Jump to content

Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Is it Gaynigger or Gay Nigger

Please, if this so-called 'organization' cannot even pay correct homage to the film from which it derives its name, then I just don't know if I can believe anything else it claims it stands for.


Acronym question

It says in the article that GNAA is probably derived as a parody of RIAA/MPAA. Well, is it? Goat-see, you claim to be a member, can you verify the veracity of this claim? --ZeLonewolf 14:52, 11 May 2004 (UTC) d,

No it isn't. This claim is bogus and not endorsed by timecop himself. Goat-see 20:27, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't rv to the neutered version

We already had a discussion. Read the VFD remarks before you keep fucking with our entry.Goat-see 02:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Delete debate

Archived delete debate: Template:VfD-GNAA

Another incident of a VfD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America Goat-see 16:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New comment

This was an obvious vanity entry. The "leaders" section was really over the top. I don't even think a page like this belongs on wikipedia, however, I trimmed the entry down to remove the vanity stuff.

I also removed the racist and obvious shock sites from the entry. None of that information is necessary for informational value.

In summary, it's a self-aggrandizing entry by trolls for trolls.

I think the last couple of edits were throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree however about the leaders section. See GNAA paragraph on Slashdot trolling phenomena. Does this article add to that? --ZeLonewolf 20:43, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Current VFD and rv war

Do not eliminate pages, even to replace with a redirect without discussion. I have placed the page on VFD so as to have a meaningful discussion about the merits of this article. Please direct comments there and refrain from further edits until such time as agreement has been reached.

On a side note, I don't think Slashdot Trolling Phenomenon is an appropriate place for more than a cursory discussion about GNAA, that place belongs here, though I think substantial cleanup is neccessary. --ZeLonewolf 17:37, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Older Comments

This page is NOT to be reverted any further than the changes made by myself (CptChipJew) on 04-22-2004.

This GNAA exists, not to mention how foolish you look to say that "we're not wiki worthy" when at the same time we are mentioned on Slashdot Trolling Phenomenon, and nobody contests that page.

I'm sorry if you have some bone to pick with GNAA. If you're really that bothered, then talk to us and stop defacing our wiki entry.

channel #GNAA at irc.gnaa [dot] us

Sorry. Wikipedia is not a vanity website. Thanks for mentioning the entry on Slashdot Trolling Phenomenon: I'm not sure that a tiny group of self-publicists even belongs there. -- The Anome 21:47, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'tiny'. The GNAA has well over 50 members now, and has carried out numerous trolling activities. A simple Google search will show that we are well-known in the Slashdot and blogging communities.

(n) chan

GNAA was only affilliated with the 4chan flood. Any other rumors are untrue. GNAA did NOT flood 7chan. GNAA did NOT flood 5chan. ONLY 4chan.

Um, you should've read closer. The sentence is "notably, a copycat flood was subsequently carried out on 7chan.". That's not saying that the GNAA flooded 7chan. That's just saying that someone (someone UNSPECIFIED) did a copycat flood afterwards.
Hrm. I see. It was very ambiguous however, I will edit in with clarification -- Goat-see 17:08, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Tiger

Do you think it'd be relevant to make note of the recent GNAA "fake-but-not-actually-fake" Tiger screenshots troll at Macrumours? Dysprosia 08:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. As a GNAA member this is a pretty big troll: our website traffic has increased by a factor of 5 to 10. I just haven't figured out how to incorporate this into the wiki entry yet.

Moving it back to Gay Nigger....

Since it has become somewhat mainstream with the Tiger leak shouldnt it be moved there instead of having (Slashdot) after it? It can no longer be justified since it isnt just a slashdot phenomena anymore. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:03, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)

I agree. Sam [Spade] 20:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Finished the move. Was a bit tricky though:

  1. Moved Gay Nigger Association of America to Gay Nigger Association of America/old and Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America to Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/old
  2. Deleted Gay Nigger Association of America and Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America which were then redirects
  3. Moved GNAA (Slashdot and Talk:GNAA (Slashdot) to Gay Nigger Association of America and Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America

--Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:42, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

my, impressive. Good work looking out for all those gay niggers out there... ;) Sam [Spade] 05:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well gay niggers need attention and care like everybody else. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:20, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
yeah, that troll was damned impressive. ✈ James C. 00:40, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Message To Wikipedians

The GNAA now has over 50 active members. There are smaller groups of people with Wikipedia entries that are never debated. For those that feel this is offensive, welcome to the world of free speech. And on that note, do no longer deface this article, as it is our privelage to keep it.


-JesuitX. Vice-President of GNAA

wasn't this issue settled many weeks ago? ✈ James C. 17:13, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

-Rucas (GNAA Member)

The name may be offensive to some, but there are plenty of equally offensive things on Wikipedia. Please proceed to muddle with their articles and leave ours alone. Thank you. Dominotree 06:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Goat-see's recent edits

why were Goat-see's recent edits reverted? i saw nothing wrong with his additions.✈ James C. 01:14, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

SilentCrs' repeated PoV edit insertions

"SilentCrs" has twice now edited the article to make PoV edits and dilute the information in the article. One such edit. Example quotes:

While the group has their own website, the "truth" of their statements (even about their number of members and leaders) is questionable, much like the "truth" on the comedic Daily Show.
GNAA encourages people to "join" by watching the racist 1992 Danish low-budget movie Gayniggers From Outer Space
Its members have produced several "shock" sites. They have "created" a number of trolling software "tools" that are actually derivatives of public domain trolling projects. GNAA "additions" to the code of this software is often buggy, and it's questionable if anyone outside or even within the group uses the software.

Emphasis mine in the second paragraph. The second sentence of the third paragraph is a flat-out lie. There are further inaccuracies following it. While I'd agree that the entry as it was was a bit excessive, SilentCrs' is devaluing its encyclopaedic quality.

--170.224.224.134 22:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SilentCrs is attempting to "meta-troll" - troll the trolls. He fails it. The Apple screenshots were out several DAYS before WWDC, GNFOS isn't racist, it's sexist, he OBVIOUSLY hasn't been in the irc channel, which currently shows Total of 49 nicks [15 ops, 2 halfops], etc, etc, natter, natter, IHBT, IHL, *runs home to mommy and cries*.

While i've seen some good meta-troll action in my time, this is by far the worst. I encourage SilentCrs to, you know, try to troll, as opposed to coming up with complete dogshit. adequacy-style trolling went out of style with the demise of adequacy.org, get with the times. 

--Goat-see 16:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is true - silentcrs fails it totally. Luv2Troll

Facts

My responses to SilentCrs' will be enclosed in this box to differentiate them from goat-see's objections. Executive summary: while I agree that the entry as it was may have been excessive, SilentCrs' edits have only served to devalue its encyclopaedic value. --170.224.224.134 22:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Gay Nigger Association of America, or GNAA, is a looseknit trolling group originating on Slashdot. While the group has their own website, the "truth" of their statements (even about their number of members and leaders) is questionable, much like the "truth" on the comedic Daily Show.

That's this fellows opinion.
Sorry, but it's true. How can you say there's truth to any of your statements when your webpage mentions purchasing SCO?
Satire. Humor. Comedy.
Agreed, SilentCrs, this paragraph of your edit is nonencyclopaedic. It includes an irrelevant reference and bash of the "comedic" Daily Show, and if you think the website is an attempt to deceive, why not say so and explain why instead of using hedging quote marks? Additionally, it's quite obvious that the GNAA site is a spoof. So where is the problem in having statements on the GNAA site referring to such things as a GNAA purchase of SCO? This entry doesn't state that the site is genuine or renowned for its veracity.

GNAA encourages people to "join" by watching the racist 1992 Danish low-budget movie Gayniggers From Outer Space, as stated by their site. Additional "requirements" are questionably diverse and often change from entree to entree. At times, the "leaders" will test entrants with whatever means they see fit.

GNFOS is not racist, it's sexist. Getting FP was always a requirement, and the GNFOS test was added recently and is simply evolving as all the kinks of an automatic testing system are worked out.
"Gay niggers" is a racist phrase, right off the bat.
no. "nigger" is a racial slur, technically, but in any neighborhood with black/african-american presence, they call each other "niggas", which isn't racist.
Agreement with goat-see; the term "nigger" is not used judgementally or pejoratively in this context and so is perfectly permissible. Even if it were judged racist by some, that does not automatically make this entry unworthy. There are numerous other entries which use the word "nigger" in a descriptive context. Additionally, SilentCrs' has pointed to no content in the film to prove his statement that it is racist. Even if it were, that is peripheral and not particularly relevant to the entry.

GNAA first appeared in January 2003, trolling Slashdot using new ASCII logos representing the organization and "press release" pertaining to the contents of Slashdot articles. Trolling activities also include prank calls of registration and technical support phone lines and IRC channel flooding. System administrators have widely banned IPs associated with the group as a countermeasure.

