noticed, but WE WIN. - GNAA

To the GNAA member: we don't particularly care that you feel that you have "won". In fact, this little skirmish has very little to do with your organisation: this has more to do with the removal of an article about an offensive organisation, and the way we deal with our deletion procedures. As the votes for deletion is not going to be mentioned in the article (this is an internal Wikipedia matter, and nobody in the GNAA actually directly caused the issue), not many people will know about it from the article text. Sorry that it didn't turn out how you expected, but I guess that's life for ya. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I just think people are tired of the various VFD's on this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, people are tired of this particular Vfd. That however, is not a reason to vote keep/delete. Voters should be encouraged to give a real reason why they want the article to be kept or deleted. I started a very lengthy discussion on this very topic and others on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America#Possible new Vfd comments. I had hoped to have more sorted out before any new Vfd's, but this is the third one since I started that discussion. As it is now, there are users doing null edits, just to get their edit count up, and other users voting just because they are tired of voting. <>Who?¿? 12:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

VFD practice

I have realigned this page to match our current VFD polices and practices. Please do not continue to disrupt wikipedia by making up new rules unilaterally and disenfranchising non-admin users. Thanks. Gmaxwell 22:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The rules are fine for this one, since everything is spelled out in clear English. This is an extraordinary VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I am quite confused by this change. Are we still bound by the at-least-100-edits arbitiary rule or rather individual cases where the user is judged to either be a sockpuppet or not? I do not know if I am eligable to vote on this VfD, yet noticed that some of the discounted votes have been readded as valid on the basis of them not being sockpuppets. Could you elaborate? Kryptops 22:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The closing admin will always apply judgement to votes. Obvious sock puppets will be discounted. At this point it's fairly clear that a vote to delete will not be possible since 60+ keeps really says there is no consensus to delete. Feel free to vote if you aren't a sockpuppet! Gmaxwell 22:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply and clearing that up. Kryptops 22:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I still want to try to have the 100 edit rule in place, but that caused a few people on this VFD to create dummy edits to reach that benchmark. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the "rules" back to TBSDY's version. Gmaxwell, this is an issue that has gone on for a while and with folks who have organized this vote carefully to make it completely transparent and above the board. Please don't change the guidelines without discussing here, as it is not a "unilateral" decision. This page has been voted on by over 100 folks without them having issues with the explicit guidelines. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 23:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Fuz, the new rules have introduced significant bias into the vote... and plenty have complained about the process. But no one else has fixed it because most long time user have the sense to ignore this stupid issue, and most new users are affraid of offending an admin. The nonstandard rules reduce the legitimacy of the vote, they do not increase it. Gmaxwell 23:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

We are enforcing this rules, and we still are having many, many keep votes. Let this process run through. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, it still will be no delete consensus no matter which way you cut it.. not after 60+ establish wikipedians vote Keep. It's pointless to muck things up with additional new rules since the outcome will be exactly the same. It was also very bad form for any established user to lend their name to this obvious troll nomination. Gmaxwell 23:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The troll nomination, the 5th one, was called off since it was created by a sock. The admin in question wanted to see, once and for all, how the vote will go down. Now, it's keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Is Gmaxwell an admin? If he is not, he should not be administering the vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you substantially misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Admins are not specially empowered to write new policy in ways that other users are not.Gmaxwell 23:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#Things_to_consider. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've read it, but has anyone else here? It should be clear to anyone who has read it that this vote is not an example of our normal practice. Gmaxwell 00:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, can you articulate exactly what you think is "new policy" so we can perhaps discuss that? Fuzheado | Talk 23:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No what which side we all are on, won't yall be glad once this mess is over? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I already have in several places, new policy would be the '100 edit minimum' and the active modification of the running vote. Lets add to this the new and weird idea that only admins have any voice about policy or the VFD process. Gmaxwell 00:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The 100 edit minumum is already enforced here, since that is a number used by some on Wikipedia to determine if one is a sock or not. As for the admins, they do run the vote tally, and with an article like this, we sure need a bunch of them. Most VFD's do not get this bad at all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A single closing admin makes the judgement. I suspect that TBSDY knows he wouldn't be able to close the VFD himself due to accusations of bias due to his prior involment. That doesn't mean he should be able to influence the outcome by reordering the votes and pulling new rules out of a hat. If you look at some of the disenfranchised users, it's very clear that some of them are almost certantly not socks. The use of any sort of any edit yard stick for sock testing by itself is almost universally regarded as a bad idea. Gmaxwell 00:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The ideal way to implement this vote would be to have the community vote on how the vote should proceed. Unilateral decisions should not take place here at Wikipedia; it is just asking for dissent and trolling. --Alterego 00:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that. If our intension was actually to close the issue and reduce it being reVFDed that would have been a perfectly agreeable way to go about things. ... at this point it doesn't matter, no matter how many more delete votes go in, the closing admin would have to be off his rocker to claim there was a consensus here to delete. Gmaxwell 00:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Cripes folks! (Sorry, not directed towards anyone in particular, only a displeasure with the whole assumption there is some "ideal" process we are deviating from). The process for VfD for administrators is so vague and "loosey goosey" in the first place if you read: Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. The policy on that page is worse than what TBSDY has enunciated at the top of the vote. The policy right now for VfD allows administrators to, in fact, unilaterally and inconsistently interpret and rules, and I quote:

