Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: CLOSED by User:Kim Bruning on July 20, 2005. Firebug 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense, trolling. We're just sinking to the GNAA's level by actually implementing a policy like this. Particularly with this highly inappropriate title. The GNAA are probably laughing at us.

• Note: I have created a new policy called Wikipedia:GNAA votes for deletion policy, this time with all the humour sucked out. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CaptainStinko 00:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move somewhere, perhaps a userspace. I do agree with the proposal, though. List on WP:FUN, too. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 01:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move it to mine, I will gladly host this proposial. But the thing is, I do not think we can really delete policy that is being created. I want to keep this one badly, but if it has to move, move it to my user space. Plus, if yall hate this title, there are some other ones you can use (though it will take some effort to move it, though). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the only troll here is the nominator. A user with no other edits than to nominate this for deletion? Are the trolls upset that I'm trying to ruin the fun they have every time GNAA goes back up for deletion? -- Cyrius|✎ 01:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I just noticed that too Cyrius. I am launching an email to get t*his vote closed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, perhaps rename to something less profane. Invalid VfD listing, seems to have a bit of misunderstanding of WP:POINT behind it. I'd recommend withdrawing the nomination and perhaps warning the lister. (His only edits are related to this VfD, so I suspect trolling.) --Idont Havaname 02:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idont, it is most likely a troll. He created an account then listed this article on VFD as his first act. Proposed names were Wikipedia:Injunction on GNAA VFD until 2007 and Wikipedia:Respond forcefully to anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's what I figured. I think that a page move to Injunction on GNAA VfD until 2007 would be best here. I notice several of the delete voters are voting that way due to the page's title. (And also, this title doesn't make it sound like we're biting newcomers that list it in good faith rather than as a trolling maneuver.) --Idont Havaname 04:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per above. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Well, someone seems to have a bit of misunderstanding of WP:POINT. This is not actually policy that is being created. Bad idea, bad joke, bad precedent, bad title, bad bad bad. Makes all previous things that previously looked like they were bad seem instead to be filled with bunnies and flowers. brenneman^(t)(c) 03:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the title is bad, which title do you wish to move it to? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you agree that it's a bad idea, a bad joke, and a bad precedent, but that the title will fix everything?
      

