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

The renomination of the article Gay Nigger Association of America for deletion causes unnecessary disruption every time it repeats. Those who want it gone argue that it is a waste of bits and glorifies a bunch of worthless vandals. Those who want it kept say it describes a noteworthy internet organization. People who are sick of the whole thing are either ignoring it, or in many cases voting to keep just because they feel that the ideals of fair play have been violated.

Thus, this policy has been proposed. The wording is tongue-in-cheek, but the intent is serious.

Should the article be renominated for deletion, the following actions should be taken:
 * 1) Remove the listing from VfD
 * 2) Untag the article
 * 3) Inform the nominator of this policy

And should they persist in their attempt at renomination: kick their ass. Suggested alternate consequences include public flogging, tarring and feathering, or crushing by elephant.

(Further actions might be: SignificantEmotionalEvent, or ParkingLotTherapy)

The policy has an inbuilt expiry of 00:00 UTC January 1, 2007. While many have proposed a permanent ban on renominating the article, few decisions on Wikipedia should ever be final and immutable. Existing "gentlemen's agreements" of having six months between nominations have proven insufficient. The chosen date is just under 18 months from the date of this proposal, and is easy to remember.

Supporting this policy does not constitute a statement that one belives the article should exist, or that the GNAA deserves commendation or whatever the hell it is that they want. It merely means you're sick of the amount of time being wasted on the whole thing and want a reprieve.

Supporting this policy also does not state that one thinks the article should be renominated for deletion in 2007.

See also: 10 GNAA VfD nominations pool and VfD renomination limits.

