Jump to content

Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

2007ish

The article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination); deletion was endorsed by Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28/Gay Nigger Association of America.

NOTE: This page is to discuss the possibility of recreation of the article based on reliable sources as per Wikipedia's policy at WP:V. It is not to whine "But I like it." It is not to attack the decision of previous deletion. If this page slides down into another whine and bitch page, those comments will be deleted. If Users continue in that vein, they will be blocked from editing. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Requirements for an article on this ... group.

We would need the following:

  1. A coherent definition of the group, it's activities, and it's organization, with at least one source.
  2. Notability of the group, explicitly detailed in mainstream news articles, shows, etc with at least TWO sources.
  3. Notable incident that can be sourced from many places.
  4. Modus operandi with at least two sources.

Thoughts? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Three isn't needed, because notability of the group is enough, and I don't see why four is needed either. I also don't think that there's any chance it would be deleted if notability were the only concern, it's just not having reliable sources that's really the problem. -Amarkov blahedits 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really. If there are reliable sources that something exists, that doesn't mean that it's notable. I can find reliable sources that my house exists, but nobody is going to want to write an article about it. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Amarkov, I disagree. I've never heard of this group, and I can't find any real evidence it exists at all, much less that's it's notable. If a stupid adolescent boy says he's acting in the name of GNAA, that doesn't mean such a group exists. For a *good* article on GNAA, those are what I see as needed. Anything less and it will simply be a recreation of the original which is now gone. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Elaragirl is right. Those are the criteria necessary to make sure such a messy circle of WP:N vs. WP:NOFEEDING vs. WP:DENY is not relaunched again.Circeus 03:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why this group needs more "mainstream" sources than other groups to establish notability. If a stupid adolescent boy (or a stupid 16-year old girl) says he is acting in the name of the GNAA, then there something there, even if it's just a shared concept. Many online movements or memes do not rise to the level of what I would call actual groups, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are not notable. I agree with Elaragirl about the requirements for a good article, but we can't just expect an article to pop up fully sourced without it being a bunch of independent research. This article must be allowed to develop without getting deleted. Don't like it? Make it better. WP:DENY is not policy. WP:CENSOR is, so surely I can see what made this article so bad. <bitch removed as per above - User:Zoe|(talk)> Savant45 20:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:V. Pwned. Goodbye. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The article existed for months, with multiple attempts at deletion, multiple demands for sources, none were forthcoming. There were many chances to source, but nobody came up with any. WP:V is policy. Abide by it. Also abide by the note at the top of this page. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to 1:
GNAA is a group of people who use the Internet to coordinate Internet-based attacks against various persons and organizations for amusement. Its activities are numerous and varied. They include attacks against Slashdot, Xanga, AOL, countless forums, IRC channels, blogs, point to point networks, etc. GNAA members have produced a significant amount of software for the purpose of causing disruption, including Last Measure, ASIAN, countless programs for flooding forums, breaking captchas, etc. If, by "organization", you mean GNAA's command structure, it is chaotic. However, GNAA has always been led by Timecop. This information can be verified by the most basic investigation, like by joining #gnaa and asking "who runs GNAA?" This is more information than is available on the command structures of many other groups the identities of whose members are secret (for instance, Iraqi insurgent groups).

Response to 2:
GNAA's Mac OS X hoax was mentioned on an episode of the television show Attack of the Show.
GNAA was mentioned in the Scotsman article "Lazy Guide to Net Culture: Dark side of the rainbow".

Response to 3:
The GNAA-repeated-over-and-over Mac OS X release: http://www.google.com/search?q=gnaa+mac+os+x+gnaa+repeated

Response to 4:
http://www.lastmeasure.com/
http://trollforge.org/
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/allencastro/xanga.gnaa
http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2005-January/030506.html

It is not the responsibility of those who call for sources to have to do the research. And, indeed, signing onto GNAA and asking "who runs it" would fail our requirements at WP:OR and WP:RS. None of the resources you have provided satisfy our guideline at WP:RS for multiple, non-trivial sources in which the subject of the article is the primary focus of the source. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
In this case, the rules conflict with common sense. Nobody researching the GNAA would have difficulty verifying that the group exists, or finding evidence of its many, many attacks. You can choose to follow FOO:BAR to the letter and insist that something isn't real if it (in this case, an almost entirely Internet-based phenomenon) hasn't been featured in the New York Times if you want. It just seems wrong for Wikipedia to go out of its way to conceal information about this obviously influential group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian Lewis (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
We don't insist that it isn't true. That's irrelevant, because something being true does not mean it is verifiable. And if something is unverifiable, we can't have an article, because we don't know that it's true. -Amark moo! 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand. You can't have an article unless you can verify it. You can't verify it because verifying it would require doing some research on the web, and doing research is against the rules. *I* did some research and came to the conclusion that the GNAA is real and notable, but I can't tell anyone else using Wikipedia. Instead, I should write a book about it (or an article, if I happen to work at a major newspaper or magazine) and hope that someone else finds it, reads it, comes to Wikipedia, creates the article, and paraphrases my conclusions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian Lewis (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
All it would take would be multiple news articles in which GNAA is the primary subject of the article, and the source of the article is peer-reviewed and recognized as legit. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Brian Lewis, you clearly don't understand. The sources have to be both notable and verifiable. I can , with little effort, gather up a couple of idjits and hack four sites and call myself GNAA. Six months later, some other idiot can gather up a couple of idjits and do the same thing and call themselves GNAA. The article is maintaining that this is a single group with some sort of coordinating goal. Any fool can make a chatroom or throw up a temporary webpage, but some of the claims in that article were completely unsourced.
To details:
Your Answer to 1 fails in that there is no THIRD-PARTY VERIFIED knowledge of who "runs" GNAA...or even if GNAA is a single group. Period. Saying "Timecop" leads it is useless since who knows who Timecop is?
Your Answer to 2 is a complete failure. The Attack of the Show is not a compilation of this sort of thing, nor is the Scotsman. Try a web security magazine, or maybe CNET.com or even *gasp* Computer Associates. Even if we did allow those sources (which I doubt did any real checking into the matter at hand) they aren't news, and even if we magically allowed THAT, you still have the problem with ...
Your Answer to 3, which is bollocks. Your copied and pasted search only produces 411 Ghits. After removing blogs and wikipedia mirrors (which copied this page) and the gnauk.co.uk site, you have less than 100 ghits. That's not notable, that's certainly not widely verifiable.
Your Answer to 4 didn't even include a single mainstream site.
We want something mainstream that no one can argue with. If they're so notable, as you claim, then there should be some newspaper coverage on their activities. Original research such as investigating the group yourself is not allowed because we have no way of knowing you aren't a member of GNAA, or someone trying to , pardon me for saying this, just recreating the article. This is -- or should be -- common sense. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hold on a second. A CNET article would be great, but 100 or 200 blogs are not notable? Did you just stab logic in the face? 200 people who spent their time writing an article about are not verifyable just because they don't recieve 100 billion users each? I don't think you understand. Many mainstream websites would clearly refuse to post an article about the GNAA because they have policies against feeding the trolls. When trolling, it is clearly disappointing when no one gives a response. When you ask for a mainstream site, you are clearly asking for too much, or something next to impossible. Wikipedia, unlike other mainstream sites, is not censored.--Can Not 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


What you utterly fail to understand, Brian Lewis, is that what we are desperately trying to avoid is another war over deleting or not the article. I agree that WP:DENY is no policy, and should not even be a guideline (I disagree with the mass deletion of subpages of Wikipedia:Long term abuse, for example).
To avoid that warring, the article has to be steel and concrete as far as its sourcing goes.Circeus 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Elaragirl, newspapers are never up-to-date on the events and happenings of the internet, and they certainly do not research troll groups or report anything of the like. The mainstream media of the internet should be considered internet/website based news sources. You just don't hear of troll groups in the newspapers or on your local evening news, they aren't going to say, "This evening, an internet-based group called, "Gay Niggers Association of America", GNAA for short, temporarily shut-down 'insert blog-name here'." That doesn't exactly sound very good, does it? Many online phenomena or incidents have been isolated to the internet or are only picked-up by a newspaper or news show a very long period after the incident/phenomena has occurred. As well as being featured on an actual tv show, that rarely occurs. GNAA should not need to be featured on a show or mentioned in a newspaper to be considered a real group of trollers. if you search through Google you can find that this group has left a footprint on blogs, forums, and tech sites, whether it be big or small. BombDiggady 09:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody to my knowledge is questioning whether the group is real. Without verifiable published information about them, we can't write an article about them that isn't original research, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Video