"widely banned"? No. Slashdot bans anything that gets too many -1 moderations in a short period of time.
We're not talking Slashdot here. We're talking about the hundreds of IRC sysops that've killed incoming connections from known GNAA trolls. Would you like the logs?
hundreds? You mean efnet, where most servers respect k-lines as g-lines? or where you get k-lined for trying to join #GNAA automatically? Also, I run the irc.gnaa [dot] us ircd and i've had to kill incoming connections from known anti-gnaa trolls. If you were to come on the irc, you'd immediately find yourself klined. Your point?
Who are these hundreds of IRC sysops? How do they recognise a "known GNAA troll" when it's trivial to change IRC nickname, ident, host? Or is this a PoV falsehood?

Its members have produced several "shock" sites. They have "created" a number of trolling software "tools" that are actually derivatives of public domain trolling projects. GNAA "additions" to the code of this software is often buggy, and it's questionable if anyone outside or even within the group uses the software.

This "ostentatiously" "quoted" piece of so-called "fact" is, again, 100% bullshit. I myself have witnessed and aided the debugging of NEW FLOODING TOOLS. The only public-domain trolling project that we've modified was Shitstorm.pl and what we did was rewrite it in python. It's also your opinion (not fact) that our code is buggy (have you actually run it?)
Yes, and I've talked to people who've delved into the code. The vast majority laugh at your attempts to use python to begin with. It's crashes hard when admins make even the slightest change to their comment-submission system.
No shit! Who'd have thought that CHANGING a specifically-targeted piece of code *might cause* a tool that is expecting an identical environment to FAIL? Here comes the clue-train, last stop : you.
Which GNAA projects are "derivatives of public domain trolling projects"? Is code actually copied from these PD projects to GNAA tools?

GNAA has also created the music track "Punjabi Extreme", featuring an Indian-style dance beat with samples taken from their troll phone calls made to AOL, and the "Hey, everybody! I'm looking at gay porno!" voice from Last Measure. While meant to be humorous, its comedic value is questionable.

I thought it was funny as hell. You must be easily offended.
"Offensive" has nothing to do with "funny". Things can be very offensive while being funny. The song isn't even close to being funny.
Opinion, POV, etc. I've played the song to a group of high-school freshmen who laughed at both the AOL trolls that made up the song and the song itself. Obviously this is completely subjective. Stop trying to vent your opinion into a public forum.
The pre-SilentCrs article makes no comment on the music track's humour value. Therefore, adding the remark "While meant to be humorous, its comedic value is questionable." is gratutious and PoV, especially as others may find the music track amusing.

In June of 2004, scripts were written to flood the website 4chan, but their use mostly ceased after the GNAA received news that the flood was costing 4chan owner "moot" a significant amount of money (although it's quite obvious that members of the GNAA had this as a goal, from IRC logs). Despite this sudden halt, the attack greatly precipitated 4chan's demise. Notably, a copycat flood on 7chan was carried out by another "entity" to try to "implicate" the GNAA, although it has been postulated that it was simply GNAA members attacking from a different source.

Hooboy. (more quoting? gay). Can you show me IRC logs saying that GNAA's 4chan flood was intended to cost moot money? I didn't think so. The 7chan flood was NOT affiliated with GNAA. No GNAA member claimed in public to have done it, whereas the 4chan flood was covered with GNAA references.
You want logs, I'll show them. I don't think the talk place is the appropriate place to put them, but ok.
feel free to email them to gnaa.goatsee@gmail.com
Again, proof is necessary for this. There is no publicly available evidence that the purpose of the GNAA flood was to cost "moot" any significant amount of money. While it was plain that the GNAA was responsible for the 4chan attack, what proof is there for the 7chan attack?
what a beautiful puple border. a feast for the eyes! ✈ James C. 23:33, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

SilentCrs' edits from a non-troll perspective

Basically they're crap. They do dilute a perfectly decent article. I don't particularly like the GNAA, btw, and kind of thinks it's silly, but this doesn't change the POV being introduced into this article by User:SilentCrs. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with speedy deletion

As an african-american who regularly contributes to wikipedia, this is highly offensive. This is nothing short of a bunch of trolls adding an entry for shock value. It does not belong here. This seriously degrades the professionalism shown elsewhere on this site. --69.20.9.201

As a Norwegian and probably somewhat celtic derived Icelander currently living in south scandinavia i find this higly factual and appropriate, it is valid article about a lame trolling organization which happens to have a ( to some ) offensive name. I do not think that it degrades the professionalism shown elsewhere on the site to cover this topic along with all the others from a neutral point of view. But in any case it is not a candidate for speedy deletion, see Candidates for speedy deletion for what is considered a candidate. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:49, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Protected page

In reverse chronological order, 216.27.178.156, 212.184.72.34, 69.93.172.10, 129.21.147.219 all vandalised this page. Every time like clock work, I posted the following message on the anon IP talk page. Everytime, the IP changed. In response, User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason protected the page from editing. Just when I was starting to have fun in a cyclical loop of edits. -- user:zanimum

Hi there,
Wikipedia reports what's what in the world around us, no matter what is in the world around us.
While I don't personally like this organization myself, it's not an encyclopedia's call to say what is wrong and what is right.
Encyclopedias should just step back, and record what is happening in the world, so future generations have records.
Sincerely
user:zanimum

This was just left on my talk page: I understand, but this has no meaning. As an african-american, I am extremely offended by senseless entries only meant for shock value. I contribute (although I don't have an account) some to wikipedia, and this is just a slam to me, my family, and all others of african descent. I would greatly appreciate it if you put the GNAA (Gay N*gger Association of America) entry up for deletion and let the voting process take its course. Thank you.
So, what happens now? The VfD just ended a vote 6 Sep 2004, to keep the offending article. -- user:zanimum
It will not be relisted, once something passes VFD it does not go there again, unless the grounds on which it was voted for have changed, which they have not - the page stays.
And whatever your or my opinions on this page you're not helping anyone by engaging in blunt vandalism on it. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:12, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
This page is now listed on protected pages. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:01, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Wow

Protected status for an entry that serves no purpose other than shock value? I thought wikipedia was above such nonsense..

What else are we to do? If it's notable and well-written, we're stuck with it. Unless someone can find a loop-hole, it's here to stay. -- user:zanimum
If you have a problem with this page i suggest you pursue more effective methods of improving it/removing it than acting like someone with a mental capacity lower than the average member of the organization in question;=) -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:04, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Cause we enjoy stupid edit wars that spill into other pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The GNAA is *real*, and the article is not for shock value, although some racist or otherwise unenlightened people might find the word "nigger" to be shocking.

recent events section needs to be brought back in by whoever deleted it. see previous edits for example.

done -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:10, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