Support

 * 1) Cyrius|&#9998; 19:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Project2501a 19:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Kiba 19:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) SchmuckyTheCat 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) David Gerard 23:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Although if anyone takes it to the ArbCom, we will kick your ass.
 * I worry when a member of ArbCom makes comments like this, even in a joking manner. I seriously worry that it leads to chilling effects. -- Seth Ilys 02:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Everybody knows David Gerard is a smelly old codger. I don't see him chilling anyone. Now I'm tempted to actually take it to the ArbCom. Except that that would be POINTless. JRM · Talk 17:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ass-kicking is not in fact implemented in MediaWiki 1.5, although I think the option to send five hundred volts through the editor's chair the moment they make their fourth revert in 24 hours is on the list for 1.6. I also want biometric samples taken before allowing editing, but someone said this was "unwiki" or some such foolishness - David Gerard 11:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I actually thought this was vandalism when I saw the page name! Redwolf24 23:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) David | Talk 23:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Kelly Martin 00:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) WikiFan04Talk 19:03, 14 Jul 2005 (CDT)
 * 5) While not as general as my VfD renomination limits, I can get behind this proposal as accomplishing much the same goal. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that my proposal at VfD renomination limits has been replaced by something completely different then the proposal I mention above (my proposal was basically a hard limit of 4 rounds of VfDs). Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 20:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 01:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oldak Quill 01:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) SlimVirgin (talk)  01:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Good idea. --Yath 02:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Eclecticology 03:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Shanes 03:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Fuzheado | Talk 03:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC) - support only if in addition to kicking ass of nominator, the sh*t is kicked out as well.
 * 10) &#10149;the Epopt 04:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) pile0nadestalk 05:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Hurrah for ass kicking! Sam Hocevar 07:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Absolutely. As alternative punishment, might I recommend snowballs? And lots of 'em. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  09:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) *P*ss on your snowballs…then throw them. —Phil | Talk 14:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) YES! Sietse 09:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Corporal punishment is generally outlawed in European jurisdictions, so I think the offender should be required to attend the next GNAA convention as a correspondent for Wikinews. Physchim62 10:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. We ship them to Soviet Russia for wikigullag rehabilitation. In Soviet Russia, Coproral Punishment outlaws you! Project2501a 20:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I´m not sure Soviet Russia is an option these days... Is it served by any low-cost airlines, or do we have to hire the Tardis? Physchim62 09:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Can't we just use the TARDIS to go back in time and prevent the GNAA from being created? Hmm.. let's ask Doctor Who. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 05:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, these days it'd bring down the Reapers. --khaosworks 05:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Adamn 10:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely. I also agree with Physchim62's alternate punishment. --Dave2 11:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Though even this item of instruction creep is a Bad Thing. :-) James F. (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Sounds sound to me. —Phil | Talk 14:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Mattb90 15:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) User:Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;) 15:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Hall Monitor 16:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Laura Scudder | Talk 17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) We're like a unruly mob, at best. I like mob justice. Ghost Freeman T / C 19:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) -- Elisson • Talk 19:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 21:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) &mdash; Dan | Talk 23:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Absolutely. Will seriously consider blocking anyone who relists it. Will also delete the VfD on sight. I am not alone in this. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Woah there, it says "kick their ass", not "block them". -- Cyrius|&#9998; 04:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I want the article gone, but still. A consensus has been formed, time and time again. This should end. --ArmadniGeneral 00:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There has been no consensus on the article's inclusion in any of the attempts. That's part of the problem. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In which case, we default to keep. I don't see the problem with this. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The idea of giving the GNAA any kind of publicity makes me nauseous, but everytime it goes through the VfD, it makes me even more nauseous. It's not worth our time. --khaosworks 02:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) w00000t, pWn3d. :) I don't particularly care 'bout the GNAA.    &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 03:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) About freaking time. Ich 05:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) About bloody time. --TexasDex 05:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) --Alterego 06:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) 2007 is too soon. And the punishment ought to be reading the complete works of Elron. Noel (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree with the statement, and reaching for 50 votes... -Feydey 10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) -- Chuq 12:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) We need a good ass-kicking policy. --lesalle 17:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Woo, #50. Yes, I agree with this policy. It should be an official rule. And then some! NeoThermic 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) J3ff 20:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) I don't care. Inter\Echo  13:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) -- BMIComp  (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Definitely sick of watching this nonsense go on and on. &mdash; J&#8217;raxis 20:02:26, 2005-07-17 (UTC)
 * 15) I still can't figure out what the debate is all about. Maybe a cap on the number of VfDs for any given article should become global Wikipolicy. If an article survives 10 VfDs, continuing to nominate it is patently ridiculous.  Micro tonal  (Put your head on my shoulder) 03:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) I have voted for the deletion of the aforementioned article on more than one occasion, but I still agree that the constant relisting of it, even though there has never been consensus to delete, does nobody any good. &mdash;Stormie 05:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Golbez 06:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Pyrosim 06:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) This proposition kicks ass. -- Naive cynic 08:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) This proposition REALLY kicks ass! --Phroziac (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) CanadianCaesar 03:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Count me in! Although I also suggest we beat the shit out of all GNAA members too... appleboy 04:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) If you support, you must also vote keep on the VfD page for this policy. Proto t c 08:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) The amount of VfD on GNAA is ridiculous. DarthVader 13:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) I had thought that "Crushing by elephant" was merely a slightly weird and humorous attempt at absurdity.  