Jump to content

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 18 July 2006 (→Removal of Stats URL from ED). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:TrollWarning

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Protection

I noticed the article was protected. I hope it wasn't from me and my edits here. I don't want to get in trouble. I am officially withdrawing my furries thing. I also saw http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Furry was changed and it says SchmuckyTheCat isn't furry. DyslexicEditor 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, something with the image. Instead of reverting to the image that was uploaded by me in February of whenever, I think someone attempted to overwrite it because Mongo's the featured article on ED this week, from the looks of things. The correct course of action would have been to revert to the prior image, now we lose a screenshot entirely. Perhaps Mongo actually wants to discuss the page protection here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shouldn't upload a screenshot of an article featuring a Wikipedia user, but to remove the image entirely? And notice he removed it after protecting. I thought you weren't really supposed to do that. From the page protection policy:
When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.
Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article
Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over.
Does this "protect and edit" action of MONGO seem inappropriate to anyone else? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 15:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does to me. A long time ago people fought and fought over which images should be included and which could be considered fair use. It was generally agreed upon that the "ae" image logo and a screenshot of the site were the most appropriate. I don't understand why updating it from february to now is bad, many of the website article screenshots are updated. I don't get it. I think that with all the dispute over images, the screenshot at the very least would be fine.
Also, yes. First, I didn't see an edit war. I saw a few edits per day, mostly correcting small lines of text. Didn't look like edit warring, excessive editing or vandalism to me. Not to mention Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dipute over.
Besdies that, he is leaving creepy and slightly threatening messages to me in my talk page. I responded in my talk page, but I'm not going to track him down and bother him as he has me. Ridiculous. I can't believe this guy is a mod here. --Bouquet 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The older version attacked no one.--MONGO 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand it either, but considering the image could have been reverted, it makes even less sense. I don't even know if it can be recovered in that state anymore. I don't think any of us would have been okay with ED's attack page being the image here if that's what occurred, but I didn't see MONGO bothering to discuss it, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might've been inappropriate, but I can certainly understand that someone does not want such stuff written about him on any article. Let's just all calm down a little, nothing horrible will happen when the article is protected for a short while, and maybe add a current screenshot of the website when there's nothing about Wikipedians on its main page. --Conti|✉ 15:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any anger he has is certainly justified, it's part of the reason why I haven't contributed to the site in months and months. It doesn't, however, justify his actions herer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The old screenshot was fine. There wasn't any reason to update and it was obviously a troll. The protection is absolutely inappropriate. SchmuckyTheCat 17:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Find an admin to unprotect it - I suggest you go to WP:RFPP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already had. SchmuckyTheCat 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think MONGO overreacted because lots of images and articles get vandalized daily and are reverted with no protection. Looking at the article's history, there is one edit of changing the picture, two edits where who edited it didn't show preview, and one by someone wondering why the ED screenshot isn't there. So basically one edit, and then one of replacing the current picture. This counts as 2 actual ungood edits here. A whole bunch of articles receive tons of those a day and are never protected. I notice the article was updated with MONGO's reactions to this article and checking contributions and logs, it's accurate, so I'm really afraid he's going to ban all of us just for protesting the protection. DyslexicEditor 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reprotected this article with myself as protecting admin. Wikipedia isn't to be used for the purpose of harassing people. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not. A troll updated a picture, the only action that needs to be done is block the troll and revert the picture. Why does that merit protecting the article? SchmuckyTheCat 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current version doesn't seem to contain the picture that was used to harass. --Tony Sidaway 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Mongo deleted it instead of reversing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Seems reasonable, Looking at the website, it seems to me that almost any screenshot of their front page is liable to be defamatory or harassing, so a screen shot is probably not a good idea. There is a link to the site for people who are curious, but we're not obliged to advance ED's campaigns of harassment. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous screenshot (from february?) before the troll was fine. It was here for months. It was only in the guise of "updating the screenshot" (which didn't need to happen) that this became an issue. And for the record, there are hundreds of non-defamatory ED articles that would be fine WP screenshots (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Chronic_Troll_Syndrome).
ED currently has a well-known anti-WP kook on a writing spree. Unfortunately, ED has better google pagerank than anywhere else. This too shall pass, most of the ED admins are waiting for him to get bored before re-writing it to be funny.
SchmuckyTheCat 18:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When he gets bored we may restore the screenshot. Have you ever seen a bored kook? --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a new MediaWiki feature that old revisions of pictures can be undeleted and restored after vandalism? Why not restore that?
And for all the discussion of the picture - why does that justify protecting the article? SchmuckyTheCat 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Can we please change the protecting admin to someone NOT criticized on encyclopedia dramatica? DyslexicEditor 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why we should. We're not bound by their editorial policy. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't MONGO having anything to do with this article from an editorial/admin standpoint a conflict of interest now? rootology 00:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this deleted [1] from the talk page? DyslexicEditor 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A troll, in the form of a snide personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you can't seriously think that this was a honest comment made by a new user? --Conti|✉ 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I work in customer service and deal with crazy people all day. DyslexicEditor 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Evers