It gets mentioned here in this news video ^_^ Only minor though. Milto LOL pia 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Did that actually air on CNN? The audio isn't really synced up to her mouth, the video is choppy... it appears to be cut left and right. Also there's nothing on CNN.com about it that I could find. --W.marsh 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it didn't. It's WAY too good to be faked.--Pewpewlazers 04:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
YouTube videos are often off-sync. —shoecream 07:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The video aired on CNN, and anyway CNN frequently deletes things from it's website that might be incriminating. Anyone ever wonder why they don't let other people leave comments on their articles? Ours18 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Evidently, they still don't know they goofed up; if they did they would have deleted this: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/30/pzn.01.html it's near the bottom Ours18 03:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, the Paula Zahn CNN show discussed the popular theory that Zionist secret service is behind 9/11. It has nothing to do with GNAA and I didn't hear a single mention of GNAA there. I know that GNAA started jewsdidwtc.com but I heard the theory long before that when I was in Dubai. So the theory is not GNAA's and CNN didn't goof up. --Doc aberdeen 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they most certainly did goof up. The site is a misinformation site, and CNN fell for it. That means GNAA trolled one of the most famous news organizations on Earth. Ours18 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments about how the article could be made

I've notice people have mentioned we don't know if it is one group or multiple groups, this however shouldn't be used as a reason to not have the article. All that needs to be done is not to refer to it as a single group in the article. So this is a "problem" that is easily fixed. Mathmo Talk 11:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

wow. One problem down, 494,392,433 to go? You may be here a while. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 11:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. But remember the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. So I thought I'd make a single step in the right direction. I'll be popping back from time to time to make a few more steps. Though certainly not planning to make all ten zillion of them on my own! Mathmo Talk 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to make a 1,000 mile journey, why do it to prop up a trolling group that apparently wasn't very important anyway? There are lots of articles that no one wants to delete, that need a lot of work done on them. --W.marsh 14:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Austrailia's also not important. Let's remove all articles about that place. Nobodoy really goes there anyways.--Can Not 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, thank you for that ... pearl ...of wisdom. Why don't you come back when you can make a constructive comment.--ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Can Not was making an indirect statement, nothing wrong with that. After all I'd assume that most wikipedians can see what is being ment. So don't disparage the comment simply based on the style it was written in. Mathmo Talk 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article ust be a redirect to the Slashdot trolling phenomona article? It should be briefly mentioned there along with Ogg and Hot Grits. JeffBurdges 20:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomenon seemed like a very good idea to me! Until I check it out... Slashdot trolling phenomenon is itself a redirect (to Slashdot). And even more weirdly Slashdot doesn't have a section on trolling anywhere on it. Odd, so anyway... good idea, but sorry when you look at it carefully it isn't so great. Mathmo Talk 12:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Then how about a redirect to Troll (Internet)? Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 13:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps so. Could be a good temporary solution until whenever and if a proper article is made here instead. But I suspect a backlash against there being anything but deleted nothing here (even a redirect). Still, now this idea is out there... lets wait and see. Mathmo Talk 13:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Slashdot trolling phenomenon deserves its own article. I bet you can find PhD theses written on it. But, if it does not exist, it should redirect to Troll (intenet), not slashdot. JeffBurdges 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Beware, the page was deleted on an AfD in October: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot trolling phenomena (2nd nomination). That explains the weird redirection -- lucasbfr talk 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Can't believe this article got deleted. One day people will look back with shame. Cloveoil 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a PhD thesis on it: [:nofollow www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html] --Doc aberdeen 17:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, this deletion lieks mudkips. Cloveoil 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A quick google, and a look here, will show that this "thesis" is itself a troll. bikeable (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't that just say that parts of the thesis have been plagiarised? Cloveoil 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That ends by stating that the "thesis" is a hoax (read the last e-mail). -- lucasbfr talk 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


2006ish

Comment
  • This page is only for discussion of possible reliable sources about the GNAA. Irrelevant comments may be removed.

Note

If anyone has any reliable sources to bring to light on this issue, please do so, this page is now sprotected. Open discussion is not a bad thing (it's a good thing), just try to avoid making this into a revert war page (that doesn't work) -- Tawker 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the GNAA page has been the topic of so much divisive discussion within Wikipedia circles—including a comment on the topic by Wales—is in and of itself notable and verifiable. Perhaps we need a article titled, ”2006_Deletion_of_GNAA_Article” Mbelisle 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If any note of that particular drama had been taken by independent sources, that'd be one thing, as it is, tempests in this particular teacup don't satisfy the objective definition of notable that we use here. Nor is it verifiable in independent sources. Sorry. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This reminds me of Elephant (wikipedia article). --- RockMFR 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment

While I haven't seen the original article to judge it by its content, I'd argue strongly that the GNAA deserves a entry at Wikipedia. When the Tony Pierce deletion came up and was posted on Digg by actor Wil Wheaton, he explained that the GNAA had harrassed him years ago. Other people who've spent time online are aware of the GNAA. However, I have strong evidence to suggest that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by members of the GNAA, making the ability to write an unbiased article about them nearly impossible. Still, this illustrates the need for their to be a source of information about the group.--LADude 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source of unique information. We're supposed to find it from other reliable sources, and then add it. -Amarkov blahedits 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What would make writing an unbiased article possible would be non-trivial coverage in multiple independent published sources - no more, no less. That means people writing articles about GNAA. I'm sure, when the History of Teh Internet is researched, written and published, GNAA will have a chapter all to themselves. At that point, we'll be able to document them. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, I did read the original article. The thing would be a disgrace to Uncyclopedia or even 4chan. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is too bad that the GNAA information has been deleted. It is an interesting, fun part of internet subculture. Maybe the people in charge of GNAA could be convinced not to troll just this one section of Wikipedia so that others could understand who they are and what they represent on the internet. I know that the first time I accidentally clicked on Last Measure I was pretty surprised by the "Gay Porn" voice. Who hasn't had a little fun with a GNAA tool?

But it wasn't deleted because they're stupid trolls. They are, but it was deleted because it wasn't verifiable. And that won't change if they decide not to be stupid trolls. -Amarkov blahedits 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking this back to DRV soon

I'm afraid that I am totally opposed to the way that this was deleted. I am going to take it back to DRV and start asking some fairly searching questions as to why this was deleted. We have had 18 deletion nominations, then it was speedily deleted. If that's not pushing things, I don't know what is. If it basically survived 18 nominations, then I don't see why it was removed in such a way. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree with bikeable; while it's not ideal that you weren't able to play more of a role in the article's AFD/DRV, the community has spoken and endorsed deletion. Ral315 (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This article did not "survive 18 nominations" - after the 9th noms 10-17 were all started as jokes or by trolls. Kimchi.sg 12:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    What's more, over the course of all those nominations, nobody ever came up with one example of non-trivial coverage in an independent source. It's not like they didn't have a chance. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    Regardless of the exact number it survived, you can't dispute the fact it did survive many attempts at deletion, which makes any suggestions even of speedy deleting it after this very dubious indeed. Mathmo Talk 09:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And the DRV will get speedy closed as invalid. There was a very good reason this article was deleted and that decision was endorsed at DRV. Wikipedia got trolled, you got trolled... let's just let it die and move on. --W.marsh 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There are verifiable sources that speak of Weebles. There were none in the article on the GNAA. Policy has spoken. -- Ec5618 08:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Deletion policy was violated because a couple of bullies wanted it. Don't sweep the armtwisting under the carpet. If you feel you are right, why the procedure was violated? Boslhevik Revolution. `'mikkanarxi 08:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • If it was actually an important part of Internet history, a reliable source besides Wikipedia would have cared enough to write about these guys. So far, no one has produced any evidence of that. Only Wikipedia got taken in by these guys... everyone else just banned them from their forums and moved on. --W.marsh 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, those who still oppose the deletion, are still welcome to find reliable sources for this article. It was deleted becuase it could not be verified. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahem yourselves. The problem is not with deletion, the problem is with voluntaristic violation of procedures. If the article is a fair game for deletion, why rush? Of cource wikipedia is not a democracy, but extraordinary intervention is warranted only in extraordinary cases. `'mikkanarxi 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the DRV of this articles deletion was to determine if the deletion was in violation. It was found not to be. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has stood for years without sources. Extraordinary. What's the rush indeed. -- Ec5618 20:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that original research has been sitting on the servers for a long time is not actually an argument against deleting it. I think WP:V and WP:NOR trump WP:INERTIA. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice - what about the assistant professor who blogged about them, was she not notable enough? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. Was the article based on nothing more than her blog? Not only are blogs not considered to be reliable sources, a single reference that supports the existence of the GNAA is hardly something we can base an article on. WP:NOR indeed. -- Ec5618 08:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
For the subject matter, it was notable. Various significant people have been saying that there was not a single verifiable fact, however there was. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Which fact was that? -- Ec5618 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I recall her blog said "These people told me they're a trolling group" and that's literally it. It was hardly a landmark empirical study of GNAA culture and social impact.. and yet that's your main reliable source... enough to verifiably report a sentence fragment worth of hearsay. --W.marsh 15:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess there was one verifiable fact - that GNAA claims to be a trolling group - from a source that might or might not be reliable. I guess we could have a one sentence article that says "GNAA is a trolling group, according to Jenny Q. Blogger." However, I think that would fall afoul of WP:NOT - we need a bit more verifiable information for an actual article - but it could be included as a verifiable fact in an article about Internet trolling. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu, please either produce a verifable fact that meets WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS or retract your statement. I am tired of people whining about an offensive article that was badly written, completely unsourced (unless you count that wreck of a website they have), and a pile of both original screed and rumor. There are place for that sort of article. Wikipedia isn't a place for it. The AfD was valid, and the DRV confirmed that with STRONG consensus. Taking it back to DRV is a clear, blatant, total violation of WP:POINT. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The article wasn't poorly written, in fact it was nominated for a featured article candidate if I remember correctly. (i may be remembering wrong) Skrewler 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Mod this post +5 Insightful. The Mirror of the Sea 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My meandering 2¢: I wonder how successful this deletion attempt would have been had TBSDY been around to mount his customary vigorous defense. In fact, suspicious types may be inclined to question the timing of the AfD. However, I agree that the article was correctly deleted, based on verifiability concerns. I also think it's worth noting that User:Zscout370, who, for a time, was collaborating with TBSDY in trying to get this article featured, ultimately endorsed its deletion. His comments are worth reading. Finally, the claim that the article was "badly written" is unfounded. TacoDeposit 01:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