I agree that this is racist bullshit, but unfortunately, it's a real thing in the real world (as real as the Net is.) It would be like deleting the Holocaust article. RickK 06:30, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • I still believe that this "organization" is not noteworthy enough to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. (As I said earlier, Wikipedia is not Hate Watch.) This is the opinion of a majority of Wikipedia users. But further requests for deletion are not likely to succeed because of the user accounts created for the sole purpose of creating and keeping the article. As such, there is very little to be done - at the moment, at least. -- Mike Rosoft 14:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    For the last time, the GNAA doesn't hate minorities. In fact, such people aren't allowed in the organization. We make disruptive, racist and anti-semitic comments for the purpose of subverting social norms and ridiculing people's political convictions, among other reasons. Humor is a large part of it. Making fun of society's stereotypes is humorous. Why is it OK to make fun of white male culture in this country but not OK to make fun of gooks, jews or niggers? You can call us racists all you want, but you're being narrowminded. The real racists are the people who think it's OK for a black person to use the word "nigger", but not OK for a white person to, or that "affirmative action" or all-black colleges isn't racism, but Lord of the Rings having an all-white cast is. Or that killing somebody because he was sleeping with your wife isn't a "hate crime" but suddenly becomes one if his skin color isn't the same as yours. The real bigots are the people who play the "anti-semitism" card anytime somebody criticizes Jewish Zionism or brutal Israeli policy. So before you criticise the GNAA as being "racist", perhaps you should take a hard look at American culture and tell me who the real bigots are. GNAA Popeye 16:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Re: your comments
      1. Making fun of people is one thing. Hate speech is a completely differnt one one.
      2. Saying "nigger" is wrong as long as it offends the person it is directed at, whether or not you are white.
      3. I do not approve of affirmative action or of Israel's actions in the conflict with Palestine.
      4. I DO approve of hate crime legislation.
      5. I am not American. - Mike Rosoft 11:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Re: Re: your comments
        1. The GNAA does not hate minorities, for the last time. Get it into your head. We sometimes mimic race-hate groups, but only to parody or otherwise lampoon them. I frankly don't care if what we say could be considered "hate speech" because the term is ambiguous and designed to enforce a habitual mental pathway. What exactly the hell is "hate speech", anyway? Suppose George goes to work with a man he doesn't like very much - let's call him "Bob". If, after work, George tells his friend, "Bob was really annoying today. He didn't help with my project at all, and he talked loudly in my cubicle the whole time. He also smells horribly. Now that I think about it, I hate Bob!" Is the preceding comment hate speech? George says he hates Bob; how could it be any clearer? Now, would saying something like that get you arrested in the Czech Republic? Probably not. So "hate speech" obviously doesn't mean what it seems to mean, that is, stating you hate something or someone. No, "hate speech" is nothing but a propaganda term used by politicians and other weasels to try to censor people they don't agree with. It's supposed to invoke feelings of disgust and loathing towards the perpetrators, yet, paradoxially, the idea that feeling hatred - for anything - is somehow morally repungnant, or that the "haters" are something less than human. In other words, the concept of "hate speech" was invented as a tool to encourage hate. And outlawing "hate speech" would be a very dangerous thing. Sure, it may be OK when it doesn't conflict with your views, but what happens when people who don't share your particular definition of what "hate speech" constitutes come into power? In the United States there was a recent incident where, during a fundraiser for the Kerry campaign, Whoopi Goldberg made a sexually-suggestive joke about George Bush. This benign event was suddenly turned into a "Hollywood hate-fest" by Republicans and much of the media. This example can be easily extrapolated to the larger political scene, where there isn't a week that goes by without some politician referring to his opponents' rhetoric as "hate speech". I am the victim of hateful speech all the time, but I guess I'm not Jewish enough for the government to come rushing to my aid. For example, I get into arguments frequently with street preachers at my university who tell me I'm "going to hell" for being an atheist. Telling people they deserve eternal torture for their beliefs is the most hateful thing you can say. I'll be damned, though, if I'll let their right to say those things be taken away. Freedom is always a two-way street.
        2. Oh, so saying things that offend people is wrong? Let's see. You have explicitly stated earlier that you think "hate speech" should be illegal, and you have accused myself and the GNAA numerous times of practicing hate speech. This incorrigible disdain of my freedom to speak offends me greatly. Furthermore, I'm sure if I got to know you better I could find at least ten additional things about you that offend me. Perhaps you should cease doing these things since they offend me so much. What's that, you say? You won't stop? Then, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is what's known as a double standard. Listen, I'm not going to stop saying "nigger", and the fact that you or anyone else is offended by it will never change that. I don't let others dictate what I can and can't say. Period. Most people don't think "nigger" is offensive, anyway - so long as a nigger is saying it. That is a racist point of view to hold.
        3. Good for you, but that wasn't the point. The point was that Jews will often dodge the issues by accusing anyone who doesn't agree with Israeli policy of being an anti-Semite. It's all part of the Zionist effort to use the holocaust tragedy and past violence towards Jews as an excuse to murder people.
        4. Why don't you get a clue. Almost all crimes of violence are "hate crimes", since it usually requires a great deal of hate to want to hurt people. Making punishments for crimes against minorities or other select groups harsher than crimes against anyone else is a racist and bigoted policy.
        5. Maybe not, but it wouldn't take long for me to criticize Europeans for falling victim to even shittier social norms. GNAA Popeye 22:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • This is not an appropriate place to discuss politics. I am moving this debate to my talk page. - Mike Rosoft 20:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Note that I am NOT surrendering the debate. Please wait for more responses on my page. - Mike Rosoft 11:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Racist? Give me a break! GNAA is the most un-racist organization I've ever seen. Only a racist is afraid to use the word "nigger." Whitey.
    • Yes, whatever. So I am racist for refusing to offend other people. -- Mike Rosoft 14:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      You offend me, so you fail it at refusing to offend other people. GNAA Popeye

GNAA Wiki anyone? SaturnSL1WNY

What is the point of linking to a password protected site? [1] -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:39, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you, GNFOS + GNAA is not racist. It's sexist. Also, thanks for looking after our entry, even if you disagree with it. It shows real character. Goat-see 19:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dutch Film

Lars Von Trier, a descendent of the GNAA auteurs, has made several stirring documentaries about the life of a wife-abandoning sociopath. The scene in 'Minority Report', Stephen Speilberg's blockbuster testament to flame grilling of round protein discs, was based in part on Von Trier's treatment of the script at its early stages of production. In fact, K. Dick knew Von Trier as a young man, when they would go exploring the sewers of Amsterdam, meeting the Sewer People, including Arfso, an ancient librarian who dwelled in a closed section of underground excavation, with a cat. It was he who taught them how to channel the future, other dimensions, through the inhalation of certain spices of the zingiberacea family.

i woudl appreciate some reasoned debate on this topic rather than simply deleting my contribution. prick me, do i not bleed? am i not a gn? i have researched these facts over many days and am very confident in my statements. i would welcome some empirically researched rebuttals rather than a slashdot-style 'silencing' by the GNAA leaders.

Recent and past events

Is this really important enough for inclusion? The Mac rumors world is by all means relatively large, with several sites and hundreds of thousands of visitors and notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. However, they distribute rumors and leaked screenshots like these are if not a daily occurance then at least very often. Even though rumors are what they do, few of the individual rumors they published would be included in the article about the sites themselves.

I don't think the Recent events section adds anything to the article, and is bound to be outdated. Do we plan to include all minor stunts pulled by GNAA in the future?

So, I suggest we restrain ourselves to general descriptions of the group's activities, perhaps with concise examples, but skip the "recent" and "past" events sections.

I also want to know how the claim of 8Q 75% pass can be verified. — David Remahl 13:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) 

  if ($conn->{QuestionNumber}>8) {
        if ($conn->{NumberRight}>5) {
             $conn->privmsg($conn->{channel}, "Congratulations, $conn->{TestNick}!  You have passed the test!....

from the irc bot's source code. Also, our tests occur in public on our IRC channel. Goat-see 13:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that both reading IRC bot source code and doing field research in an IRC channel can be considered original research, and thus unfit for Wikipedia. — David Remahl 13:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're going to disqualify my proof of 8 questions, 75% pass, because I'm someone who has proof? Goat-see 14:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fact is, there is a 'no original research' policy. It can be more or less leniently interpreted and I'm not prepared to make the judgment in this case. — David Remahl 15:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kosebamse (removing another piece of irrelevant triviality)

Are words like "irrelevant triviality" proof of a neutral point of view? Should Kosebamse even be editing the article if he feels this way about it? Goat-see 17:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Words like that are proof of my own opinion. As long as you are not banned from editing (e.g. for trolling or similar behavior), you are as free to change it as everybody else. Whether your edits bear up against the scrutiny of others is an entirely different matter. I dare say that contributions from users suspicious of advocating trolling will generally be viewed more critically than those from users in good standing. Sapienti sat. Kosebamse 18:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am making my point known that I feel your edits are unnecessarily harsh against the organization which I represent. I do, however, feel my edits are striving for a neutral point of view, not a slanted, belittling tack such as yours. Goat-see 18:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed nonsense

I have no desire to "discuss" the following rollback: junk. — David Remahl 19:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can agree with your non-gnaa point of view, as it is not demonstrably incorrect. We do not have anything to do with NAACP, nor should anyone think so. Goat-see 20:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Racism

"The name was chosen for its shock value. It is often perceived as racist and offensive, mainly because of the word "nigger". However, GNAA members therefore deny allegations of racism, based on the fact that the plot of the organization's official movie consists of gay black men who travel to Earth and proceed to eliminate females from the planet."

IMHO that sounds both sexist and borderline racist, depending on which side of the movie's conflict one identifies with. — David Remahl 21:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Have you seen the movie? If not, why have you bothered forming a (humble) opinion? --dylain 06:36, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

{{disputed}} is TRUE

My true addition were deleted form the article by David Rhemal. Now the article is DISPUTED. OK? GNAAdar 21:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) http://www.gnaa [dot] us/

these edits? Ok, how do you plan to support this claim? Since no-one can know the "true feelings" of the leaders, it isn't a matter of opinion what they think. Secondly, I don't believe you have any statistics to show that >50% of all Internet users believe this. Most probably don't have an opinion. Besides, the grammar of the edit was flawed. Now, point to something in the current version of the article that is infactual or POV, or we'll call this dispute closed. — David Remahl 21:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Racism and jews

"True to their perceived offensiveness, GNAA members also regularly make posts to Slashdot and other web sites claiming that Jews were responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks."