Joseph Evers bought ED from DeGrippo in mid-2005. Why would this be made up?

So long as the external link to the website this article is about takes people to a page that is a personal attack on ANY wikipedian, they will get no external link here. Wikipedia is not going to promote that website anymore than we promote hivemind.--MONGO 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hivemind? DyslexicEditor 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was against the protection policy, and our linking should not be governed by what people put on their page. I'm sorry you're disturbed by this, but you're certainly not helping anything. --Badlydrawnjeff 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't facilitate harassment. At worst, MONGO should have trusted others in the community to show that solidarity against such harassment that is the due of any member. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link does not "facilitate harassment" any more now than it did before. The main page changes from week to week, it's a nonstarter. The sudden lack of good faith due to the actions of one troll involving an image here is amazingly disturbing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we should help them promote attacks on any wikipedian? You lost me. Guess what...when they remove the link on their mainpage to a personal attack article about a wikipedian, then we can restore the link. I actually don't see any reason to link to their page otherwise. They have plenty of retarded articles that don't constitute a personal attack on anyone in particular. Once the week is over, that website removes the personal attack article from their website mainpage, we can restore the link.--MONGO 23:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you promise to hold yourself to that, I have no issue with that. It doesn't mean I approve, but it's a worthwhile compromise in the meantime. The external link does not "help promote attacks," as the link existed before your article did. Wikipedia has no control over their main page content, and a troll with moronic parody about you is not nearly as inflammatory as other external links that aren't bothered like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't stick to anything. I stated that we can restore the liink, but if that link will be to their mainpage in which they are engaging in personal attacks on anyone at wikipedia, then it will be removed again. They have no editorial control over what we have here. We do. Let's see how you feel if someone had an article about you somewhere that claimed (no matter how wrong it is) that you are a pedophile. ED will have to learn that if they think they're going to get a link to their mainpage that they will have to at least have some semblence of humor as they claim. Surfing through their website, it is just not funny. I don't know who writes their garbage, but I tried real hard to find anything funny, and I couldn't. I think that we need to follow the section about off-wiki personal attacks.--MONGO 23:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure ED as an "organization" could care less as to whether this article stays or goes. As for your commentary otherwise, I've had similar things happen, and I don't let it phase me because it ultimately didn't matter. As for the "off-wiki personal attacks," it has nothing to do with this situation. If you see other editors involved with the article on ED in question who are causing issues here, it might come into play in a situation with them, but it's not applicable here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are misunderstanding the policy. I don't know what more can be said.--MONGO 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could explain what I'm misunderstanding, perhaps? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrities deal with tabloids all day and so can anyone. ED is another one. I do agree though that off-wiki personal attacks are bad. I also agree that off-wiki vandalism is bad, including blanking articles on another wiki. I agree that both is worse, like rewriting an article on a wiki with personal attacks on the site's founder, and then reverting it back after the vandalism was removed. MONGO, are you MONGO1 on Encyclopedia Dramatica? I would link to proof to ED's "MONGO" article but MONGO has ordered me not to link to it. DyslexicEditor 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also impersonating Ed Poor on encyclopedia dramatica to further vandalize an article about you is also a considered a personal attack against that wikipedia ex-bureaucrat by using that name. DyslexicEditor 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never edited at the website this article is about, though, as I stated, I have surfed around there, desperately trying to find anything funny. I do know that someone using a moniker of my username has edited there and also at unencyclopedia. I am neither person. I do know that others have logged into ED and edited my article, along with many others. Interesting that you think it is bad that the ED's site's founder shouldn't be ridiculed yet they don't hesitate to ridicule Jimbo Wales there, nor others...kind of a double standard, eh? I have some enemies I guess at Wikipedia, but I also have alot of friends too so it wouldn't surprise me if someone was trying to help me out. Guess what, your accusations are unprovable, and are bad faith accusations and violate our policy about no personal attacks. I have never edited anything but Wikipedia...I don't do blogs, I don't contribute to IRC and I have only used the wikipedia mailing a few times.--MONGO 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Talk: page