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.

Can you see how "loose" and inadequate that is, and how people have disputed this vote five times now? So actually making the rules explicit at the top of this vote is a step forward, and not the work of a rogue administrator. It's an attempt to get the sense of the community, with rules that are well known beforehand. The policy of VfD now is actually a step backwards from where we were a year ago, when we were talking about this with real metrics and hard guidelines - Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_November_2003_to_October_2004#Major_Change_Proposed. But that is a larger battle, for another day. For now, let's get this vote on GNAA over with, so we don't have Wikipedia:GNAA deletion of the week. Fuzheado | Talk 00:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Our current rules have been supported by consensus. The new 'rules' imposed on this VFD disagree with that consensus. Gmaxwell 01:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protected

User:Gmaxwell took it upon himself to readd all the discounted votes. I have locked the page while we sort this mess out. I will be extending the vote for deletion for a day due to this action taken by a non-admin. Apologies to all for the inconvinience, but this is not my fault. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

TBSDY, you are moving perfectly valid votes out of the VFD. I have as much right as any other editor to disagree with your vote reclassification and to propose changes. The judgment of a VFD is a task for the closing admin, and not for you. Because of your previous involvement with this subject it would obviously be inappropriate of you to close this VFD, and it is just as inappropriate for you to go inventing policy right now. By telling users with low edit counts that they can not vote you are creating a bias and denying the closing admin the ability to see all the votes. The current protecting of the page is needless and inappropriate, if there were consensus to keep the previous policy I would have gladly changed it back to the previous version myself. As it stands no such consensus exists, and I am not frightened by your threats to block me on my talk page. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to push your voting agenda, and please have respect for those who just recently supported your readminship discontinuing threats of administrative action against editors who have disagreed with your unilateral imposition of new policy. Gmaxwell 01:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to frighten you. I am giving you fair warning that if you mess with the VfD page like that again then I will take steps to prevent you from doing it again. The only means I have at the moment is to block you for the remainder of the vote. Changing the VfD in the manner you did was highly disruptive. - Ta bu shi da yu

Hi Gmaxwell. By adding back into the count a duplicate vote, unsigned votes, votes by obvious sockpuppets, you undermine your argument somewhat. Note that Ta bu shi da yu merely moved all votes into a discounted section. The closing admin can still see them. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't move any duplicated votes actually, I removed them as the user with the dupe vote had wished. I attempted to only move back the ones which were removed in violation of the normal VFD practice. You are incorrect with the claim that the closing admin can still see them, because many users didn't vote because they followed the instructions at the top which instructed them not to vote, this much is clear from earlier discussion on this talk page. Many Wikipedia users whom are not involved in our politics are unaware that admins are not special beyond a few janitorial powers and are unaware that admins have no special ability beyond other users to impose policy without consensus. Gmaxwell 01:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