That doesn't necessarily have to be racist. For example, I have heard many people claim that Arabs and moslems were responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, but those who make those claims are rarely accused of racism. — David Remahl 13:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jews are a race now? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:30, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
Jews are both a race and a religion (followers of Judaism). ugen64 05:00, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
As a gay jewish black man just let me say that this is clearly all irrelevant and attempt to side step the issue. i cannot believe that some organization that claims to 'cut through the BS' of modern culture would engage in the same clintonizing language mangling that they claim to fight against.
I suppose you've never heard of satire, then?
FYI, none of the participants in this discussion have, as far as I know, any affiliations with GNAA. — David Remahl 17:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page history

Any way the page history can get restored? --Goobergunch 22:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be done. It'll take the db a bit to catch up again. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:34, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Unnecessary comments

GNAA members are generally perceived as nuisances by the communities they attack. Technological and social measures are usually taken to reduce the disruption caused by this and other organized troll groups

Well, duh. The sentence right before this comment mentioned how the GNAA crapflooded and trolled websites, irc channels, and so on. It's pretty fucking obvious that they're widely considered a nuisance. That's precisely why the GNAA is so effective: they are well versed in stirring up shit, and they know what buttons to push. Just look at their last VfD page on wikipedia - it's a three-ring circus, to say the least. As for how effective these "technological and social" measures are, it is completely subjective, not to mention self-refuting: the very fact that the GNAA's trolling frequently forces policy or social changes is widely considered by GNAA members to be a victory in and of itself. Therefore, I suggest removal of this sentence, or at least a substantial rewording. (unsigned by Special:Contributions/70.177.59.49. — David Remahl 03:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC))

I oppose the removal of the sentence (and I was the one who wrote it). The average reader of Wikipedia may not be fully aware of what a troll is, and policy states that information that can be useful to the reader should be included in the article itself. One cannot only rely on that the reader clicks the link to see what the definition of a troll is. Now that it has been established that the article should be part of Wikipedia, we will not allow GNAA members to dictate its content. You have done a really "good" job of trolling the deletion debate, good for you.
Likewise, we will not allow non-GNAA members to dictate its content. Right? GNAA Popeye 03:37, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Right, but greater space should be left to non-GNAA points-of-views, since they are greater in numbers. — David Remahl 03:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just so long as no bias is introduced. We don't have opinions on the Nazi article trashing their ideology or belittling Nazi members on a personal level. The GNAA deserves the same fairness given to the Nazis. GNAA Popeye 03:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The paragraph doesn't specify wether the technological and social measures are effective and/or wether they are in line with GNAA's goals. And as you say, if we specify how successful they generally are, we would cross the line of POV. — David Remahl 03:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I changed the comment to say this:

GNAA members are generally perceived as nuisances by the communities they attack, who frequently respond with technological and social anti-trolling measures (such as comment moderation) to limit future disruption.

I hope this is agreeable to everyone, and I think it's pretty non-pov and leaves out references to "other trolling organizations", which are largely irrelevent to this article anyway. GNAA Popeye

I'd also like to say that the GNAA is really the only notable trolling organization in existence, so references to "other trolling organizations" are fairly empty in their referential value. GNAA Popeye 03:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I put back "other trolling groups", for the following reason: the measures usually aren't taken _just_ to counter GNAA, but to counter other kinds of trolling too. In fact, I think we can agree on the following:
GNAA members are generally perceived as nuisances by the communities they attack, who frequently respond with technological and social anti-trolling measures (such as comment moderation) to limit future disruption caused by trolling.
Ok? — David Remahl 03:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Very nice, thank you. GNAA Popeye 03:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Self-references

Avoid talking about Wikipedia maintenance in the article. It is not encyclopaedic. I hardly think Encyclopaedia Britannica would write about a Wikipedia VfD discussion in their GNAA entry. Wikipedia politics simply aren't important enough in the great scheme of things, at the moment. I hope that we can avoid an emerging edit war. Also, please note that being reverted is not a challange for you to "lets try again". If reverted, please discuss the change on the talk page before trying again. — David Remahl 04:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had attempted to add it because it was an activity that the GNAA became involved in. Looks like I started an argument with wolfman again, but now I know of the 3-revert rule. Goat-see 08:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I love goat-see

Goat-see is my idol. With love, Luke727.

GNAA made a bad move XD

http://www.gnaa [dot] us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-wikipedia

This can get their cause in jeapordy. WhisperToMe 04:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) 

   You misspelled jeopardy. cptchipjew

GNAA Popeye's announcement

"Notice: The official GNAA statement regarding its incredible 3rd consecutive VfD victory has been released! You can view it [dot us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-wikipedia here]. " (By GNAA Popeye)

Now he's blocked for being disruptive to Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 04:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe 04:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uh. How was he being disruptive by posting that? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this Wiki or POV?

With respect to the comments on GNAA vandalism, I wonder if Wikipedia is really the appropriate place for an article about GNAA. The subject matter does not seem to be commonly interesting and is not what I would expect to find in an encyclopedia-like publication. It is obviously controversial since the page is never left in peace. Furthermore, the writing of the article in the first place, however attempting to be objective, may be considered POV in itself. Isn't there a bulletin board or private site where such material could be posted without fearing vandalism? --80.213.34.189 23:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Sorry about writing anonymously, but I don't need any attacks on my home page)

What is POV in the current version of the article? How "may the writing of the article in the first place" be considered POV? You're free to edit it.
Many people feel that this article is appropriate in an encyclopaedia, and the article seems pretty popular. The page has been through votes for deletion three times, so you should review those past discussions — most things have been said already. — David Remahl 00:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article has been through several rounds on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion, and each time there has been heated discussion but in the end overall (though not universal) support for keeping the article. Given the new policies against re-listing on VFD, this article is here to stay for a least a while, whether you like it or not. The best we can do is to describe the group and their activities in a neutral way.
However, "neutral" does not mean "neutered" and the extent of the negative aspects of the group and their activites should be fully delineated and not couched in sympathetic language. The reality is that an overwhelming majority of people think (or would think if they were familiar with the group) that the group and what they do is bad, and in order to be truly neutral, the article should reflect the preponderance of opinion. For example, although there are Hitler apologists, Adolf Hitler states in the introduction "Hitler is held accountable for the racial policy of Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and the death and displacement of millions occurring during his leadership." We shouldn't neuter this article by hiding all the negative commentary in Troll organization, Slashdot trolling phenomena, etc. We should state plainly what the GNAA is and what they do. "A group of attention-seeking internet users who primarily prey on internet communities by disrupting their normal activities" sums up pretty succinctly what GNAA is and what they do without sanitizing it. Nohat 00:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Trolling, by definition, seeks to draw attention. The description of the GNAA in the opening sentence is redundant and therefore unnecessary. It's also inaccurate, or at least misleading, when it refers to GNAA as primarily a group of "internet users". The GNAA isnt about the internet, it's about organized trolling. The GNAA regularly engages in non-internet forms of joking and trolling, such as prank phone calls and in-the-flesh trolls.
It is perfectly reasonable to briefly define a term of jargon in context, rather than hiding what a troll is inside a linked article.
It's not "perfectly reasonable", because your definition is biased and takes a one-dimensional view of trolling. You use the word "prey" which suggests a predatory situation, and not all trolls (even the GNAA) consider trolling to be primarily about "preying" on people. I could easily argue that trolls strive to enlighten people or at the very least bring about alternative ways of thinking, which can hardly be considered predatory. So unless you wish to include these alternative viewpoints, I suggest you shut up.
It's only redundant if you already know what a troll is, which is not necessarily true of the general encyclopedia audience. Second, none of the "activities" described in that section are non-internet-related; indeed I have yet to see any evidence of non-internet-related GNAA "activities".
"Members have flooded weblogs, produced shock sites, prank called technical support phone lines..." You fail it. Unless you were only referring to the part of the article labelled "activities", in which case you're guilty of limiting discussion to one part of the article in order to make a weak point.
Further, describing the members of the group as "internet users" is necessarily correct, because the initiation procedures all are internet activities, not to mention the fact that all of their "activities" at least as described by the article are internet-related. Nohat 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Once again, wrong. And phone trolling isn't the only non-Internet related activity the GNAA does, either. I'm a member so I should know. And yeah, describing the GNAA as "internet users" might be "necessarily correct", but so is referring to the Nazis as "a group of socialist human beings". They both sound equally dopey.
Could you please sign and date your snippets? I'm losing track here... --80.213.40.120 19:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you that trolling is bad, but I won't talk evil of GNAA as much as I won't talk good of them. I'd rather not mention them at all. I don't think they deserve the magnificent attention given to them by the article - and this discussion not least. --80.213.34.189 00:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agree. I'm not sure how best to handle this, they'll just waste as much time as we let them. Probably the GNAA article would be best deleted, but there seems little hope of that, and long discussions are just what they are after. Andrewa 04:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

As much as I dislike this article, it still deserves to be NPOVed, and that's why I have reinstated some changes. It would be greatly appreciated if all the Anonymous Cowards would kindly discuss their points here instead of just reverting. Specifically:

  • "[GNAA] claims to consist of six leaders..." - Facts and references please. As long as there are no independent sources, this remains a mere claim and should be reported as such.
  • "GNAA gained significant notoriety in the Slashdot community" - what's significant, please? As far as I can see, there are many troll gangs on Slashdot, so please elaborate what is differnt about this one.
  • "the crapfloods are believed by some to have spurred this change." - Weaseltalk. It's part of the self-aggrandizing nature of the troll gang under discussion to brag about their deeds, and therefore this statement should be attributed to them unless proven otherwise.
  • "GNAA members fiercely flooded" - more self-promotion and juvenile language at that. Give us some independent sources and this might be discussed.
  • "the apparent "disreputability" of the GNAA" - I don't know what could be more disreputable than a troll gang, therefore the scare quotes are entirely inappropriate.

