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

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  VFD practice 

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

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

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