One of the powers an admin has is to use discretion on judging consensus. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You can't judge consensus without discussion, which none was had over the new voting rules. You certantly can't establish consensus about a VFD after you've used nonconsensus created rules to instruct some editors not to provide their input for use in the consensus making process. Gmaxwell 01:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, let me ask you - do you recognize that this (#6) vote is not your typical Vfd but the result of sock puppet abuse in past votes, especially #5? There has been massive "protoyping" of ideas and plenty of discussions with 1-5. So the alternative would be what? To have this one be overrrun with so many sock puppet votes so as to be completely unintelligble until the last moment when an admin riffles through them all? I would be interested to find out what your solution would be to this. Fuzheado | Talk 01:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Look at the wider issue. We are here to create an encylopedia, not argue trivialities. Consensus is pretty bloody clear here. This is not a close run thing. You are playing into the hands of trolls. Everytime a vfd on the GNAA comes up member of the GNAA create multiple sockpuppet accounts and vote to keep the article. Detracters use this as an excuse to say the vote was irregualar. By dissallowing new, inactive and obvious socks we ensure that the vote results are unarguable. " A bunch of regular wikipedians voted to keep the article" end of the matter. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Even when we take the socks out, the consensus still says to keep. We even take out votes that socks/noobs cast to delete the article, so fairness is not an issue here, IMHO. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No. We do not instruct users with less than 100 votes not to vote. Gmaxwell 01:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, it's pretty clear that there is no consensus to delete (which I'm sure is what Zscout370 was intending to say), even if you exclude votes by those not in the wikipedia top 5k, you find there is far too much Keep to make an honest claim that there is consensus to delete. so.. yes, the vote is moot. But it was moot long before this whole disruptive process was started (by someone who was a likely sock, none the less). The problem here is that these new voting 'rules' set for this VFD are non-standard and bias the vote. We are excluding from participation editors who are clearly not socks, simply because they didn't match the 100 edit threshold. It's bad to look like there are irregularities in the vote, but it is far worse to actually create such problems and we are instructing valid voters that they may not participate in the process or meta process less they suffer banning by an admin. This is not the right message. If TBSDY wants to have an indisputable vote, he could do so without further disrupting wikipedia by applying your vote winnowing to the previous VFDs... none of them would have been decided Delete by any sane method of excluding voters.Gmaxwell 01:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Gmaxwell said, "...these new voting 'rules' set for this VFD are non-standard and bias the vote. This is noise compared to the overall sense of the vote. Fuzheado | Talk 01:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the entire claimed purpose of this new vote is to clear up concerns about voting irregularities, I think it is quite important. Gmaxwell 01:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What Theresa Knott said. Fuzheado | Talk 01:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, in case you haven't noticed, but the previous votes had similar results as this one. They did not have votes discounted, and many people who voted delete disputed the VfD. So, to put it bluntly, you could not be more wrong if you tried. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is that if you want to remove the doubt of fairness from previous votes, you could have just applied the same sort of sock removal to the previous votes rather than disrupting wikipedia with a new VFD and a bunch of handwaving about your ability to impose rules.Gmaxwell 01:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we are arguing from different perspectives here. You are arguing that it's every wikipedians right to vote, and we shouldn't deny them that right just becuase they haven't made many edits. I am arguing that that an individuals right to vote isn't important. What is important is that we gauge the consensus of opinion. In order to do that we don't need to include everyones vote just a fair sample. I see no reason to suppose that reular wikipedians who have made >100 edits will vote differently than those who have made <100 edits. In hindsight I agree that 100 edits is not the best critereon. I would have gone with 20 edits in the article space and account created at least the day bef're the vfd start. But what the hell. It doesn't really matter. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is that we can't just dream up rules like that and impose them without consensus building and then demand that everyone just put up with it. If you want to find a consensus, go look at the 5 previous VFDs. Gmaxwell 01:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes we can. This is one very special vfd. We can dream up rules for it alone no problem. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 02:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Imperfect solutions for an imperfect world. And it's important to note that TBSDY stepped in to make the best out of a bad situation, not to show off how powerful he is. Fuzheado | Talk 01:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you really get that impression after his repeated arguments from authority to me about how I have no voice in policy because I'm not an admin but he is? .... I think his orignal intent was good, but he's gone about this the wrong way. It would have been far more useful and less disruptive to simply gone back through the old VFDs and apply a number of exclusion criteria to remove potential socks... and just reported on the findings. In fact, it would be even better because some of the criteria could use edits *after* the VFD to decide.... a far better test in many cases. Gmaxwell 01:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You have a "voice", but it just happens to be in the minority at this point. I don't believe I mentioned anything about "adminship" being a factor for gaining higher credibility. Fuzheado | Talk 02:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