brenneman^(t)(c) 03:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • The title will not fix everything, but I am offering a solution to a problem yall have. Now, we can focus on the content/intent instead of the lousy title. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What disruption? The only disruption I see is from people trying to delete a policy they don't like the name of instead of engaging in actual discussion. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and reprimand page creator. Trollish and puerile jokes do not become less so when made by someone who should know better. --FOo 03:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per FOo. --Calton | Talk 04:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - that name is inflammatory. Sorry, I know it was done with humourous intentions, but that's not what a lot of people see. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I have been convinced. From what I am reading, this sounds like a bad idea. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC) So much for me trying to be the problem solver. No wonder why I hate the thought of being an admin.[reply]
• Keep. This is the best thing EVAR since sliced bread. —RaD Man (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move BJAODN or WP:FUN, but as it stands, does not represent a title of policy that I feel should be reflected on Wiki. The (kick in ass) part. Otherwise rename to sensible title for policy sakes. Do not oppose delete. ∞Who?¿? 04:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What title do you wish for this to be under, then? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm, is that a rhethorical question? ;) Maybe "GNAA VfD Policy", if it is to be serious. ∞Who?¿? 04:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is not rhethorical, I am trying to solve the title problem so people will stop focusing on that. That sounds like a good title. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even with a title change, it seems ridiculous to have a VfD policy around a single marginal article such as this one. Is there any precedent on Wikipedia for anything like this? Is there any other article that has it's own specific VfD policy? --CaptainStinko 04:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. This is the first article we had problems with on VFD, due to sockpuppetry and inconclusive votes. When a vote is undecided, it is defaulted to keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Change vote to Neutral. Propose Wikipedia:GNAA votes for deletion policy. (not sure about caps). I think the wording of the policy should be changed, as not solid date should be set. I am not sure about a Vfd, if this is a true proposed policy, it should be decided on the page, and then moved to "Failed proposed policies" if it fails. Thanks Zscout370, I wasn't sure if this was a joke, hard to distinguish between some of the comments and votes. ∞Who?¿? 04:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but it was funny =). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Move to a less provocative title. --khaosworks 05:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --WikiFan04^{Talk 00:58, 19 Jul 2005 (CDT)}
• Delete. Trolling. jni 07:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not a troll. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Keep keep keep. Proto t c 08:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trolling, not in the spirit of wikipedia. JamesBurns 08:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. Radiant_>|< 08:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Hilarious, but Delete. TheCoffee 12:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can empathise with the point of view but the page is just trolling. -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not a troll. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I completely agree with it but it is not in the spirit of wikipedia. DarthVader 13:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't mind the language or humour (the latter being completely in line with the spirit of Wikipedia, if you ask me), but it bugs me having a policy dedicated to a specific article. Besides, isn't there a policy already stating that if you want somebody to try something, the best way to get them to do it is to prohibit them from doing so? Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the only article we've ever needed such a policy for. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - What's the problem with a little humour? --Phroziac (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep this so that we don't have to deal with Wikipedia's homophobic, racist user base trying to delete a beloved organization from the site. You can try to delete gay niggers, but they still live on. -- thelark
  • User's 5th edit. 4 of his edits were hostile-sounding VfD votes, and the other was vandalism to Jimmy Wales (in which he claimed Wales was responsible for the September 11 attacks). --Idont Havaname 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to BJAODN. Yes, yes, by all means reformulate it to something more serious, as having a sense of humor on Wikipedia only works if you're a) funny and b) absolutely right, like WP:BEANS. But let's not pretend it's the end of the world. JRM · Talk 16:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely non-sense creating a policy to a specific article. Thaat's what its talk page is for. Nabla 17:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Phoenix2 18:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect, since TBSDY made a more serious policy page...— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing really much to merge, except votes. We have the same things we want to set up, but with policy-like wording. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move or delete. Not very suitable for a redirect either, as the title is too long. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trolling. Fallstorm 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not a troll. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• We now have a policy with a large margin of support getting a large margin for deletion. It seems the only way to resolve the two is to delete it and enforce the policy anyway. That would be unwiki... -- Cyrius|✎ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, objectable proposal, inappropriate title. Martg76 22:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to user-space. This is ridiculus, Ta bu's version is far superior. I can't believe that there can be that much opposition to the game-playing on wikipedia but most of the big-wigs here happily accepts this as fine. It's not very nice at all. gkhan 22:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete things that are just playing games, or confine them to the sandbox. -Splash 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NN, D. ComCat 22:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:FAITH aside, I consider this a nomination in bad faith. The nominator knows full well that the way to oppose a proposed policy is to, well, oppose it. Attempting to VfD its discussion page in the face of substantial support for it is, as far as I'm concerned, very close to being a dick. Kelly Martin 00:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. "Kick the ass" is going to put off newcomers. This is a ridiculous policy anyway. Hedley 00:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The proper way to get rid of that page is to vote against the proposal. I understand many people who voted for it also vote delete here, because of the new version by Ta bu. Well, they just need to change their vote on WP:ASS to oppose with the exact reasons they gave here. Life is simple. Sam Hocevar 00:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. BJAODN. Kaibabsquirrel 00:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, I enjoy Cyrius's responses to this VfD. --Golbez 01:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Very well. In the spirit of the great djinns (no pun intended) : Your wish is my command.

On conclusion of this vfd, the page shall be deleted, and the policy ON the page shall be enforced. Any requests for clarification shall be referred to the deleted page.  :-)

Of course, people can still change their minds. Have fun!

Have A Nice Day. Kim Bruning 00:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.