Ceterum censeo that all of this "article" is nothing but self-advertisement by a gang of inferiority-complex-ridden puerile hooligans and Wikipedia would be happier without it. Kosebamse 10:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have one thing to say: YHBT

I am very well aware that this "article" is trollery and nothing else. Unfortunately it has survived VfD more than once, so it seems it will stay for a while. If we can't get rif of it, it should at least be NPOVed. Kosebamse 09:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the article needing some NPOV. --Lysol 03:23, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

To those who doubt the GNAA's membership claims

Gay black men are not hard to reach. irc.gnaa [dot] us, #gnaa

Talk to us. -- A GNAA member

I say delete this entry

By having it you are just giving these children what they want, attension. I just ran accross this entry because they have been vandalizing my site (not given) these people are sick and belong behind bars.

Actually, no. We are indeed giving these people what they want, but by having this discussion rather than by having this article. You have to understand that trolling is not about writing alone. It is more about reading the reaction of other people, like yours or mine. It wouldn't make much sense if there was no controversy and no comments such as the one of yours. Let me emphasize it: we are giving them what they want by objecting. You are right that they want attention, but at the same time you seem to not realize that we are just giving them that very attention by writing about them right now. That is the attention they want. The existance of an article that no one reads or cares about is hardly any attention at all. Also, you might want to read few issues of the Trollback Magazine [2] to have some idea on who we are really talking about. Some of those people are children, but some of them are not only adults, but also quite an intelligent ones. Some of them are exceptionally talented writers. Chances are that you have read many texts written by those "children" before, not even realizing that you were a character in a sophisticated form of satire. You will never undertand that phenomenon with such a high level of ignorance. With the attitude you have just presented, you can only be a tool in the hands of trolls, not even realizing that these are people like yourself who make the trolling art possible at all and so rewarding at that. By censoring the knowledge about trolling, by making people, possible victims, unaware of that phenomenon, you would only make it easier. Think about it. AC 22:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK that seems to be a bit interesting; I will admit when I posted what I posted, I still had my blood boiling. The fact is I don't see how any one can get pleasure out of such an activity. What kind of satire can there be in it? Well they just left the world of trolling and have started hurassing phone calls, I have now contacted to police about it.

This is hard to explain bacause of how many ways there are to write something which is likely to provoke a certain kind of follow-up discussion. First of all, this is hardly a new phenomenon. I have read texts published in the 1920s (written by famous poets, no less) showing almost exactly the style I will explain in a minute, and provoking similar answers.
Now, consider a completely stupid text written in a completely stupid manner. Someone will say "oh, those kids again" and it will most probably get ignored, removed, moderated down on Slashdot or reverted on Wikipedia. But consider a text written very intelligently and eloquently, but containing some unbelievable stupidity (I will show some examples later). First of all, there is a certain cognitive dissonance in the mind of a reader. There is a disturbing inconsistency, an apparent paradox. The reader will think "the author doesn't seem stupid, I must be misunderstanding it" but after few tries of reparsing and reinterpreting the text, the reader will finally have to give up and conclude that it is indeed stupid, and what's probably even more important, that he has just proudly discovered stupidity in the way of thinking of someone who seems very smart. And the replies will follow...
But this is just one group of readers. The first group of readers will only notice the apparently intelligent style and will agree with that text. The second group will discover the stupidity and will disagree. The third group will understand that the stupidity is intentional. This is what I would call a three-level irony, but there are sometimes in fact more than only three audiences in the most subtle and complex cases.
I have seen a Slashdot user who had something about her "superiour intellect" in the signature. Every now and then people were replying to her comments, starting a thread like this:
Person1: You are so intelligent that you can't even spell 'superior' you idiot!
Person2: Didn't you think that maybe the poster is British where the spelling of words like 'honour' and 'humour' is different? You have just made an idiot out of yourself, smartass!
Person1: Oh, sorry, I didn't think about it...
Person3: I am British and we also spell it 'superior'. The original poster is an idiot. And Person2 is even a bigger idiot.
Person4: Don't you think that someone who can't spell doesn't have to be an idiot?
Etc. ad nauseam... I have seen it many times, with different people commenting that signature. First of all, people who didn't know about British spelling were replying. Then, people who knew about British spelling in general, but not about 'superior' spelling in particular were replying. Then, the third level, those who knew about the British spelling of 'superior'. And when you think about it, it is so unlikely that anyone would make any errors in her sig while talking about her intelligence if it wasn't meant to be some kind of satire, that it must have been intentional. That makes a fourth group of people, a fourth level of perception. And for those people it may be entertaining to understand exactly what other groups of people were thinking.
Of course it's very hard to explain how anyone can get pleasure out of irony and satire to anyone who doesn't just feel it, who doesn't already find it amusing. It's like explaining a joke. But I think that as soon as you realize that there is a large community of people who are masters of that literary form, and that trolling is not only posting masked www.goat.cx links, but also texts that get moderated as the highest Score:5, Insightful on Slashdot, you will soon discover that this distance and skepticism toward texts generally considered intelligent, can help you make the reading experience itself more pleasurable and less stressful, when even in cases where the stupidity you discover is not intentional, you will be more likely to smile than get outraged. AC 11:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

maybe so but you have to agree that when they cross the line and start to make harassing phone calls they have crossed the line. From what I have found out is that to make harassing phone calls are a federal crime. And at this point could the any longer be considered an "intelligent" troller but a stupid childish idiot.

GNAA and Trollback

What is the relation of the Gay Nigger Association of America and the Trollback Magazine? [3] Are redactors of Trollback in any way affiliated with GNAA? Is Trollback to be taken as a representative voice of GNAA on Slashdot? Could any GNAA member comment on this issue? Thank you.

The GNAA indirectly controls everything through its ULTRA SWIP OVER technologay. But it chooses not to exercise that power most of the time in order to appear powerless. In this case, I am aware of no direct link between the two organizations, though there may be Trollback SPIES in #GNAA. --SPUI 19:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC), a GNAA member
There is no formal relationship between GNAA and Trollback. I think Trollback mentioned GNAA once, but other than that no sponsorship takes place. --Lysol 03:21, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Controls everything? Yeah that sounds like something a self-aggrandising troll might well say. I'm amused. Pedant 15:11, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

4chan!

I quote, "During May of 2004, GNAA members flooded and attacked the popular image board website 4chan, likely contributing to the fourth non-permanent shutdown of the site shortly thereafter.", and another quote "It was not the GNAA who killed 4chan (I quite like them actually), or really the moronic users, it was a man named Chris, who goes by the name TheRowan and runs a business that shuts you down if you fail to play along.", the second one by the 4chan adminitrator 'moot'.

Unlock this page

Why is this page still locked?

I beg someone's pardon, but...

...this is NOT an appropriate article for an encyclopedia. It needs to be deleted.

--b. Touch 15:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with you, but this has somehow survived three VfDs already, so it's here to stay. Xezbeth 15:44, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but if it has survived three VfDs, surely enough people find this article appropriate enough. An encyclopedia is for everybody, not just you. Sam Hocevar 00:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Make that four, fifth is underway. This is rediculous! Dominotree 18:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • That doesn't mean they can't state their opinion.

--The Cube 03:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to stay out of this. However, this article is still not beneficiary to the public at large. --b. Touch 14:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I concur. And I dispute that all our articles need to be beneficiary to the public at large, unless someone can tell me what, exactly, "the public at large" is. I suppose it would include people interested in adjoint functors or crushing by elephant or The Quatrain of Seven Steps or Jack Black (rat catcher) or heavy metal umlauts or early American editions of The Hobbit, but not the GNAA? I find it hard to turn that into a general definition. JRM 00:39, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

References and verifiability

Is the content of this article independently verifiable? Where are the references that are not GNAA sites? - David Gerard 23:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow, back on VfD for the fifth time

Gee, I guess people can't accept that this is really meant to remain on here. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there's no verifiability, it's not encyclopaedic - David Gerard 03:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not anymore. All links are now properly accounted for, and fully referenced. I don't like the GNAA, but this doesn't make them non-notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do you happen to see a slight irony in the fact that their only real claim to notability lies in the fact that they have successfully trolled Wikipedia for over half a year now? Or would you call a gang of puerile hooligans notable because of such enormous achievements as annoying a few Slashdot readers or posting their juvenile crap on other public websites? Kosebamse 20:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And would you like to bother reading the article? That might help. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have read it over and over since September or so, as much as I hate it, and have done my best to improve it. See further up on this page where I explicitly said "As much as I dislike this article, it still deserves to be NPOVed". Kosebamse 17:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, I might have been a little harsh. But what in particular isn't NPOV about it now? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My problem with this article is that it stinks of propaganda, not because of its style, which is fine enough now, but because of its content. That touches upon a basic problem with Wikipedia: as long as something is factual, informative, and neutral, most Wikipedians will accept it even though it's irrelevant detail or in effect propaganda, such as a ridiculously detailed description of some puerile pranks by a practically unknown troll gang. But that can't be helped, given the current domination of inclusionists on Wikipedia. However, the sentence about their script is not appropriate, because it seems to actively promote trolling activities by providing a link. Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting troll software. Kosebamse 07:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: you have a problem with factual, informative and neutral statements and descriptions. So let me get this straight again... you want me to remove factual, informative and neutral statements? OK, I'll get started on blanking pages. It could take me a while though. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Replace "troll software" with "malicious software" and I agree. silsor 12:31, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Weasel words

The first paragraph in the section "Racism and sexism" contains many weasel words. Some say that the weasel words are possibly removable; critics claim that the weasel words must remain. ugen64 06:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surely you mean "some critics have been reported as saying that the weasel words must remain". :-) On a more serious note, Delirium removed the entire section on the grounds that we have no evidence the group was ever accused of racism (other than, obviously, this talk page, but that doesn't count). I think it's a little too bold, because we can safely infer that people are going to take the word nigger as racist, and the GNAA's opinion on why they do not consider their choice of name to be motivated by racism seems relevant (if perhaps not deservant of a complete section). I do agree that having an actual instance of such accusations would be better. JRM 00:48, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Why has their script been removed?