One user disagreeing with two others does not make him a minority. Above on this page he told me that I was not permitted to disagree because I am not an admin. Also, he threatened me on my talk page that if I continued to be involved I would be blocked. Gmaxwell 02:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. I told you that you are not allowed to muck around with the VfD. If you want to register you protest about the way it's being held, I will not stop you. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I support gmaxwell and suggest that Ta Bu reads WP:POINT with regards to his setting up of this VfD. --Mrfixter 02:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I support Ta bu shi da yu and suggest Mrfixter and gmaxwell reads WP:POINT in general. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What point are you accusing him of trying to make? All those who voted appear to agree with the vfd. i mean nobody has stated that they refuse to vote or anythingTheresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 02:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That Ta Bu believes he can do anything now he is an admin again. Wrong and what disruption caused! Policy is decided by the WP community NOT by so-called "admin consensus". I think that this article has to be exempted from VfD ever again but a discussion with the community has to happen, not just barked orders and threats from admins who are no more empowered to create policy than editors. --Mrfixter 16:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, you are entitled to disagree, no matter what your opinion. We should agree on that. But instead of 2 vs. 1, I would say all the folks who voted keep/delete (100+) have given their implicit agreement to the conditions of the vote. Fuzheado | Talk 02:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Several of the voters have complained about the VFD, including me. Earlier it was clear that there was consensus on #wikipedia irc chat that the vote was a disruptive waste of time. I don't think Ta Bu intended to disrupt wikipedia at first, but that is clearly what this turned into. Being bold is good, but it is disruptive to start another VFD when an assessment of the prior ones would have told us as much. Gmaxwell 02:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I voted, but I don't want my vote to be counted, (implicitly or otherwise) as "agreement with the conditions of the vote". Paul August ☎ 06:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, I also don't particularly like having this issue voted on 6 freaking times. However, in the absense of a valid VfD, this vote is being handled as best we can. If two or three editors wish to complain that is OK by me but it won't invalidate this VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There is something we can agree on - I think it's a waste of time and tiresome too. But if it has a chance of closing this issue once and for all, then I'm willing to go along with it. That's the only reason. It appears reinterpreting the past five votes would not have satisfied the skeptics. But maybe nothing ever will... Fuzheado | Talk 02:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

But after this vote is over admins will be enpowered to speedily remove any further vfds. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That is the only reason I'm going along with this. So that after this whole mess is done with the next person who puts this on VfD will be banned. As far as I'm concerned, that should have happened a long time ago, but better now than never.--TexasDex 23:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Tally

I've removed the tally. Updating it seems more trouble than it's worth IMO. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 02:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Previous VfDs

For those who haven't checked the article's talk page. Newest first:

1. June 30, 2005 - July 1, 2005
2. December 25, 2004 - December 31, 2004
3. September 27, 2004 - October 4, 2004
4. September 2, 2004 - September 8, 2004
5. April 30, 2004 - May 7, 2004

• Talk page with recent discussion on previous Vfds (29Jun2005 - 10July2005)

-- Rune Welsh ταλκ 15:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The first one on the list, the VFD was closed because it was started by a sockpuppet. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

An older VfD (April 30-May 7, 2004) was for some inscrutable reason moved to Template:VfD-GNAA. In this first vote, the decision reached was delete. Almafeta 22:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually the decision reached was not to delete. Otherwise the page wouldn't be here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Because recreation of deleted material is a thing that can call for speedy deletion, unless something is done first. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I just counted the votes, it was 7:7. This person also claimed the same thing on the current VfD page, btw. Pigger

plus most of the keep votes were later on the vote after the page had been substantially edited by wikipedians NPOVing it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote disqualification

Please explain why my vote was diqualified. This is not normal Wikipedia policy. If it was, I would have gotten a username. A quick glance at my editing history would reveal that I'm neither a sockpuppet nor a troll and that I have more than enough edits. Is this too much work?

Also, could anybody explain why Ta bu shi da yu is administering this vote? Anybody who know of him from Kuro5hin, knows that he is a self admitted and notorious troll, a GNAA fanboy (and/or possibly member). That he's considered a respected admin here shows how easy it is to game the system. It will be exciting to see when he starts showing his true colours (if he hasn't already). 80.203.115.12 14:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... who is it? Tex Bigballs? rmg? qpt? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

An IP address resolves to a computer not a person. Contrubitions from that computer may come from one person or many. There is no way of telling. Your opinion of Ta bu shi da yu does not agree with that of the wikipedia community. He can administer the vote becuase he is respected by that community. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If this is your decision then I question your understanding of the subject and its bearing on this new policy. An IP address does not necessarily resolve to one specific computer, and a logged in account does not necessarily resolve to a person. That is beyond my point however. What I don't understand is how admins can create new policies on a whim.