this article does get quoted a lot

see:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/06/msg00178.html
and:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGay_Nigger_Association_of_America%22+OR+%22wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGNAA%22

Hardly a reason to undelete the article. And the fact that others refer to this unreferenced article is not a good thing. -- Ec5618 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if we decide to host original research on WP, I'm sure it'll get quoted a lot. Does that mean we should do it? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

When an unverified article gets quoted this is damaging to our credibility, we want to be quoted on things we can back up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost article in best traditions of propaganda

The signpost article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-11/GNAA boasted about successful deletion of GNAA page and the triumph of the wikipedia:Verifiability policy while cursorily mentioning a "significant minority" "voted to keep".

This phrasing has several twisits of the truth.

  • The article was deleted in violation of deletion policy. If the major concern was the major wikipedia policy, then what harm could have been done with keeping it two more days in AfD?
  • To increae the injury, the deletion review does not have the same broad participation, and in fact the endorsement was done not by broad wikipedia community, but by a "cabal" of active wikipedians, thus increasing the perception that wikipedia is ruled by a cabal of admins.
  • Finally, it failed to mention that a still another "significant minority" did not "vote to keep", but objected to this violation of policy. Quoting, "extraordinary means are justifiable only in extraordinary cases". This fact itself is two-pronged:
    • A casual dismissal of a significant criticism as unimportant
    • Implicit positing this "significant minority" as friends of trolls

I would like to invite the mentioned "significant minority" to write a reply in the Signpost here. Unfortunately my limited command of English prevents me from doing this single-handedly, but IMO the above may be a starting point, and I will certainly put my sig under the reply. `'mikkanarxi 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • So where are those reliable sources? Sheesh. Also where was the outrage the multiple times the AfD was closed early "in violation of deletion policy" - but as a keep? Would you be crusading still if it had been closed early as a keep this time? No one ever did any of the previous times it was closed early. --W.marsh 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a big difference between closing with a keep and closing with a delete, and as such that is why they are treated differently. Closing early with a keep is generally no where near as bad as a speedy delete that shouldn't have been done. Mathmo Talk 09:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I have to agree with W.marsh. This sounds very hypocritical. Also,please explain why an unsourced, original research laden article on a pack of non-notable hooligans should be retained on Wikipedia. Perhaps mikkanarxi is a member of GNAA? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • <Plonk> Talking to deaf. You both W.marsh & Elaragirl start from reading carefully what other people actually wrote. In this heated discussion about undeletion I did not "vote to keep". I objected the blatant violation of policies aggravated by misinterpretation of what other people say and the resulting character assassination, as exemplified by the very recent comment by Elaragirl. `'mikkanarxi 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Deletions like this certainly go smoother when opinions about whether GNAA consist of "non-notable hooligans", or whether people opposing the deletion are "perhaps members of GNAA", are left out of it. Such comments contribute to the perception that there's something going on other than simple, boring, enforcement of policy. There are people who think that something like Robert's Rules of Order should be in effect at Wikipedia, and when it turns out not to be the case, and that all procedural questions take a back seat to our core policies, it can upset people. The best solution is to explain, calmly and quietly, that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, and that procedural objections that aren't backed up with a verifiable article just won't get any traction. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Elaragirl's comment was over the top and I don't endorse it, but I read and replied to your argument, mikkalai, and you ignored every one of my points (while at the same time calling me deaf). Produce sources, it's been way more than the standard 5 days of an AfD and that hasn't happened yet, because as Jimbo says, they really don't exist. And also, if following the letter of process was so critical, don't you think the guy in charge would have cared, at all? The AfD process is stuff we've made up that he hasn't really signed off on, it's just a means to an end, contrary to popular belief. People acting like it's set in stone and ordained from on high really are incorrect. --W.marsh 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As the writer of that article, I'm curious where the bias ("propaganda") is in the article. The only argument that I saw you make was my use of the phrase "significant minority", which I think adequately explains that while a majority (i.e. over 50%) supported its deletion, it was not near a unanimous majority. Every other statement you've made suggests that I tried to subtly make the article support its deletion, without any suggestion of how I did this- the article does not take an opinion on the deletion. It reports on it, reports why Tawker deleted it, and why the deletion was endorsed at DRV. It doesn't agree or disagree with the decision. Ral315 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For starters, I suggest you ro read carefully the propaganda article (you may skip historical examples, though. I specifically write this disclaimer to prevent being accused by Godwin's Law by some smartass to kill the discussion). You reported it as you saw it, fine with me. But I say you didn't see some important moments, which turns the article into a piece of propaganda, inadvertently or not. `'mikkanarxi 00:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, it's funny... when someone accuses the writers of the Signpost of twisting facts and suggests that the people who voted on the deletion review were a cabal, no one finds that objectionable. Calling GNAA what it is, pointing out that a user is arguing that an AfD was improperly closed when he didn't bother to complain about the six or seven OTHER improperly closed AfD's, and suggesting that his rather harsh blast at the Signpost made him out to be somewhat partisan is termed "incivil". I'm really, really tired of incidents where civility is held higher than truth, logic, or even common sense, and when people decide that "Wikipedia isn't a bureocracy" means "We can throw all the rules out when they don't fit our needs, but when someone else tries to do something we don't like they all apply." I can't wait to hear the respone to Ral315, as I'm sure someone will say something like the oh-so-civil comment of "bullies" or decide to violate process themselves. I'm just glad it's gone, and that it will stay gone. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet another example of lack of a decent desire to understand what your opponenet says: I did not say that "wikipedia is cabal". I said ".,." <WTH, re-read yourselves>. Let me explain my logic why I wrote what I wrote:
  • unlike AfD, where huge crowds are seen, the circle of people who take part deletion revew is rather narrow
  • Unlike AfD which is announced on the disputed article, deletion review is announced only in "deletion review" page, and I suspect only hardcore deletionists and devoted admins peruse it regularly.
Conlcuding, "deletion review" looks like a cabal, but oly because other people are lazy to join this cabal. `'mikkanarxi 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
No one finds it objectionable? Do W.marsh and I have to call Mikkalai names to make it clear that we find his comments objectionable? Doesn't refuting them in detail get that idea across sufficiently? I suggested that ad hominem statements about Mikkalai are counterproductive because I believe that to be true, whether or not those statements are well-founded. I have this radical idea that one should be very polite to people who are completely wrong, because then they're much more likely to listen to you. It is a fact that calling spades spades increases drama, and drama is bad for Wikipedia. If you're very professional and boring and stick to dry facts, then drama doesn't happen. I'm sorry if you were offended, but please understand that I'm interested in reducing friction and getting things done, not in making sure that everyone gets called all the right names. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Please provide the refutal of the fact that deletion was done in violation of the deletion policy. `'mikkanarxi 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Depending on how you understand Wikipedia policy to work, that could be true. I don't see Wikipedia policy as working that way; I think of the "deletion policy" not as rules that have to be followed every time, but as a codification of what usually works. In this case, something else worked. We didn't need the rest of those five days to determine that there were still no sources. You can call that a "violation", if you find it satisfying to think that way, but I'll suggest you're chasing the wind by doing so. The only thing that will get any traction here is not an argument that procedure wasn't followed, but providing sources. Either you've got sources, or you're chasing the wind. Which is it? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
An interesting phrase "We didn't need the rest of" Quesiton: who are "we"? Also, once again, for the n-th time we are not talking about sources here. You again are sidetracking. But I will answer anyway. If you an me (BTW, yes, and me, not ambiguous "we") are sure that there is no sourcses, why the rush? What was so extraordinary here that warranted the bypass of a so simple rule "5 days"? (Note: hating trolls is nothing extraordinary. I myself am reverting the all day long.) `'mikkanarxi 00:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"What's the rush?" is a fair question. I personally wouldn't have closed it early, but I would seldom close anything early, if it were up to me every time. I don't hate trolls, that sounds like a lot of work. I'm not trying to sidetrack, though, I'm trying to explain why I don't care about process in this case. There was nothing new to find out that two more days would have gained us (meaning, humanity). Process is not policy; it's one way to get there, that works most of the time. Sometimes, shortcuts aren't such a bad idea, and that's ok. I'm not saying this was necessarily one of those cases, but I won't rule out the possibility that maybe it was. Since process is not an end in itself, referring to the lack of sources is completely fair. That's the only thing an AfD had any right to determine - did this article satisfy WP:V and WP:NOT? The answer was clearly no, so I don't really care whether we got there by due process or by flood. We shouldn't make a habit of it, but this was, by any account, an exceptional case, so I'm not particularly worried about it. Yes, waiting 5 days would probably have been better. Is that what you need to hear? It's true. Early closures are generally bad ideas - largely because there are people who will raise a stink, no matter how obvious the closure, if you close early. What to do about it? Accept it and move on - unless you've got a better suggestion? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That reply was a bit impatient. I'm sorry about that. I understand that you're objecting to the out-of-process nature of the AfD closure, and you're right about that. It was out of process. "Out of process" is not, it turns out, strictly against policy, which is weird. If one believes that Wikipedia should run according to due process, then that's something to talk about, but this is a terrible test case for that point of view. If one is not of the opinion that due process is necessary in all cases, then one can look at the spirit of the "rule" that was "violated". The purpose of allowing 5 days on AfD is so that people have a chance to come up with reasons not to delete, which in this case would have to take the form of sources. Did closing 2 days early deprive anybody of the chance to come up with sources? I'm pretty sure not, and the closing admin had every reason to be pretty sure not, because this had been up for deletion so many times before, and nobody ever came up with any sources. Is there any reason that this AfD needed the full 5 days, except for reassuring everyone that process was followed? If not, then what are we talking about? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I am repeating yet again: my firm opinion is that gaming policies (because wikipedia is no democracy) is justifiable only in extraordinary circumstances when it is clear that the process does not work. Otherwise accusations that wikipedia is cabal come true. (I bet someone with poor comprehension skills but with big mouth will quote this as me saying "wikipedia is cabal") You are giving me all evidence that the process was not broken here. In 3 days it would have been clear: either sources are here or not. Plain and simple. No fuss. Yet you decided to force the issue. My question: what was an extraordinary reason to violate a very simple policy? (Your argument that "nobody ever came up with any sources" speaks not for you but for me: since it is so, the issue would have been closed by due process). `'mikkanarxi 16:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? I decided to force the issue? Who's putting words in whose mouth now? I said I would not have closed it early. Now that it's been closed early, which was sub-optimal, we're dealing with "what to do now?" The only possible answers are that we undelete the article because it was sourced after all, or that we leave it buried. Or have you got an alternative? What it the practical upshot of your complaint? What needs to happen, according to you? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, "you" meand "You all" not "you personally". The practical upshot is to prevent this from happening in future. History shows that voluntarism is a slippery slope. `'mikkanarxi 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the "you all" is a tricky one - it's easy to fool ourselves into believing we're confronting an undifferentiated mass of opposition, rather than a bunch of unique individuals, no two of which share the same set of motivations and prejudices. Anyway, as to your goal, I would agree that it should be made clearer that controversial discussions are those for which following the letter of process is most important, precisely because we wish to avoid the appearance of impropriety, which tends to engender drama. What do you think about how we can get there from here? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that. I also understand that many of these people, based on many of their conversations in history and their attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with them, aren't interested in the slightest in engaging you in anything approaching a rational conversation. They aren't concerned about any facts that they don't endorse, and more than a few of them have ended up banned as a result. That doesn't change the fact that in the meantime they make completely ridiculous accusations with blanket-like targeting, and then act innocent when someone points out the difference in their words and their actions. I, for one, have my own radical idea: when someone stops demonstrating good faith to me, and stops demonstrating the ability to alter their opinion based on facts, then I stop wasting my time trying to engage in civil conversation with that person. Please excuse any incivility that may be present in my statement, but ... you're well intentioned and your motives are noble but I just haven't seen any cases where civility has won over in situations like this, and too many cases where people are so busy trying to be civil and avoid the NPA block that they don't stop otherwise outrageous behavior. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 06:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"I just haven't seen any cases where civility has won over in situations like this"
I have. That's why I do it. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Existence of this page