Please answer. I'll give this a few days and if noone has replied I'm putting it back again. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I'm not opposed to opposing its inclusion. :-) Wikipedia is not a malware directory? Something like that? "If you want it, you know where to find it"? Having "a script" does not establish notability in any way, even if it's a clever script. Seriously. I don't even think the sentence should be there, as "having a script to upload shock images" is only to be expected from a trolling group. So they don't do it by hand, big deal. Take it from someone with a CS degree and plenty of web experience: this isn't important. I'm sure the GNAA is proud of their achievement, but it's not something our readers need to care about. JRM 13:44, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
Well, for them its an integral part of their very existence. I'm not saying its not stupid, and I'm not saying it's the most clever thing I've ever seen, but nonetheless it is a part of the org. Would you note IBM technologies without mentioning REXX? Would you note Kuro5hin without the scoring system? Would you mention Wikipedia without the markup? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An integral part of their very existence? You make it sound like they're on life support from this very script. :-) If it's an integral part of their very existence, why isn't it a notable subject of the article? REXX has its own article and is notable in and of itself. The Kuro5hin scoring system is mentioned rightaway in the overview. The Wikipedia article, sorry to say it, is obviously biased to include all the factoids fit to print — but even so, if you care to check, the article doesn't mention the markup, as well it should not, so the answer for Wikipedia is definitely "yes". (Not even the MediaWiki article does that.)
However, all of these are false analogies. The question is whether something is important to readers, not to subjects. The two are closely related, as something is of interested to readers if it shaped the subject. REXX is an important part of IBM history. The Kuro5hin scoring system is obvious, and notable. The Wikipedia markup largely isn't — it's a Wiki, that's all you need to know, and if you want the technical specs, you know where to get them. Arguing that the GNAA script is paramount to their existence is nonsense. It's just one possible and obvious way of effective crapflooding/trolling. It is neither so that the GNAA would not be notable if it weren't for this script (their automated trolling/vandalizing, sure, but not any particular script), nor that the script itself is a notable achievement. Does anyone outside the GNAA know or care what scripting they use to do their dirty deeds? No. That they happen to be using it frequently is worth at best an off-hand mention — and certainly not a vanity link to it. JRM 18:23, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
So your opinion is that if someone learns about that script on Wikipedia and wants to download it, we should make that impossible for him, but explaining suicide methods is all right? Sam Hocevar 18:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No. In the GNAA script article, there should be a link to it. But there is not and never will be a GNAA script article (OK, no creating it behind my back to prove a point, please). Suicide does not link to step-by-step recipes for suicide. You might find some by following links to links, but that's a different matter. Suicide methods has a cleanup tag, and rightly so, but it's potentially encyclopedic even if it might give people ideas. "The GNAA script" is not.
"Making it impossible" is baseless exaggeration. We link to the GNAA site. We link to their IRC channel. If you want it, you know where to get it. Hey, if the GNAA wants to release it, let them put it on Wikisource, and we'll have a nice template box at the bottom.
Comparing an explanation of suicide methods to the source of a particular script, aside from the widely divergent topics at hand, is an interesting but unconvincing analogy to me. Suicide methods are far more widely notable than one particular script of one particular trolling organization. If you want me to retract any hint that I made the suggestion because the script is harmful — so done. I think you're right that if we're going to have this statement at all, there's no reason to leave out the link (certainly not on "moral" grounds). But this discussion has just convinced me that the entire statement should go. JRM 19:16, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
Speaking of false analogies, you just gave one. Yes, there will never be an article called GNAA script as I can't be bothered making it. But who's to say their won't be? And as for the argument, that doesn't work. You're basically saying that ALL facts can go into their own article, otherwise they should be removed. I'll get started then :-) seriously, the other issue is that I also disagree that what is important for the reader is what should go into an article. Who aer you to say what's important to our entire readership base? The GNAA last measure script is part of who they are and though stupid, taking it away takes away information about the organisation themselves. Lastly, you'll notice, however, that Last Measure is on Shock sites#Last Measure. A discussion of the script should probably be on there as well as on here. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've already bored you to tears with a reply on your talk page, but I didn't see this until afterwards, so I'll reply here. :-)
But who's to say their won't be?
Me's to say there won't be. I, Joost R. Meerten, hereby do postulate and solemnly affirm my conviction that nobody, ever, will write an encyclopedic article on the GNAA script, in full compliance with our standards, that will survive consensus on VfD because it's so obviously brilliant it cannot go. (This argument is weakened by the fact that many people now actually vote Delete or Keep on GNAA topics in principle, so consensus and policy get distorted. But you see my main point.)
Who aer you to say what's important to our entire readership base? The GNAA last measure script is part of who they are and though stupid, taking it away takes away information about the organisation themselves.
Who are you to say that the GNAA (or anyone, really) must have all information "about themselves" available on it in the article? I realize this is just a difference in opinion, and in the end it's really a "is too — is not" issue, but come on — should we have left in everything in, say, Sollog, that was important to Sollog himself? We would have an article that would have been very interesting — to Sollog. We are not a free web hosting service, we are an encyclopedia. "X considers Y important to X so let's put Y in, because there might be an article in it someday" is a terrible guideline to write articles by. Yes, it "takes away information about the organization themselves" to leave it out. So does not mentioning that notable rock star X likes to drink his whiskey straight. But even if rock star X happens to drink a lot of whiskey and has in fact had problems with alcoholism, mentioning his particular poison does not improve an article. (Yes, I know, another analogy. It seems to be very hard to leave these out). In short: I think I'm just closer to immediatism in this particular case, while you're closer to eventualism. To me, this is the "when hell freezes over" kind of eventualism. JRM 23:42, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
I removed it because I think we should not provide malicious programs as resources. silsor 02:40, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Rationale

chocolateboy 03:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

logo: imagevio
Sorry? It's not. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
s/Activities/Achievements/: this is not a press release
Uh no. It's used under fair use. I suggest you look that up. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry? It's not.

You're welcome. [5]

It's used under fair use. I suggest you look that up.

I will. Right after you've looked up Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Copyright, and public domain. [6]

chocolateboy 16:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh well done, Chocolateboy. That's hardly the point. The point is that we are detailing what they've done and their actions. The information, while only getting a few google hits, is still factual, written from a neutral point of view and caused lots of disruption. So I'm putting it all back in again. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Further: the crap-flooding incidents that happened on CmdrTaco's page are extremely notable as he's a notable figure they managed to get to change his blog. You might not like it, but don't censor it. The Punjabi Extreme is part of their org. and shows social network, and typifies their behavious. The Wikipedia reference... well, juries out on that one. The Warfare strategy is an example of how disruptive they are, so it might not have hit google but it illustrates the point well. The irony here is that the next thing I know you'll be asking me for examples of why they are so disruptive to minor websites! oh, I also noticed you did a half-assed job of it, and didn't remove the references. I thought we were writing factual pieces here, not hatchet jobs. Talk about censorship of actions and views you don't like. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You call this rationale? Hardly. Do you expect me to be a mind-reader?! Detail your objections more fully and we'll see what we can see. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Again further... I didn't realise the first item was the GNAA logo. That logo/sig is important because you'll see it on most slashdot posts and it identifies a GNAA activity. It's a fairuse item. I'll update this fact. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
we are detailing what they've done and their actions
while only getting a few google hits

"few" :-) Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Google test.

chocolateboy 06:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uh, Chocolateboy. I doubt you'll get many hits on crapflooding of any site. The google test doesn't work in this case. Stop reverting me. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. The GNAA Spam License has been revoked.

I am requesting additional sources of information [ see above ] for this story, also I want to know if we can do anything to write it from a NPOV [ see article ]. Ta bu shi da yu (Wikipedia:Peer review#Gay Nigger Association of America)
Stop reverting me.