It got a chuckle from me.  Then I clicked on the link and read the article.  Excuse my dark sense of humor, but that made my day.  Crushing by elephant needs to be made into a featured article.  And, oh yeah, I Support --Sophitus 19:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) --Mrfixter 13:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) About time we get a break from this issue. -- Rune Welsh &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 15:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Well, we could succeed eventually, and probably would have done the second time if the sockpuppet votes had been ignored and people had not voted against because it had dubiously passed the first time. Ambi 01:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that the VFD mess is over, now we can probably start the search to find out what is legit or not. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The numerous renominations have doomed future attempts to failure. By waiting, a chance of success may return. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The VfD is now valid. NO SOCK PUPPETS were allowed in attempt 6! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Renomination isn't the problem, it's the amount of times it happens. I would prefer a cap on the amount of times something can be nominated within a certain time limit. Allow future nominations and assume good faith on the part of the nominator if they bring good reasoning to the table. Don't kick their ass. - Mgm|(talk) 08:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * So... if someone ignores the enormous talk page dissertation and the fact that Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America already exists, they should still be allowed to go ahead with a nomination? Hm. GarrettTalk 10:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thus we prevent people from renominating in the near term by kicking their asses. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Jacj 12:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For these reasons:
 * The number of renominations isn't so much a problem as the frequency of renomination.
 * Having the article put on VfD only explodes in a massive drama-bomb because we allow it to. Let's be serious; how can having a particular entry being put on VfD once every six months be a substantial source of disruption? Because lots of Wikipedians take it upon themselves to jump into the fray and get wound up.
 * It assumes automatic bad faith on the part of a nominee. Notice that when it was a new user who put the GNAA up for VfD a 5th time, it was automatically assumed that it was a "sockpuppet" and that this invalidated the VfD. WTF? Surely the validity of a VfD rests upon the quality of the article it refers to? What difference does it make if a VfD is raised by a new user, a veteran, or an administrator?
 * This is intented to force a reprieve from the frequent renominations through application of blunt force. By allowing more time for everyone to cool down, future renominations have the potential to go more smoothly. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Every article should be regularly taken to VfD because it provides a form of useful peer review. And yes, I do also support most of the current CSD proposals so I'm making space for this. . -Splash 16:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Terrible reasoning. The purpose of VfD is to determine whether an aricle should be deleted. Have the VfD tag on the article implies that it might not be kosher - when in fact it has been voted on 6 times. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletionist. The purpose of VfD is to decide whether an article should be deleted or kept (and I vote delete more than I vote keep, too). It is to determine whether it (still) meets the WP standards for inclusion. These are necessarily evolutionary and things that were notable once might fall below some hypothetical new threshold or be invalidated in the light of prgress in the relevant field. We could just retitle the process and rephrase the template: Articles for Review (AfR) or something...oh, and find about 200 more people to close the results. -Splash 03:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I would support this proposal were it under a more sensible name. Yes, I have read the comments below about taking ourselves too seriously (feel free to laugh at me). But there's a place for humour in WP, and this isn't it - this issue is too important. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 16:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have given an alternative title for the page, but it looks like to me it is staying put. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for judging the title instead of the content. The issue isn't serious, it's just annoying. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 20:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The title is part of the content. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 08:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) This whole page is troll food and just as disruptive as the nominations are. Let it go already. --Tabor 19:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Troll food is continually renominating the stupid article for deletion. The only disruption I see is people getting a laugh out of the phrasing. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 20:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Dsiruptive to whom? Why, to the trolls I believe. We're takin' it back :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Degree of disruption from this page = degree of disruption by VfD noms ... which is to say, neither is a terribly big deal. This is not solving an important problem ... it's just a continuation of the same nonsense.  This page is just more trolling of a slightly different flavor. --Tabor 18:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Why am I even dignifying this escalation of the GNAA battle with a response? Common decency suggests that we should be above the level of policy proposals with "Kick [someone's] ass" in their title - that's GNAA level shallowness, folks. Maybe we have descended into mob rule, but on the hope of sanity, Oppose. And besides which, dudes, m:PAE, m:ICK, WP:CIV and WP:DICK. YHBT. YHL. HAND. DNFTEC. -- Seth Ilys 01:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Atari2600tim 08:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) just trolls. they say they are, so I don't understand why anyone takes serious anything they do here. dab (&#5839;) 08:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Several people who dislike the article have voted for this proposal; they're also sick of the constant VfDs, which basically make no sense, and - if anything - get people to vote Keep out of spite (source: me). The outcome is always keep. There's no point in doing another VfD so soon after a "Keep" outcome has been given. Also, Wikipedia has other articles on trolls; e.g. Klerck, which has had one VfD. The outcome was keep. It's not been VfDd again. Why GNAA all the time? --Dave2 23:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps clueless newbies, vandals, trolls and other people put this article up for deletion, though we have all of those votes. Plus, a lot can change in the next few years, yet alone the next few months. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ok.... Just protect articles in question. You do not generate god damn wiki rules for a spesific article like this. I would love to mark this page as &#123;{nonsense}}. Oh wait I just did. Cat chi? 03:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) There really is no justification for cruelty to animals even if they are donkeys.     18:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Bad, bad, incalculably bad. Uncivil, unproductive, instruction creep, ignores underlying problem, bad bad bad. Words have not yet been invented to fully encompass the intrinsic and uber-smelly badness of this level of bad. - brenneman (t) (c)  03:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The underlying problem is that people keep letting themselves be trolled. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Exactly how much support do these clowns need? A specific policy protecting their article? The trolls can protect themselves, and in any case, another VfD listing is likely to be removed anyway. --Scimitar parley 15:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't supporting them. This is making a policy out of not feeding them anymore. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This trollcruft should have been toasted months ago. ComCat 22:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Maybe six months. JuntungWu 15:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Nominate GNAA for deletion again