Speedy-deletion policy states that talk pages of non-articles may be deleted except where they were used for the obsolete practice of holding old VfDs, and the consensus generated at deletion reviews of Talk:Myg0t, Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica, Talk:Brian Peppers to name but three, has repeatedly endorsed the application of this policy to talk pages that host nothing but pointless bickering, groundless complaints and pure trolling over the deletion of patently unsuitable articles.

But the header at the top of this page states: "This page is only for discussion of possible reliable sources about the GNAA". Fair enough; I'm going to give it three days for someone to use it for that purpose, then, if no reliable sources are presented on it, I'm going to delete and salt it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. throws a party --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet another example of arm-twisting and reading the policy in a way that fits some superadmins. Specifically, the policy literally says: Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere. So don't you dare to touch it! (Now I will sit and take bets that the page will nevertheless be deleted despite a valid objection).
If you are Jimbo's buddy, just say it and delete it, and I will have to problem with this. But pretending you are following the rules look like hypocricy to me. `'mikkanarxi 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is my list of unanswered objections.

  • The article was deleted in violation of the deletion process, namely 5 day grace period
  • Character assassination happens here by presenting me
    • a as a defender of trolls
    • as a proponent of the idea that "wikipedia is cabal"
  • Signpost misrepresented the objections to the deletion process, making it to look like a glorious victory over trolls while failing to mention that this victory was occurred only by violation of policies, with the major nail in the coffin hammered by Jimbo himsef (Which is fine with me. I respect the idea that he owns the project).
  • Trailing a red herring with bloated discussions of my incivility instead of answering my objections.
  • Accusing me why I didn't object other "iumproperly deleted cases" is plain ridiculous. I am not a superactive hyperadmin who pokes his nose in every corner of discussion or polices each and every talk page what and how people say there. 95% of my time I edit wikipedia and quite happy with this. Sometimes I get pissed off, but quickly get my ass kicked by a coordinated assault of professional admins whose contibution history is 70% talk and policy pages and who got a knack to quickly nail people for their poor upbreeding (bad enlish, bad table manners). `'mikkanarxi 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right on target with that assessment. I wish you the best of luck. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
mikkanarxi, do you have the sources that everyone is looking for? If not, there is no reason to continue this discussion. As mentioned at the top, "This page is only for discussion of possible reliable sources about the GNAA. Irrelevant comments may be removed." There is no way this article will be recreated without sources. Sources, damnit. -- Ec5618 08:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Unless mikkanarxi has some sources to present, this is pointless. Furthermore, the fact that you by your own admission don't understand the policy really well underscores the fact that your objections aren't actionable. But since you asked..

your unanswered questions will be answered:

    • That's just rediculous, mikkalai. You've never explained why having the AfD run 5 days instead of 2 or 3 would have produced the sources, nor have you explained why you won't object now to the many speedy keeps of this article "in violation of policy" but only care about the one delete. At any rate, it's disturbing that you complain about "character assassination" and then in the same comment you rush to make a plainly untrue and mean-spirited claim about my character. Well over 50% of my edits are to actual articles, I am not a professional administrator, and never will be. You really aren't helping discourse here by playing the victim, acting just as badly as those who wrong you, and most importantly by continually ignoring the one real issue here: reliable sources. --W.marsh 15:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again: you stubbornness in dragging "sources" into discussion is amazing. I am repeating for nth time: sources are irrelevant, violation of policy without extraordinary reason is relevant. `'mikkanarxi 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a position one might take, but I don't think most Wikipedians agree that "extraordinary reason" is necessary to shortcut process. Many of us don't consider process all that important. The reason we keep bringing up sources is that, if there are no sources, then you're making a purely procedural point, and those tend not to get any traction here. I agree that it would have been better to run a full 5 days, but now that it was closed early, where do we go? Backwards or forwards? (By the way, I don't consider you evil, nor an enemy of Wikipedia, nor a lover of trolls. You strike me as someone who thinks process is really important in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. You also strike me as someone who's might come across so combatively as to undermine your own point. I doubt that's your intention, but I don't blame you for an honest mistake.) -GTBacchus(talk) 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you understand that WP:V is a much more important policy than AfD policy? The foundation is behind WP:V, I'm not even sure Jimbo and Brad know much more about AfD policy than that it stands for "articles for deletion" (I recall Jimbo asking what happens next after an article was nominated for deletion, some months ago). I think your policy priorities are extremely confused here. --W.marsh 18:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Why victim? I don't care about all your bullshitting about me; I am not to run for any political offices. I am only presenting evidence of your persistend sifdetracking the issue by making me evil enemy of wikipedia and lover of trolls. `'mikkanarxi 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"making me evil enemy of wikipedia and lover of trolls"? What does that even mean? I said none absolutely of that. You seem very confused and because of that this conversation is going nowhere. --W.marsh 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
In means an answer to your accusation of me playing victim. In this talk page I was persistently misquoted to make me appear defending the existence of the GNAA article and stating that "wikipedia is cabal". It seems I have a basic disagreement with you all. I am saying "circumventing of policies is justifiable only in extraordinary cases" . And I am also saying that this particular case there was nothing extraordinary: the page was bound to be deleted in 3 days in due course. And I am aslo saying that this way of action contributes to the perception that wikipedia is run by a cabal. And I am also saying that you all are ignoring my direction of discussing, therefore the conversation is going nowhere. `'mikkanarxi 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Mikkalai, it's true that you're not, it turns out, defending the GNAA article or the GNAA, but simply stating your deeply-held view about doing things out of process, and how that's harmful. This view is a minority one, but I think it's a valid Wikiphilosophy. I've been recognizing for a while now that you're saying that, so why not reply to my question above, about what concrete, specific, practical suggestions you have for insuring that, in the future, controversial AfDs are less likely to be closed early and generate early-closure drama? Can we get past the misunderstandings, and talk about the substantive issue at hand? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"what concrete, specific, practical suggestions you have for insuring that, in the future, controversial AfDs are less likely to be closed early and generate early-closure drama?" The answer to this question should be clear, do not close early controversial AfDs. If it is so clear this article shouldn't exist there would have been no harm at all in it remaining open for a tiny amount of time. I never even ever got a single chance to comment on the AfD simply because of how early it closed. Mathmo Talk 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted in violation of the deletion process, namely 5 day grace period : The article had 6 improperly closed AfD's for keep. The closing admin made an WP:IAR decision to close the AfD, since the article blatantly violated Wikipedia policies. The fact that it was closed improperly was taken to Deletion Review, where the DECISION WAS UPHELD BY CONSENSUS. That's the way the things work.

Character assassination happens here by presenting me Oh, REALLY? I have diffs. Please explain: a as a defender of trolls : Um...GNAA is a trolling organization, you know that, right? as a proponent of the idea that "wikipedia is cabal - You said it, not me, and you even suggested it here by saying only deletionists visited DRV.

Once again, I did not say what you say I said. This appaling inablility to read plain English makes me sick. I am no longer talking to you. `'mikkanarxi 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Reading comprehension surrenders. You are claming you didn't say that a "cabal" of editors was responsible, or that only "hardcore deletionists" would frequent DRV? You, sir, are being disingenious. I am finished with discussion as it seems that logic is anathema to your style of argument. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
<Plonk> here. Does anyone else think in this way? I will be happy to explain to someone else in detail what's wrong with Elaragirl. `'mikkanarxi 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Pot. Kettle. Black. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I admit I wouldn't hire either of you as a diplomat. Mikkalai, I agree that you didn't make any accusations of cabalism. Can you tell me what the practical upshot is of your complaint? What concrete, constructive suggestion have you got for dealing with this particular case where process was bypassed? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost misrepresented the objections to the deletion process, making it to look like a glorious victory over trolls while failing to mention that this victory was occurred only by violation of policies, with the major nail in the coffin hammered by Jimbo himsef (Which is fine with me. I respect the idea that he owns the project) That's your OPINION. To me, the Signpost was not bothering to record the non-policy based objections of a bunch of people who didn't care that the sources weren't appropiate.

Trailing a red herring with bloated discussions of my incivility instead of answering my objections. - There's no red herring here. You are making a case for an improper closure that's already been discussed and endorsed by consensus. YOU are making a red herring with your rather pointy demands that everyone agree with you.

Accusing me why I didn't object other "iumproperly deleted cases" is plain ridiculous. - I'm sorry but if you suggest that an improperly closed AfD is wrong, then you should also object to all the previous improperly closed AfD's. To support something only when it benefits you is hypocracy in my books. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, practically everything I ever do makes me a hypocrite then. I mean, every time I edit an article, why didn't I edit all of the others in need of editing? Everytime I see something wrong and try to fix it, why am I not fixing everything that's wrong? Every time I nominate an article for deletion, why didn't I nominate all other unsourced articles? And... how exactly does being a stickler for due process "benefit" Mikkalai? This is not a productive train of thought. The only questions being brought up here are: "Is there a reason to keep the GNAA article?", and "Is it a good idea to close AfDs early, when the conclusion is obvious?" Everything else is a distraction. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with GTBacchus, the second I read what Elaragirl said it set alarm bells of in my head. It is impossible to do everything at once, and to even try to do that makes things worse. As such the primary focus I've got with respect to this article is with regards to it's speedy deletion that was improperly done (with a secondary minor consideration as well for this article existence). Mathmo Talk 10:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't take what I'm saying out of context. I am not talking about the entire encyclopedia. I am talking about AfD's closed in one day, or in two minutes. The uproar over "unproperly closed AfD" cannot strike me as anything but a useless discussion, since it's pretty clear the only reason there's an uproar is that the article was deleted. No one is saying that someone should fix everything is that is wrong, but what I am saying is that it is rather ironic to complain that an AfD is improper when DRV supported it and it has a history of improperly closed AfD's. What you two have to say sets off alarm bells in my head: The only train of thought that should be here is not "is there a reason to keep the GNAA article" or "is it a good idea to close AfDs early", since the former was discussed at DRV and the latter is properly discussed at Deletion Policy. The only train of thought here should be if there are any sources that validate the recreation of an article. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC Discussion

Just for reference:

This was a FAC! If this article is to remain deleted, precedence should be followed throughout Wikipedia, articles without secondary sources should be deleted. The very nature of GNAA's subject matter most likely will not have secondary sources. Skrewler 09:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - every article without secondary sources should either be better sourced or, if that's not possible, deleted. They can't all be done at once, though, so please give us some time for that. Please feel free to help, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that someone submitted it as a FAC doesn't make it a FEATURED ARTICLE. A canidate can be anything. I could propose Cleveland steamer as a FAC. That has nothing to do with the fact that it didn't follow WP:RS and WP:V or even WP:OR. I read the article, several times, and I never came away with any opinion except the fact that it had been kept, out of process, for too many times. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
We've had a few things with GA status deleted, so simply being a FAC is no protection. -Amarkov blahedits 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"The very nature of GNAA's subject matter": This brings me to a question: it seems that wikipedia does not have articles about notable internet trolls. (see Category:Internet trolling) Why is it so? Trolling is a big topic, but no particular trolls ever discussed in the open? Look ridiculous to me. `'mikkanarxi 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry bad eyes. American Nihilist Underground Society is here. Does anyone want to delete it (or at least trim external links from invalid sources)? By the way, a brief look leaves me with an impression taht the whole Internet Culture and subcategories set of articles is quite poorly sourced. And don't tell me "why you didn't fix it, then?" Internet culture is not my area of knowledge or pretended knowledge. `'mikkanarxi 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, gee whiz golly, mister, you've just had a blinding flash of the obvious. And the difference between GNAA and the ANUS is that both are packs of hooligans, but at least the latter has sources proving notability. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Please care to notice the part "or at least trim external links from invalid sources" in my text. `'mikkanarxi 17:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Mikkalai, please refrain from incivil discourse such as "a message to editors with normally working brains" as if to imply that Elaragirl hasn't got one of those. If she's rude to you, and then you're rude back, then you're both the same. At this point, I can barely tell the two of you apart. It makes discussion difficult, so as you care about ever getting anything done, I implore that you respond to incivility with greater civility. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Stricken out. I don't care about their rudeness. The issue is that their brain works in a very specific way, which as known as "misquoting", "taking things out of context" and what else. `'mikkanarxi 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've certainly mistaken others' words in the past. I hope that doesn't mean my brain works in "a very specific way, which is known as misquoting". Anyway, thanks for editing your comment; I appreciate that. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between "being mistaken in the past" and "systematically doing". The latter calls for a conclusion about a certain way of thinking. `'mikkanarxi 18:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Drawing conclusions like that is a good idea, if your wish is to never accomplish anything but a feeling of having been right, and not heard. I've seen Elaragirl communicate perfectly competently, and I strongly suggest that you two have simply gotten off on the wrong foot. She's an entirely reasonable person, as are you, Mikkalai. If I could convince the two of you of that, then we'd be getting somewhere. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is moot. If Mikkanarxi wants to protest this decision he should take it to Admin Noticeboard, with the specifics of his complaint. So far, all I've managed to see is what follows:
  1. He believes the article was improperly closed at AfD. He feels any earlier improper closures are irrelevant.
  2. He believes that the specific vehicle for challenging an improperly closed AfD, which is DRV, was either not appropiate to discuss the overturn or somehow not fair because, by his own words "deletion review is announced only in "deletion review" page, and I suspect only hardcore deletionists and devoted admins peruse it regularly", thus somehow not allowing others to find out about it.
  3. He feels the Signpost article was biased in it's coverage.
  4. He feels that the AfD should not have been closed early because "gameing policies (because wikipedia is no democracy) is justifiable only in extraordinary circumstances when it is clear that the process does not work. Otherwise accusations that wikipedia is cabal come true". By this, I am assuming he means that the closer of the AfD gamed the system by closing it early, and that doing such will lead to interpretations that Wikipedia is run by cabals.
  5. He feels that discussing the reasons why the AfD was closed early is not relevant.
  6. He feels that "the whole Internet Culture and subcategories set of articles is quite poorly sourced."