Or what? You'll vanity spam me to death?

chocolateboy 07:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Excuse me. I'm an admin on this site, and if you're implying I'm spamming you I'd suggest you stop. If your implying that I'm part of the GNAA I'd also suggest you get your facts in order. I'd also suggest you sort out your reversions, because if you do another one I'll get another admin to block you for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me. I'm an admin on this site
I'll get another admin to block you for 24 hours

User talk:Chocolateboy#STOP CALLING ME A SPAMMER! [ sic ]

chocolateboy 16:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Give me a second to get up to speed here. - Amgine 07:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the current revision:
  • The GNAA sig block - the full version is too long, does not contribute further to the article unless there is a following explication of its content. The current size is okay w/o explication, but could use more info about the source (a sig block, etc.)
I have given a fuller description of the sig block and included the full signature. Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Activities vs. Achievements - activities is less POV imo.
Yes, I know. That's why I changed it before... - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sample track - is verifiable information, should be included.
Reincluded. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Fair use statement - I did not see the reference in the article. Is this for the logo?
Fair use statement is for the GNAA block (you'll notice the (c) they have). The number is at the end of that. I have made a note it is fairuse and this stands because I am describing it for academic purposes (don't laugh!). - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now I will look at previous versions - Amgine 07:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for you help Amgine. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
could use more info about the source (a sig block, etc.)

Signature block is linked.

activities is less POV imo

"Activities" is an "open proxy" for spam. This article is not a press release. Most of GNAA's activities rack up fewer Google hits than... every username on this page. Should we all vanity spam ourselves into the article?

chocolateboy 07:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes. However, the shortest version which was up when I checked here did not explain enough about the sig, and its contents, for non-internet-familiar audiences, while the current version, in my opinion, gives too much space with an exact duplication. A compromise should be reached on this section.
  • Activities, and spam, are what the GNAA are notable for. Therefore, Activities, imo, is more neutral (and less positive) than Achievements.
Activities, and spam, are what the GNAA are notable for.

They're (barely) notable for trolling, so by rights the section should be called "Trolls". Only activists are non-trivially notable for "activities".

chocolateboy 16:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you actually read what you write? Currently you are performing an activity, and that activity is typing text into Wikipedia. You are not an activist in doing this. Therefore, the heading that is most appropriate is "Activities", because that is what they are: activities. Sheesh. You don't have to be an activist to perform activities! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Activities" is fine now that the section no longer reads like a press release.

  1. Activities, and spam, are what the GNAA are notable for.
  2. They're (barely) notable for trolling
  3. Only activists are non-trivially notable for "activities"
Do you actually read what you write?

Yes. Do you?

chocolateboy 06:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry? the GNAA is barely notable for trolling? I guess that just displays your ignorance then. I can't help it if you are ignorant of the subject matter. And point three is wrong, as I've already pointed out. "Activities" is used because it is the most NPOV term. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slashdot trolling is barely notable - as has been pointed out on the VfD page, it's invisible to those who don't deliberately seek it out.

Their name merits a feeble 650 hits, despite the fact that crapflooding massively inflates their page rank (your suggestion above that Google discriminates against poor GNAA is clearly spam).

I've snipped your sig sonata. They're not notable for their sig, and the article isn't a GNAA recruitment advertorial.

chocolateboy 16:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That should be WarcraftStrategy, not WarfareStrategy... although it doesn't really help ;) Philip Nilsson 13:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed! :-) chocolateboy 12:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

There's a few things I'd like to point out here. Firstly, the edit summary is extremely misleading. Firstly, ChocolateBoy hasn't defined what "spam" I'm performing because he's removed ALL my changes. I initially thought that he was talking about the GNAA ascii art logo, now I have no idea what he's talking about. So I'm going to do my final revert I'm allowed, if it happens again I'm going to place this on WP:PROT and point out that I have been trying to find out what is being objected to and why. I seem to be the only one who has given valid and detailed reasons why I've made changes. Chocolateboy only reverts my hard work and calls it "spam", which I find offensive as I am not affiliated with the GNAA.

I think the content of the article is clouding some of our editors judgement. The organisation is highly offensive, but that doesn't mean we don't cover them fairly. They make me annoyed at times too, but that doesn't give me the right to write with a anti-GNAA POV! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will look at the revision you do TBSDY, and comment further as necessary. - Amgine 07:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The current section about the signature dominates the article. I believe a smaller quote from it, with additional quotes as relevant to your explication, would provide less of a venue while still fulfilling a NPOV reporting of the relevant information. - Amgine 08:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As another user, SPUI, has done this already it seems that consensus is to only keep part of the sig. I bow to this. Apart from this, I think the article is in good shape all things considered. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's a far cry from what it was last I looked. I still think it should go, you know. But it is improved. - Amgine 08:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
---
I've discussed it to bits above. There's really not a lot in it (literally). I removed the non-notable stuff from the article, in accordance with the "please clean this useless article up" plea on the "Peer Review" page. Elevating press releases (and breathtakingly non-notable press releases at that) to the level of encyclopaedia filler is clearly spam.
chocolateboy 08:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me Chocolateboy, but if the "press releases" are describing the organisation and are an integral part of their organisation, then they are not spam. I would strongly advise you not make those accusations against good editors (I see you've done the same thing to User:Squash. The irony here is that you are wrecking an article about trolls, and getting close to causing a disruption on our site. Usually we expect the GNAA to do this. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, incidently. I never called the article "useless". - Ta bu shi da yu 01:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As an aside, regardless of accusations of "spam" (which is indeed uncalled for — read up on spam if you don't believe me) I happen to agree with most of Chocolateboy's weedings. Just to make sure you're not tempted to present it as "one disruptive revert warrior" against the "great enlightened troll experts". :-) I've made my opinion clear on what I think of these "integral parts" (I think it's advertising, by the way, not vanity — that assumes we know who the GNAA editors are here). There seems to be a conflict between the "let's restrict ourselves to things notable to a general reader" people and the "let's put in everything that could be of interest to a potential reader" people. I think the position of the latter is ultimately untenable for getting a decent quality article, but that's just my opinion. More consensus would be good. JRM 01:39, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
Lets make this clear. I am not a troll. Speaking of consensus, whenever Chocolateboy removes material, he never takes it to talk. I have ever time. Its rare for me to revert. He's forcing me into it. The sig is significant in the context of the GNAA and his "trimming" merely takes away useful information. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
---
The irony here is that you are wrecking an article about trolls
The "irony" is that everyone else - including you ("I think the article is in good shape all things considered" [7]) - disagrees.
chocolateboy 06:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, the "irony" is that everything is in good shape until you remove information. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In that case, I encourage you to (attempt to) reinstate the following violations of Wikipedia policy:
chocolateboy 16:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So were the Apple screenshots fake?

The article doesn't make it clear - it says most people thought they were fake and the GNAA press release said they were real, but it's not a matter of opinion - either they were fake or not. [9] suggests that they were fake (all the matches for apple "stealth mode" firewall "os x 10.4" are coverage of the screenshots). Does anyone have the screenshots and the new version, and can say whether they're fake? --SPUI 08:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think GNAA Screenshots is it. And Apple Website to compared. I have to say those GNAA Screenshots look so real to the eye, but that is just my opinion. Go and compare for youself. Squash 22:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Last revert

I have reverted Chocolateboy again because he keeps removing material without taking to talk. SPUI, myself and another newish user disagrees with the edits he is making. So I've reverted. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've given 3 reasons (non-notable, POV, redundant) for removing it; you've given no reasons for keeping it. I hope your defence is a little more convincing than your case for this hastily retracted edit.
Also, you reverted two other edits without, as you put it, "taking to talk". [10]
chocolateboy 17:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dec 25, 2004, VFD

Moved to here.

This article will be deleted.

This article will be deleted shortly, as there is no notability, and the GNAA frequently trolls Wikipedia. --Grunt­­ 05:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • So you're just deleting it, even though there are more keep votes on the VfD than delete? Dominotree 07:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that makes no sense to me. Pakaran (ark a pan) 07:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • (Note that this is not Grunt, but a GNAA toadie pretending to be him. Adam Bishop 07:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Some more shit GNAA have pulled.

http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2005-January/030506.html http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2005-January/030502.html

Combating censorship on wikipedia

This and some other articles point to a 'problem'. Many articles are voted for deletion simply because some users don't want others to read about it. I think we should attempt to combat this in general. It doesn't mean that we should offend people but we shouldn't hide information. Like if people think title is offensive, 'rename' should be offered instead of 'delete'. I have created a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Anti-Censorship. I hope we can solve this 'problem'.