And I understand that Ta bu shi da yu is respected here, I said as much. What I find amusing is that his other online personality openly admits to trolling and disruptive behaviour. Reading through his last request for adminship is quite enlightening. The comment from user Fnord is most appropriate to this Vfd:

"Ta bu shi da yu is an example of the worst of administrators. He has arrogated power to himself that no one was ever supposed to have. He deliberately and disingenuously ignores written policies that are intended to limit administrator power to specific tasks at community instruction. Ta bu shi da yu writes his own instructions, using editorial discretion that should be used only for editorial work. He will get the power again, of course; but he will not deserve it, and he will abuse it."

As an editor who has always edited and contributed in good faith to the Wikipedia, I find it disheartening to be disregarded by a group of admins that have banded together to abuse their power, especially when the article in question is an article about trolls and the admin in charge is know for displaying exactly the disruptive and antisocial behaviour that is considered trolling. This is wrong on so many levels, but I understand that I have no say in the matter. 80.203.115.12 15:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What difference does it make which administrator administers this vote? What specifically is Ta bu shi da yu doing inappropriately? Administrators have always had the leeway to discount anon votes in vfd, and in most votes on Wikipedia they are explicitly disqualified as a matter of policy anyway. Gamaliel 15:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The official policy states "Please do not remove any votes from any VfD or like discussion. If you suspect a vote of being a sockpuppet or otherwise invalid, mark it as such with a comment, and any pertinent links, and leave it there." The deletion guidelines say "For example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article."

Please explain what strong evidence points to my vote as being in bad faith. As for Ta bu shi da yu, I'm complaining about his policies for this Vfd and about the blatant conflict of interest here which puts the whole process in a bad light. As I've said before, he is a self-admitted troll with the long-term goals of disrupting and making a mockery out of community based efforts. That he, of all people, admins a Vfd on the GNAA page, a group which he has expressed admiration of, and a group whose explicit goal is to destroy and disrupt Wikipedia, is bizarre to say the least. 80.203.115.12 16:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. But oh wo to me! I am an utter failure!!!! Here I was, trying to troll Wikipedia by editing Windows 2000, Cyclone Tracy, Btrieve and Exploding whale, and what do they do? They make them FAs! I hang my head in shame :.( - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Please explain what strong evidence points to Ta bu shi da yu doing something inappropriate here with this vfd. Past votes on this issue have been riddled with sockpuppets and personal attacks, so such precautions he has undertaken (with the support of other administrators) are obvious, necessary and warranted. If you don't like it, you are free to sign up for an account for future votes. Gamaliel 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. I have been trolled, I have lost. This is meta-trolling on a whole new level Ta bu shi da yu, congratulations. I hereby withdraw my obvious bad faith vote. If any of you admins could go through all my edits, who are also obviously done in bad-faith, and revert them, please do. I look forward to your usual K5 comments on how you made a fool of all the Wikipedians Ta bu shi da yu. 80.203.115.12 17:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

80.203.115.12, may I strongly suggest you get an account with us. While I can see you've made some fine edits, it's better if you have a name attached to them! Once a username becomes familiar people recognise and trust that user knowing their work. But an IP is just an IP, and can never become respected in that way as it could (potentially) be anyone, for example my IP changes about every 30 hours, and if I fiddle with my firewall it changes even sooner! If you had already signed up this situation wouldn't have happened, and, after signing up, it won't happen again. Hope that helps you. :) Garrett^Talk 23:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. YHBT. YHL. All without me actually doing anything. HAND. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

CLOSING THIS VFD

User:SPUI started closing this VfD, but then User:Calton reverted back, feeling TBSDY should close it. But from previous conversations here, folks like User:Gmaxwell would find problems with that. So may I suggest another admin close this out? Fuzheado | Talk 04:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have already asked User:Lupo to do this. I will send him a message. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Very good. Fuzheado | Talk 04:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that if Gmaxwell doesn't like it, he can lump it, but as long as Ta bu shi da yu is taking final responsibility for it (it is his baby, as it were) and not someone taking it upon themselves unilaterally, it's fine by me. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh bugger it. I'll accept this closure. NO MORE VfDs WILL BE ALLOWED!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

As if it matters. Who cares. It will be on VfD next week anyways. —RaD Man (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

And I will speedy it faster than you can blink if it does appear. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

User:SPUI closed it, and did a good job—I would have done exactly the same if he hadn't been faster. Anyway, anybody could have closed this VfD once its five days were up. (I didn't do so yesterday because apparently there has been some confusion and some people thought it should run for seven days.) As there was clearly no consensus to delete, no admin "powers" were needed to do so. Lupo 09:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've confirmed the "keep" result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

See you all next week for VfD #7 Ghost Freeman ^{T | E} / _{C | D} 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)