If any of these understandings are incorrect, please correct them.

My response would be:

  1. The AfD was closed early. The only place to discuss that is DRV. The reason it was closed early was that other AfD's had been closed early, violating process, and the closing admin felt that leaving this one open would only allow others to game the system to keep the article. The earlier AfD closures are relevant.
  2. DRV is the only vehicle for overturning an improper AfD. The fact that he didn't know about it or wasn't familar with it does not mean others aren't aware of it. I assure you, hardcore inclusionists and those with philosophical objections to article deletion are quite familiar with the place. The Deletion Review is discussed in the deletion guidelines, and the sidebars of the deletion pages. Considering the numbers of people who have gotten things overturned at DRV I can't call his statement about it being inaccessible a credible argument.
  3. The signpost reporter reported what he saw fit to write. If I'm not mistaken, the article was fixed. What is the point of continuing to go over it? More to the point, a signfigant number of people opposed to deletion weren't using any policy or guideline to back up their keeps, and AfD is not a vote, so talking about the number of people who were relying on WP:ILIKEIT isn't really newsworthy. But that is an opinion.
  4. People are going to accuse Wikipedia of cabalism anyway. No one with any sense bothers to listen to them because such accusations are always based on three things: disagreing with consensus, disagreing with policy on NPOV/Verifiability/Original Research, and personal opinon on how something was handled. But more to the point, even if the closure was seen to be wrong, it was further reviewed at DRV and endorsed. This is the procedure, and when you throw procedure out because it seems wrong to a few people then the point of even trying to have netural policy is moot.
  5. Discussing the facts about why some people have no problem with the article being closed early is relevant. If this had been a quality article that people supported , or if it had been an article people hated but that had solid sourcing (like , unfortunately, Cleveland Steamer does), then the article would never have been deleted. Instead we had an article that was allowed to survive a bunch of improperly closed AfD's due to a few people voting on it.
  6. dryly There's a reason most internet culture articles are poorly sourced. A lot of that stuff fades out as quick as it comes along. Too much of it doesn't really belong on a general usage encyclopedia in my opinion.

I'm done with this conversation because, thankfully, since no one can find any reliable sources for this article, and since no one can provide any reasons based in policy why it should be kept, the talk page will get deleted soon , and I'm tired of trying to convince someone who isn't going to listen that their arguments don't make a lot of sense. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The page will not be deleted soon, unless yet another strongarm super-admin will violate a policy again. `'mikkanarxi 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You have some interesting ideas about policy. Speedy deletion policy says that talk pages of deleted articles may be deleted, unless they're being used for the obsolete practice of holding old VfDs. Sometimes they're kept because work is being done there towards creating a better-sourced article. This page is currently being used, not to talk about finding sources, but for an abstract discussion about how we can better close controversial AfDs in the future. Why does this particular page need to exist for that? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The policy says literally ...Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere. I don't need exegesis to read this simple sentence. This is a discussion of deletion, isn't it? And the talk is not "how to..." (this was only my suggestion), but about admitting that the rules were twisted in this case and the admin was not even symbolically fingerwaved. In a similar situation, when I was reverting a vicious troll operating from open proxies, I was twice blocked for 3RR with "nyanyanya assume good faith" bullshit, with no minimal apologies, not to say praise for valiant battle with trolls.
Anyway, since I am tired preaching to deaf here, go ahead and delete it. If in the future there will be a need to refer to this page, I know what to undelete. `'mikkanarxi 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Preaching to the deaf, eh? Funny you should say that, just when you'd convinced me that I should say something to the deleting admin. What does it take to convince you that I'm listening? Do I have to agree with every word you say, or else I'm deaf? As far as "admitting that rules were violated" - I don't even think that way. It's not about "rules" here, as far as I can tell. I'll agree that process was bypassed, which policy allows for, but that it probably would have been better to stick to the letter of the process in this case, but that's different from claiming "rules were violated", which sounds so legalistic. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
there is a good article for phrases like "process was bypassed": "euphemism". Like, "reinterpret the law" for "break the law" or "twist the law". And you too, Brutus...er.... Bacchus... I have no problem with bypassing. If you claim you are not deaf, please re-read some boldfaced texts in this page. In goog old times there was a game "wikihunt" in wikipedia. So here is my 2-point question for you: which $20 word starting with "e" and ending with "y" was repeated 3 times in phrases emphacized by me in talk pages of articles about trolls? `'mikkanarxi 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What's amazing is mikkalai's insistance that we follow AfD policy (but not DRV policy) and utter indifference towards or incomprehension of WP:V policy, which is much more important. He can't really explain why we should follow a minor policy and ignore a major one... because there is not explanation aside from stubbornness or policy incomprehension. Since he apparently will not acknowledge this, I've lost all patience with going back and forth on this issue. --W.marsh 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
A last-minute confirmation of "preaching to the deaf": where the heck you see that I insist on ignoring the WP:V? All what I was saying is that it could have safely and painlessly been enforced after waiting a couple more days. `'mikkanarxi 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Or more likely someone would have closed it as a speedy keep before day 5, ignoring WP:V and precious AfD policy. Would you still be here protesting had that happened? I agree that it would be nice if people wouldn't make speedy deletes or keeps in truly controversial situations, but that's just not how it works on either side of the aisle. Anyway, what exactly do you want to happen here, the article be undeleted on a technicality? --W.marsh 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he's asked for the article to be undeleted. I made that mistake at first too, figuring he was defending it and not just due process. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If I wanted it undeleted I have enough common sense to try and fing reliable sources first, and put it in place without much bickering. `'mikkanarxi 23:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
So his entire point is that it would be nice if we could have let this AfD run the full 5 days without worrying the other side would make a sneak attack first? I don't dispute that. But WP:V was enforced here and that's what really matters. --W.marsh 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. What sneak attack? Of sneaking in a reliable source? Like, hacking into the NYT website posting an editorial about themselves and quoting it in wikipedia? This would absolutely 100% do us in :-))) `'mikkanarxi 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually "speedy keep" can be overturned in a sec, because you cannot do speedy speedy without a snowball rolling. And I've seen it routinely done here, since it does not require the fuss of undeletion. `'mikkanarxi 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, here you go, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination). It worked just fine, didn't it? `'mikkanarxi 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And what if the AfD itself had been deleted? That has happened to previous GNAA AfDs closed as speedy keeps. I just don't see what that point is to arguing anymore... the article's gone. Anyway the solution to a speedy close you disagree with really isn't to reverse it out of process, it's to DRV it, and that's what happened here. It was a valid DRV. --W.marsh 00:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

2010-

Redirect

Removing this from articlehistory to remove error, Redircts are not an ah event.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Recreation

Page was recreated as a result of the March 16th 2011 DRV. LiteralKa (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

need for better, real citations that meet WP:RS and lead that meets WP:LEAD and WP:JARGON