 * 1) Just cause I wanna see what happens =). Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 04:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can already tell you. The VfD gets deleted, the submittor warned and the VfD tag removed from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But theoritcally (pending this page doesn't get deleted) if this policy passes (yes, I know its a joke, this was intended as one too) wouldn't the someone have to track me down and kick my ass? You have to admit there are comic elements in that happening. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 07:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely. We can schedule a lynch mob by tomrrow evening. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * A mob? wow... and I think I can finally type and make sense today, anyways, what size is this mob going to be? And will I recognize some of the users? I would like to be familiar with the people that are going to kick my ass. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 19:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * As a side note, when does the crushing by elephant policy kick in? I need clarification. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 22:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

 * 1) "Kick the ass"? Is that the most you can do? Tougher punishments damn you! Midster 21:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Kick their ass" is used in a mainly metaphorical context. The delivery of any kind of blunt force trauma to the perpetrator is acceptable. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 21:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope 'blunt force trauma' may be applied through mechanical means as well, if not, consider this an opposition! Midster 21:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Baseball bats, giant mechanical atomic powered ass kicking machines, and similar are acceptable. Firearms and explosives do not qualify. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 21:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * wasn't there a similar ass-kicking machine featured in Futurama? Thryduulf 10:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The phrasing comes from How Hermes Requisitioned His Groove Back. It was describing a hypothetical sorting machine, -- Cyrius|&#9998; 19:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you hit them with the stock or butt, but "kicking someone's ass with a butt" sounds wrong and... dirty... somehow... GarrettTalk 10:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Loving, altruistic re-educational therapy would certainly be called for - David Gerard 23:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This kind of suggestion by David Gerard is abhorent, disgusting and barbaric! May God forgive you David Gerard. Midster 02:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * God is an implant of Xenu. Fortunately, Scientology can help you with that - David Gerard 10:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right - we'd better go with the salad tossing or crushing by elephant options. &rarr;Raul654 03:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * At Wikimania, there should be a ceremonial crushing by elephant to start the conference. Fuzheado | Talk 03:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Crushing by autofellatio - David Gerard 10:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Uh...should this be renamed? My suggestion is Injunction on GNAA VFD until 2007. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Taking ourselves too seriously has been one of the problems with this situation. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the title is causing an unnecessary problem. Many find it offensive, if only because of the spelling error in the title. It's "arse", not "ass"! What are we, donkeys? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but at least I tried to kill a problem before it became a problem. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. --Yath 21:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a second proposal, "Laugh at anyone who complains about the name of WP:ASS". -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I object this page move. It is missing the point completely. Shanes 01:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The page move was just a suggestion. What I did is I retirected the title I proposed to here. So if you click on the GNAA Injunction link, it comes back to here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * At the time of the comment, Ta bu shi da yu had moved the page to Respond forcefully to anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it also redirects back to here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Is this proposal consistent with Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles? Just wondering... Physchim62 09:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd rather see a general policy relating to repeat VFD's. No more than two vfd's every 60 days, or something like that. With "hot articles", people are likely to attempt a vfd until one succeeds, and this behaviour is ridiculous. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue of repeat nominations does not come up very often, and this is pretty well the only article where it has become an actual problem. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 16:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I completely disagree with the principle of putting this to a vote.  While holding VfDs too often is wrong, no article should ever be exempt from discussion. So patently silly an article as GNAA especially. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the gentlemen's agreement that we need to wait 6 months for VFD's might not have worked in this case, thus this is why this is in place. We just had someone put the article up for it's 7th VFD, but it was closed instantly. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And nobody notified me? Pshaw!!! >:( Ghost Freeman T / C 01:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The details of the individual case aren't that important. We have too many votes, on subjects that are best resolved in a more wikilike manner, and this particular vote seems to me a particularly bad example of that trend. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This proposal would be taken with a healthy dosage of salt. However, what bothers me is that there are now two serious 'official policy proposals' based on this matter. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:19, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Here's something even more disturbing than this whole proposal: "We just had someone put the article up for it's 7th VFD, but it was closed instantly." Who decided that?  My understanding of the reason that being an administrator was that the reason it was "no big deal" was that arbitrary decisions of that nature were not to be made .  There is no policy yet about the amount of time between nominations for VfD, so the 7th nomination was just as valid as the 6th.  If there is a problem there, unilateral (and effectively untracable) actions aren't the way to solve them.  A better policy decision would be about time between nominations overall.  And if you think that this only happens with this article, please see Votes for deletion/Maps of Korea and Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2 (where I vent my spleen at great length). -  brenneman (t) (c)  03:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * An annon nominated the article for it's seventh deletion at . He was reverted 18 minutes later, before the annon can complete the process. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So it's acceptable for you to decide as long as a)The nominator is anonymous, and b)You're fast? That's pretty a thin excuse for making that decision yourself.  brenneman (t) (c)  03:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the reverting, I am just reporting on what I saw. (Plus, I still seriously think we should look at the nominators for the past VFD's and see what motivation was behind them. If one sock could create one, I will not be surprised if others did in the past.) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) *Yes, it is acceptable, per WP:VAND, WP:POINT and WP:IAR. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:19, July 19, 2005 (UTC)