Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/GA2

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:
 * 2) What do gay people and Africans think of the name?
 * 3) What do Wikipedian/Wikimedian community/Foundation officials think of their activities?
 * 4) What do security authorities think of them? Are they considered black, gray, or white hats? Uniformly?
 * 5) 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. &mdash; Cup co  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 #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. &mdash; Cup co  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 #3a. &mdash; Cup co  4:36 am, Today (UTC−6)
 * 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. &mdash; Cup co  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 GACR 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. &mdash; Cup co  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: 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! &mdash; Cup co  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)