Per the section heading, the article sucks. The "citations" suck. The tags need to remain until the suckiness has been addressed. Active Banana (bananaphone 01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which citations "suck" and why they cannot be used? And when you tagged the article for cleanup, what cleanup did you want exactly? Quigley (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
You're not being very helpful here by randomly removing content that is cited by WP:V and WP:RS compliant sources and refusing to provide any sort of reason. The deletion review established that the sources are acceptable. LiteralKa (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
the content being removed from here (for example the origin of the group's name) is cited in references. What objections do you have over the sources (or content in dispute)? Please note, a subjective "these citations suck" is not helpful. riffic (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
for number one when have press releases, hosted on wiki sites, ever been considered anything close to a good source? Active Banana (bananaphone 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Self published sources are actually fine in some non-controversial circumstances: WP:SELFPUB. It will be most helpful if you avoid sweeping statements like "the article sucks", that seldom leads to effective collaboration. You might instead point out which specific claims in the article need better sourcing/misrepresent the sources in question. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Non controversial does NOT apply to this article. Active Banana (bananaphone 04:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
"Non controversial" was my phrase, it isn't one of the 5 qualifiers in the policy guideline. Your comment about a possible contradiction between a claim in the lead and a book source was a step in the right direction (I haven't checked out the source yet). I hope you can continue supplying specific instances of the article making claims unsupported by references. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
then we have this normally good source, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/meet-one-of-the-hackers-who-exposed-the-ipad-security-leak/57969/ but the thing this sources is a potential connection between the subject of the article and another group. Active Banana (bananaphone 04:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
then we have the lead that keeps being reinstated claiming the group is a "tight knit group" and yet our reliable source number 8 flatly contradicts that claim " It's not clear a defined group ever existed as GNAA. Supposed GNAA "members" were simply troublemakers online who unified under a common moniker in an effort to disrupt Wikipedia for amusement" Active Banana (bananaphone 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a bit odd to say, given the clear contradiction given in numerous citations. LiteralKa (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I stand by my "this article sucks" Active Banana (bananaphone 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
And I stand by the fact that you have yet to even come close to proving it. LiteralKa (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
And your statement about Deletion review validating the sources is bull pucky. from the closer: " One legitimate concern is that while many sources show some semblance of notability, a lot are unreliable" Active Banana (bananaphone 04:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Boing boing calls them "tightly-knit". riffic (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
you are saying that we trust "ben" on boing boing to give us content for the lead? nice. Active Banana (bananaphone 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, the origin of the name of the group IS cited in a reliable source, don't remove that from the lede. riffic (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That article also says, "There is really no way to get rid of the GNAA". I wish some of our deletionist friends would read that. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
one would hope that our inclusionist friends would spend some more time actually providing valid sources and improving the encyclopedic content of articles and not just spamming "its notable, deletionsist suck". Active Banana (bananaphone 04:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
We have. notice, the references section is longer than the article body. riffic (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I never said that you suck, just that you should provide more specific criticisms about the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I find it amusing that you call debate "spamming", when you yourself are doing it. Doesn't that make you a spammer? LiteralKa (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is the section relating to usage of press-releases (Self-published sources) in an article:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
We have "reasonable doubt about its authenticity" - the site is a wiki, it contains statements like "President weev shampooed his neckbeard, put on a greasy Linux t-shirt and left the warm glow of his spamcave" and what is it half of the content our article is based on the primary source? Active Banana (bananaphone 04:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think these are actually editable by the public, only internally. riffic (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I can confirm this. LiteralKa (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
You attempted to remove the bit that explained the obviously facetious tone. LiteralKa (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, is there any reasonable doubt that weev has shampooed his neckbeard? I think not. And to answer your question, "what is it half of the content our article is based on the primary source?", the answer is no. Much more than half of the article is based on 3rd party sources. The 9 primary sources accompany some of the 32 non-primary sources to provide the view of the GNAA about the events being covered or to provide details about how the group explains its hierarchy or history. I see one citation tag on the article now, that's not exactly a crisis though. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review!

You guys if you want to get this article to GA spot, you gotta have to take some things into account:

  1. Expand the lead a little bit. It has to be at least two paragraphs (maybe split the one existing into two?)
  2. The article is still a bit short, and kinda depends on primary sources for some things, are there more sources on the GNAA? That'd be cool.
  3. Thirdly, and finally, I'm not reviewing this GA nomination, however I wanted to pointed these things to help you make it better. I'm not any good at English orthography or grammar so I'm skipping that side :P

Cheers, Diego Grez (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions, I started expanding the lead a bit. I think we can flesh this article out a bit more. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America#See also

Hi. I propose that the addition of Anonymous (Group) to the "See also" section (which was added over a month ago in this edit) be restored. Per WP:See also a brief annotation might be added to clarify the difference between the two articles if that is desired. Killiondude (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You should also provide a reason... LiteralKa (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I support the proposal. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't, as the groups have little in common, and even less interaction occurs between the groups. LiteralKa (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with LiteralKa. Anonymous is more of a moniker for any group (not usual the same group each time) with the same general (but not precise) overarching set of principles, goals, and methodology. Anonymous is mostly about retaliation ("payback" against cat-killing, inaccessibility, and censorship), not trolling. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/GA1

Corporation

I think we should rename the website link to "GNAA Website" because as it stands it might give someone the impression that the GNAA is a state registered legal entity. Peter.C • talk • contribs 21:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument you present there. However, I doubt that anyone with a grain of sense will think that the Gay Nigger Association of America is a state registered legal entity. LiteralKa (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Funny how misleading those grains can be. In many states, its actually not that hard to file the paperwork necessary to do exactly that. I wager that it takes more effort to get recognized by a source Wikipedia will recognize as valid for a controversial topic, than it does to file incorporation papers in most states... and if this isn't true, then the paperwork is too difficult in the state in question. Zaphraud (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Remember, we're talking about what people would think, not the reality of the bureaucracy. LiteralKa (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
As the GNAA is not legally a corporation it should not be referred to as one inside the groups article. Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It isn't. The website is literally called the "GNAA Corporate Website." (Also, didn't you already say that?) LiteralKa (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm restating the question originally posted. Also, when going to the website and looking at the page source the <title> is "GNAA – Gay Nigger Association of America". If anything it should be renamed to that. Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that you've [ http://www. gnaa .eu/wiki/pr/2010-03-14-gnaa-website done your research ]. LiteralKa (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

GNAA as a citation for information about itself

As a troll organization, it is unreasonable to expect any information on the GNAA website to be accurate, even information about itself. I personally, for instance, seriously doubt that the GNAA was founded on September 11th. Therefore, this article should be only based on information from reputable third party sources, and this edit should be undone. Prodego talk 01:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:ABOUTSELF:
  • the material is not unduly self-serving;
    • Check.
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
    • Check.
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
    • Check.
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
    • The first press release was on September 11th. Please present a reasonable doubt.
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.
    • This has been done to death. Check.

LiteralKa (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The reasonable doubt is that the GNAA makes everything up. And if you troll here, you will be blocked. Prodego talk 02:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide evidence that GNAA "makes everything up"? (It shouldn't be that hard to prove if this is indeed the case.) I would also appreciate it if you do not threaten legitimate Wikipedia contributors such as myself in the future. LiteralKa (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
http://www. gnaa .eu/wiki/pr/2011-06-11-gnaa-welcome is a simple example. Additionally I am somewhat concerned that you should avoid editing this article because of your conflict of interest in the subject, due to your membership in the GNAA. Prodego talk 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
That's your example of "making everything up?" Merely citing a press release and claiming that all of it to be false? (Also, I would suggest brushing up on the relevant guideline before throwing accusations around. Again, your behavior towards users as an admin is rather disturbing...) By your logic, Americans should avoid editing all Wikipedia articles about controversial America-related issues. A bit harsh, innit? LiteralKa (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we look at how the gnaa .eu is being used? It's only being used to cite a date, a group leader, and a claim about a hoax supported by the claim itself and other references. This isn't harmful information. Is there any reason to believe that these particular facts are false? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That information cannot remotely be expected to be true. LiteralKa here can simply change the website to contain any bit of information he wishes, and then cite it. And given how the GNAA operates, that isn't so far fetched to imagine. In fact, I would be willing to bet quite large sums of money that the GNAA was not "founded" on Sept 11. Prodego talk 02:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that good faith has been assumed. The GNAA was, in fact, founded on 9/11. It is not any stretch of the imagination to believe that the GNAA was founded on 9/11, considering its sense of humor. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you act like the Administrator you are, and assume good faith. LiteralKa (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
adequacy.org ended on September 11, 2002, so 9/11 isn't an unusual choice of date for humorous groups. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Given the recent GA review failure of this article, I am going to ask has LiteralKa remained neutral in their editing of this article? If not then I support the suggestion that he recuse himself from editing it. And I am going to side with Prodego here in that this article needs a LOT better sourcing than it has now.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Due to "innocent until proven guilty," you should provide evidence of guilt instead of asking us for evidence of innocence. WP:AGF. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain why a failed GA review has anything to do with my being neutral? LiteralKa (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The article needs better sourcing, yes, but you are allowed to use a small amount of primary sources from the subject for certain basic information, such as the founding of the site. We have no reason to believe that the information is false other than that it's a "trolling website". Which is certainly not reason enough. SilverserenC 22:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well as the article says, they "trolled several prominent websites and Internet commentators, including members of blogging culture, Slashdot, Wikipedia, and CNN." So I'm sure they would never modify their website to troll a prominent website, such as Wikipedia. I'm sure they would never spam or troll our IRC channels, vandalize pages, or harass users. All of which I'm sure I have never witnessed. I am sure they would never extend that to adding false or misleading content to Wikipedia. Prodego talk 22:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • But what exactly is the issue if they're saying they have a different founding date? It seems a bit extreme and pointless for them to change it, but if they did, so what? Their founding date will be wrong then, but sourced properly. There's nothing we can do about that and it really isn't a big deal. SilverserenC 01:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If the goal is to write an encyclopedia, factual accuracy is paramount. The threshold for inclusion may be verifiability, not truth, but there are plenty of verifiable falsehoods out there. Let's not include suspect facts. Prodego talk 01:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • But every other source that would have the date is going to quote the date that the GNAA have on their website anyways. So there isn't going to be a way to get a proper date. Of course, this is all hypothetical as it is, because we have no real reason for believing the founding date is wrong on the GNAA website. It is a perfectly suitable source for basic facts about itself until we have reason to believe that it is making false facts. SilverserenC 01:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I do have reasonable doubt in that the website was registered in June 2006. Do we have any evidence of the existence of the organization before then other than on that website itself? Dmcq (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I see that the Scotsman has a reference to their website from 2005. The date first registered mustn't mean what I thought it did. Dmcq (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Did everyone forget about "gnaa.us"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, that and the fact that the GNAA could (God forbid we use common sense) be older than the website. Oh, and the article itself is older than `gnaa .eu', if you had done your research, that would have answered a few questions. LiteralKa (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

