GNAA articles in the userspace, How the bureaucracy won't leave users alone Options

[Michaeldsuarez]

I'm tire of the thread I started at the ED forum not receiving any attention, so I'm starting a thread on the topic here as well.

On August 9, 2010, I noticed that Jimbo interfered with a GNAA article in the userspace. This was also the day I realized that I needed a WR account in order to talk to the WP critics.

Not much happened to Riffic's article, but on August 27, 2010, "Murdox" (possibly a GNAA sympathizer or member) created his own GNAA article in the userspace. Less than a hour later, PeterSymonds deleted the article and blocked Murdox. Alison reversed these actions.

Today, a MfD case is being held. So the question is: Should these sorts of articles be allowed in the userspace?

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Wed 1st September 2010, 9:17pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ser:Murdox/GNAA

The MfD has been closed. I didn't realize these sort of discussions close so fast.

Also, I believe the the MfD simply attracted a new contributor to the article: LiteralKa (T-C-L-K-R-D) . The Streisand effect at work.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Thu 2nd September 2010, 12:08am

[Gary_Niger]

Also, I believe the the MfD simply attracted a new contributor to the article: LiteralKa (T-C-L-K-R-D) . The Streisand effect at work.

Wow. A LOT has happened since then!

Also, I created the Goatse Security (T-H-L-K-D) article a few days ago, and there doesn't appear to be any opposition so far.

You forgot to put weev's real name in your article. Is it because you are a sysop on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and weev, although he was desysopped after he was arrested, is still more powerful than you and might kick your butt on ED if you insert his real name? Or did you merely miss this article as well as this one?

Well that doesn't seem fair at all. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you do not like something, change it.

The only interactions with the GNAA have been when I nominated the userspace article for deletion and when I "lurked" ( ) their channel

Then what's up with your fascination and incessant discussion about someone's user space draft? Grow up.

Hey Mods, ae we going to be taken over by GNAA trolls like the above?


Also, the page is stupid in user space, not in user space, etc, because the GNAA and all people connected to it are stupid.

Well, I find that rather offensive. I'll bet that you haven't even talked to many, if any, of us. If you had, you'd find that the vast majority of us can conduct relatively intelligent and informed debate, discussion, and even small talk.

This post has been edited by Gary_Niger: Mon 1st August 2011, 4:56am

[Somey]

Well, I find that rather offensive. I'll bet that you haven't even talked to many, if any, of us. If you had, you'd find that the vast majority of us can conduct relatively intelligent and informed debate, discussion, and even small talk.

How's the weather down there?

Also, if I remove your current avatar, will you insist on putting it back?

[Gary_Niger]

Well, I find that rather offensive. I'll bet that you haven't even talked to many, if any, of us. If you had, you'd find that the vast majority of us can conduct relatively intelligent and informed debate, discussion, and even small talk.

How's the weather down there?

A bit "dark" at the moment.

Also, if I remove your current avatar, will you insist on putting it back?

That is a very likely outcome.

This post has been edited by Gary_Niger: Mon 1st August 2011, 5:08am

[Somey]

That is a very likely outcome.

I'm assuming it's not a photo of you... I guess it doesn't matter all that much big-picture-wise, but I was curious if the guy is a model or an actual person (not that models can't be actual people, but you know what I mean). If he's an actual person, then that's what we might call "contextually unacceptable."

I think I can actually prevent you from putting it back, but of course, I wanted to give you the chance to help us avoid unnecessary fuss. I personally don't mind the idea of our having people here who purportedly represent GNAA in some capacity, but we do have rules against hate speech and so forth, so you'd have to be willing to avoid that at least.

[Gary_Niger]

That is a very likely outcome.

I think I can actually prevent you from putting it back, but of course, I wanted to give you the chance to help us avoid unnecessary fuss. I personally don't mind the idea of our having people here who purportedly represent GNAA in some capacity, but we do have rules against hate speech and so forth, so you'd have to be willing to avoid that at least.

Lucky for you, GNAA is a trolling organization, not a group that promotes hate speech of any sort. (See our "about" page for more information.)

I'm assuming it's not a photo of you... I guess it doesn't matter all that much big-picture-wise, but I was curious if the guy is a model or an actual person (not that models can't be actual people, but you know what I mean). If he's an actual person, then that's what we might call "contextually unacceptable."

This is indeed a picture of me. It is an old one, admittedly, but still my favorite.

This post has been edited by Gary_Niger: Mon 1st August 2011, 5:21am

[Somey]

This is indeed a picture of me. It is an old one, admittedly, but still my favorite.

That's not true, but since he does appear to be a model, maybe we'll just give you a day or two with it and hope whatever thrill you've achieved from making it your avatar wears off.

Who even approved your registration? Wait a minute, why am I asking you that... I'm supposed to answer that question... Anyway, your WP Username entry doesn't even point to an actual Wikipedia account.

Oh well, I guess I'll let it go for now, but please don't make me regret that. I'm in enough trouble with the gay folks as it is!

[Gary_Niger]

[Y]our WP Username entry doesn't even point to an actual Wikipedia account.

Au contraire.

This post has been edited by Gary_Niger: Mon 1st August 2011, 5:32am

[Somey]

Au contraire.

Sorry, I meant "Wikipedia account with more than zero edits at time of registration." But at least you're not trying to impersonate anybody... We try to be flexible about most things, but it's generally better if folks don't use "dummy" WP accounts in their WR profiles. It's not really necessary, and it might confuse people.

Anyway, you seem nice enough and all, and I'm not trying to provoke you or anything like that. I hope you can understand our position - it's difficult to strike a balance between serious criticism and observing the sorts of things WPers actually do, so when things happen that tip the balance one way or the other, it can be a little stressful.

I realize that probably didn't make much sense...

[Gary_Niger]

Au contraire.

Sorry, I meant "Wikipedia account with more than zero edits at time of registration." But at least you're not trying to impersonate anybody... We try to be flexible about most things, but it's generally better if folks don't use "dummy" WP accounts in their WR profiles. It's not really necessary, and it might confuse people.

I disagree with Wikipedia's use of CC-BY-SA/GFDL to license edits. I also do not feel that editing Wikipedia is a good use of my time.

This post has been edited by Gary_Niger: Mon 1st August 2011, 5:50am

[Milton Roe]

Au contraire.

Sorry, I meant "Wikipedia account with more than zero edits at time of registration." But at least you're not trying to impersonate anybody... We try to be flexible about most things, but it's generally better if folks don't use "dummy" WP accounts in their WR profiles. It's not really necessary, and it might confuse people.

I disagree with Wikipedia's use of CC-BY-SA/GFDL to license edits. I also do not feel that editing Wikipedia is a good use of my time.

But Twitter is? You are pretending HERE to be The_Black_Guy THERE, are you not? The Token Niger, as it were?

Are you sure you're not this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Gary-Niger