Zain 01:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Gay

This doesn't require much discussion, but I wanted to note here that Template:Gay doesn't belong on this article. Much like Blue Velvet shouldn't have nav templates about the optical spectrum or fabrics, GNAA shouldn't have a template about gay topics. Aside from the name, the group doesn't have anything to do with the articles linked in the template. Rhobite 04:26, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, both this article and the template are clearly trolling. :-) JRM 11:35, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

ECFA Merger Info

Please give sources for the merger information before adding it to the article. silsor 14:42, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok... here are some recent GNAA "first posts" on slashdot that reference the merger: here

and here. a slightly older one yet another

Those could be from anybody and mean nothing. silsor 23:14, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
The classic GNAA first post is gone from slashdot, and all that is posted any more is the ECFA/GNAA merger post. I have, however, been unable to find a ECFA/GNAA website. Could this be added as a 'trivia' item or something in the meantime? (ex. Recent GNAA posts seem to indicate a merger with an organization called ECFA which is dedicated to euthanizing unwanted dogs.)
It really doesn't seem worth mentioning, but if you really want to pile more shit on top of this shitpile then be my guest. silsor 10:16, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
GNAA | Saturn -> As far as we (GNAA) are concerned, this has nothing to do with us. I have never heard of this, and have no idea what is going on here. As a troll I fail it at reading slash dot regularly and didn't notice this. However, it is confirmed to have nothing to do with the GNAA (Gay Nigger Association of America)

VfD: Consistency

You voted to Keep Tom G. Palmer. Perhaps you should visit Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2 (and Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2) and consider how you should vote on this page, applying your standards used for the Palmer vote (extent of publication record--my publication record far exceeds Palmer's). Nskinsella 01:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Uhh....and may I ask why is this here? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
No. Nskinsella 03:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

To 216.254.64.246 and User:Andrew pmk

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources and tell me why you think you should be able to add questioned statements to this article without having to back them up. This is not about the GNAA, it is about standards. silsor 04:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

NONE of what's listed here is properly sourced.

Silsor, none of the supposed "facts" or " accomplishments" in this article are properly sourced or even real. A few links to a few websites does not a "proper" source make.

GNAA has been known to lie -- that's a cornerstone of their trolling. I think it's fine if you want to have an article that doesn't follow facts at all, but don't subject some people's statements to fact-checking while ignoring the bulk of the article. To do so is propaganda and essentially a free advertisement for GNAA on Wikipedia -- which is expressly against the rules.

Once again, source everything or source nothing. The choice is yours. No doublestandards.

I don't care about the material that was already in the article, because I had nothing to do with it. I removed the material that you added, because I noticed the addition. You added the material twice, then reversed yourself completely and removed most of the other material in the article, then added your material back, then accused ME of having a double standard. You used three paragraphs to reply to me without even answering my question! silsor 21:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose this can be worked on. Many people (both GNAA and non-GNAA) have spent a long time sourcing most of the claims in the article. I personally disagree that links to websites are not proper sources, but if you could point to the specific parts that are not sourced, or have an untrusted source, then everyone can work on it, search for new sources, and decide whether it can be sourced or should be removed. There are no double standards, it's just about being constructive or not. Sam Hocevar 10:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The parent commenter's remark is, frankly, false. The GNAA is a phenomenon confined almost exclusively to the Internet. So why are popular websites not acceptable as sources? What would be acceptable? Books? It's not possible to get a printed source for absolutely every statement a Wikipedia entry makes. Besides, almost all of the claims in the article as it stands have a corresponding reference, either as a link at the end of a sentence or in the 'References' section at the bottom of the article. --Jacj 04:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD AGAIN?

this is retarded

VfD

I have added to VfD again, not because I want it to be deleted, but because there were irregularities with the last vote. I am the admin in charge of this vote this time. No editors with less than 100 edits will have their vote counted. No personal attacks will be allowed, they will be removed on sight. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

hehehe, ta bu, congrats, you just inducted the GNAA article into the wikipedia wall of fame: Most VfDs to an article, ever :) Project2501a 8 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)
That implies that there is another article somewhere that has been VfD'd five times. Which piques my curiosity. What topic other than the Gay Nigger Association of America could possibly cause such controversy? --TexasDex 04:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: please do not add in the article the information about it being the article that has been through the VFD process the most. Those will just be reverted on sight. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I just added a blurb under trivia to reflect the article's VfD status. It's notable. Ghost Freeman T | E / C | D 20:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed your edit, since it has been stated (not only by me) that having the VFD information in the actual article space is not needed. It should be more sutable for the talk page. Plus, if you noticed, that information is listed in the hidden text at the top of the article, so only the people who are editing that page will know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Didn't see that or any mention on the talk page (I make a bad habit of editing before reading talk.) Oops. Ghost Freeman T | E / C | D 20:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It's alright, all is forgiven. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Name data

I have reverted edits removing a paragraph on the name of the GNAA. The paragraph states:

  • The name itself has been designed to shock and offend.
  • Homosexuality is still an uncomfortable subject for some, and the term "Nigger" is a slang term for black people, considered by many to be a slur.
  • The terms "Association of America" is somewhat misleading because the organisation is open to participation to anyone from countries other than the United States.

Let's review. The first statement iss NPOV; the name is clearly designed to shock and offend, and it belongs to an organization whose purpose is the same. The second statement says homosexuality is uncomfortable for some. It is. "Nigger" is considered a slur, and is a slang term. The third statement is true, because GNAA is open to non-American membership. If you disagree with my reasoning, please explain why below, rather than needlessly reverting. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with you in terms of the NPOV-ness of it; I'm not sure how someone could find it to be POV. My 2¢ --Dave2 8 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
No clue on that one, either. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
I know the reason: the editor who removed it has made the mistake of assuming that because the statements might be uncomfortable to some people that it is not a neutral statement. For instance, the very use of the word "nigger" in any discussion is, in general, frowned upon, even when discussing the way it is used and not actually endorsing said usages. Many people would like to see acceptance of homosexuality, and any recognition that many people are still uncomfortable with this can make some of those people quite upset. Therefore, because while these statements are true, their reality makes those people uncomfortable and upset and thus they cannot see that the statements themselves describe but do not endorse the position given. Thus they see the comments as non-neutral, even though the statements are in fact neutral. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)

FAC

Uh oh. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

Ok, I found out that the guy who added this article to the WP:FAC pages only has a few edits (the FAC being his fourth). He was the same guy who called himself Dr. Pigger H. Jeugasser (he did spell it Jewgasser once, see [11]). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

GNAA on VfD factoid

I'm removing the "factoid" of GNAA being on VfD so many times. It's a result of botched processes and trolling, and has no significance to general notability. Please don't add it back. Fuzheado | Talk 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

To ChocolateBoy

Stop removing information like you have been doing. I was just forced to use the rollback button. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The article isn't about "yu".
chocolateboy 05:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Neither is it about YOU. Stop taking out information! (reword) I don't see anything on the talk page about the material you removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of the comment is to discourage frivolous vfds, not to wibble on about the motivation of the vfder, or what you will or will not do if someone dares to edit the article. As mentioned in the link above, you're outvoted when it comes to the sig. And, as has happened before, you've blindly reverted the other corrections without, as you put it, "taking [sic] out things on the talk page".
chocolateboy 06:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
That's crap. I have been mentioning things on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Speaking about VFD's, what will happen if someone creates a 7th VFD after this one is over? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I for one will delete it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur, and I have updated the VfD warning at the top of the page to reflect this. --TexasDex 04:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
The GNAA award them a distinguised service award? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, will Jimbo and the other higher ups want to get involved with this or no, since I know people will trash the vote since your running it, your rules, etc. Man, it sucks being an admin, doesn't it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't hurt me, it does hurt Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


I have a question. Why, when I'z reading my en-cyclo-pedia in da morning, do I find this crazy ass shit about some gay niggaz? Do you think that I would want to be reading about some stupid ass gay niggaz? Why would I want to see some gay nigga when I'z having my breakfast in the morning? I don't want to see no gay niggaz, that stupid shit is fucked up. Angry Nigger 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Then, just click Random Page and you will see something else. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia

There needs to be a section on their vandalisms/vote rigging here on Wikipedia, seeing as that's the most notable and well-publicized thing they've done. I'm too busy with WP:PAC to do it myself, though. Almafeta 17:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If the Harry Potter stuff is true, then we should be albe to hear about that, if not, we will remove the reference. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Ignore this, considering this is like the 5th time he/she claims this, by now it should be considered trolling until the furry explains how the GNAA "rigged the vote". Pigger 13:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Is also wrong about it being the most notable thing "they" have done. I placed the GNAA article on VfD a 6th time, and I'm not part of the GNAA. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

On their website

They have claimed victory over wikipedia.

GNAUK

Yes, it belongs here as what Sam has done. If the GNAA was the primary organization the GNAUK is modeled from, then it has to be mentioned. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Banned from Wikipedia

I'd like to document that this page was banned from Wikipedia from 2007 to 2011. I can't link to the page's own history due to false positives from the stupid content filter, but check out history of this page with these parameters: &diff=381342119&oldid=103965798 — Derekm00re (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

See also: http://web.archive.org/web/20070428205937/http://www.gnaa[dot]us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-wikidel (change "[dot]" to ".")
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/Archive_1&oldid=1167997355"