For those who aren't already aware, a possible conflict of interest has been alleged regarding this article. I've added the {{COI}} template to alert readers to this. Discussion of the issues involved can be found at WP:ANI#GNAA COI, OWNing and votestacking. Robofish (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, two contributors to the article, Murdox and LiteralKa, are the President and 'Head of Wikipedia Editing' for the organisation, respectively. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Since when am I the "Head of Wikipedia Editing"? Do I get a pay raise? LiteralKa (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#GNAA_COI.2C_OWNing_and_votestacking – Now that the issue has been resolved, should the COI tag be removed from article? Are there any loose ends left to settle? Is the article currently written in the neutral POV? If not, what should be done to clean up the article? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm still a little concerned that GNAA members edit the article at all, but the net effect is now mostly positive, so no harm done. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

GNAA website

It seems to be down and has been like that for a while. --♣thayora♣ 20:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's back. Mythpage88 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

drive-by tagging

hi. i saw someone tagged this article as having multiple issues. however, since the issues raised by the tag have either been addressed above, or were not made clear by the tagger, i have removed it. if the tagger wishes to re-tag this article, please feel free to discuss your issues here first. kthx -badmachine 08:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue

I was going to add a reference to the GNAA™'s FAQ page in which they state that they do not promote racism or homophobia (which is unsourced in the article), however the url appears to be in some sort of spam filter. What can be done? -badmachine 00:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's probably in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Can you post the link here with "dot" instead of the punctuation or something? - Alison ❤ 01:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www dot gnaa dot eu/wiki/faq -badmachine 06:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation 7

A claim is made that "On Wikipedia, members of the group created a page about themselves, while adhering to every rule of Wikipedia, essentially using the system against itself." However, this is impossible per WP:COI, and therefore, this claim should be removed as an unverifiable statement.--Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 00:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This was in one of the references, almost verbatim. riffic (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
That's what the citation says and we have to follow it unless we can find an equally reliable counter source. Of course, then we would list both sides of the argument. Verifiability, not truth, remember? SilverserenC 01:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
a couple users keep trying to pull this statement. Please note this citation comes from a book written by Andrew Lih, specifically The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia. riffic (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Are we really suggesting that we use an internal policy to contradict a printed statement in a citation? Mythpage88 (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review quickfail

I was looking through the WP:GANs for something to review and saw this. I have no subject matter expertise, and I have to say I was pretty shocked by the name (I suppose that's the point) so I'm not going to pretend to be objective and do a thorough formal review, but if I were to do one, I would be inclined to fail the article on breadth of coverage and neutrality concerns. The pertinent questions I would want answered on a topic like this are:

  1. Who is in this group? Pseudonyms, ages and occupations, and/or whatever.
We don't have that level of detail for the Patriotic Nigra article, and frankly I don't see why we need it here. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. How many of them are there?
How many members of Anonymous are there? Mythpage88 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. Are the members really gay and of African decent, or is that just a ruse?
  2. What are their motivations?
  3. What are their goals?
I can add both of these to the article. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. What are outsiders' perspectives on this group? In particular:
    1. What do gay people and Africans think of the name?
    2. What do Wikipedian/Wikimedian community/Foundation officials think of their activities?
    3. What do security authorities think of them? Are they considered black, gray, or white hats? Uniformly?
    4. What do law enforcement authorities think of them? Do opinions differ?
I think that all of these "outsider views" aren't necessary in the article, but would be nice to have. It's a trivial issue as to what blacks and gays think about it. It's obviously an intentionally offensive name. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If this kind of coverage isn't available in reliable sources, then GA is not a good goal for this article. Maybe you can try to convince someone in the mainstream or avant garde tech news media to interview the leaders? Controversy sells page views, but doesn't always keep advertisers around, so who knows what would happen.

Regarding the reliability of sources, which appeared to be the main issue in the last GA review, I note that everything in the infobox except the affiliation is cited to self-published sources. That's completely unacceptable. In particular: 

Purpose/focus  "being GAY NIGGERS"[2]
Membership     "The only requirement for membership is a dedication
                to the struggle of gays and niggers everywhere."[2]

Anything that inflammatory supported by self-published sources -- that's just more trolling, isn't it? The self published sources and anything even vaguely controversial supported by them need to go, sooner rather than later. —Cupco 09:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that a full GA review is completely impossible for this article, because all of the /GAn sub-article page names are fully protected from creation (e.g. try to create /GA2) so I'm going to go ahead and quick-fail it on neutrality concerns per WP:GACR#Quickfails #2 (using self-published sources for inflammatory passages promoting the group's trolling activities is WP:COI and therefore obviously non-neutral) in order to not waste the time of anyone who might try to review it. If you address the above concerns and want to try to nominate it for GA again, ask an administrator to un-salt the subpage names so it is possible to open a full review. —Cupco 09:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What portions of the article do you consider "non neutral"? Additionally, why did you completely ignore what was in the article itself (i.e. not the infobox, and how the prose portions were written). I'm curious as to how you think that those portions are "non neutral", as they are very, very well-cited. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The excerpt above. The use of all caps and the ambiguity of "dedication to the struggle" leave no doubt that the infobox is being used to troll. The fact that those passages are sourced to the group itself means that an independent source isn't verifying, for example, that the members are of African decent. Googling on "weev" for example shows that he is Caucasian. I did not ignore the article. I read it as you can see from the list of questions which would be necessary to answer in order to attain the breadth of coverage required by WP:GACR#What is a good article? #3a. —Cupco 4:36 am, Today (UTC−6)
(edit conflict)And that's the only thing? I removed both that portion and the tag. So, in short, you quickfailed it because of the infobox, and not the article itself? Mythpage88 (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Those were the only neutrality problems I saw and you have addressed them. That's certainly a huge improvement. —Cupco 10:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but you commented on what wasn't there, a Good Article review also should have comments on what is there. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see any other major problems. Per Wikipedia:GACR#cite note-6 other reviewers might not want as much detail as I would prefer, but I think 30 KB is below average GA length. I am supposed to encourage you to re-nominate the article after you address those breadth of coverage issues as best you can, to have someone else look at it, but I'm pretty sure you will need to get an administrator to unsalt the /GAn sub-article names before anyone will be able to follow the review procedure. —Cupco 10:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea why those are SALTed. Apparently some admin took it upon himself to do it without telling anyone. :( Mythpage88 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my mistake: [1] mentions blacklists, not page protection. Those are two different things but I don't know enough about the software to say how. It also says you can ask "any administrator" which is easier than having to track down one in particular as I think is necessary for protection. You seem to be acting in good faith and on the up-and-up about this, which I have to say I didn't expect in the context. Good luck! —Cupco 11:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, trolling organizations fascinate me, mainly because they are so damn hard to find reliable citations for. Sorry I kinda lashed out at you earlier, I just got a little upset that it was quickfailed because of the infobox, and not the article itself. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, as to the criminalogical aspect, there is a paper (Internetowy „trolling” – analiza kryminologiczna by G. Borek) that apparently mentions the GNAA, but I can't find a copy of the paper anywhere. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/Archive_5&oldid=1144413846"