The talk page is now protected? This makes no sense to me. --Bouquet 05:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it wouldn't.--MONGO 05:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I do not understand your hostility toward me. Please checkuser me if you doubt my authenticity as a regular user. I would like to work this out because I think you have me confused with someone else who you appear to dislike greatly and I am recieving the brunt of your anger. It makes things difficult. Let's work it out. --Bouquet 07:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
;) nah, checkuser won't prove anything.

Do you have anything to add that may help us improve this article?--MONGO 07:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) How about the history of ED and how it came to be the website it is?--MONGO 07:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yes, I will put my thoughts together and see what I can come up with. Will post here for consideration tomororw. Also, I thought checkuser did some kind of verification thing, sorry, I might have over estimated its powers. *oops* --Bouquet 07:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser is only useful for some things, for other things, all we have to do is connect the dots. Luckily, suspicions are not admissible. So stick to the facts, and reference with what you know...but you have to follow WP:NOR if you know what I mean.--MONGO 07:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a new admin is needed to review this issue without obvious POV/involvement? No offense, whether or not what is on ED being right or wrong plays no part in what I am posting here, but your hostile tone (perhaps understandably) implies strongly that perhaps you should remove yourself from involvement in this matter completely, for a neutral review? Where can such a thing be posted for/appealed for? Thanks. Just want to make sure everything specific to WP gets fair and unbiased review. rootology 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um...how about at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--MONGO 07:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll check that one out and maybe contribute. I hadn't seen that one before. If you could look at what I wrote here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica#Link_to_the_site Thanks. rootology 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for continued protection of the talk page? rootology 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you are upset, but an article about a site must have a link to the site. Also the fact that it has been protected instead of semied prevents users from adding references. --Lapinmies 06:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No...me upset...hardly...I fight to keep as much junk fro that website off wiki as possible...they have nothing but slime about a number of wikipedians not just me, but Jimbo Wales, Angela...you name it. When they take down the harassing mainpage junk and put up something on their mainpage that doesn't have harssment on it, then we can restore the link. If they again put up a harassing thing on their mainpage, then the link will again disappear. It's that simple.--MONGO 06:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for my own edification (and since I can't find it) what WP policy governs that the link be removed in such a fashion? The no personal attacks thing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks doesn't state that a site *with* offensive content can't be linked to. It says:

As with the attacks defined above, personal attacks on other editors in off-Wikipedia venues reflect badly on the attacker and are unlikely to achieve a positive outcome. Wikipedia acknowledges that it cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may create doubt as to whether your on-wiki actions are being conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the entire community, and to your relationship with it.

While you may not be directly penalised for off-wiki attacks, they may be taken as aggravating factors when any on-wiki policy violations are being considered. For example, they can be used as evidence of bad faith in the dispute-resolution process, or as evidence in ArbCom cases.

As this is not a link to a site edited by a sole party, but rather anybody--ala Wikipedia--I'm not sure what merits the removal of the link outright under the actual rules and policies as written and prescribed. Yes, I know it's a direct personal attack on youself. But under the rules, what is the violation the administrative action was taken under? Never seen this before, so I'm curious what rule/guideline states no off-site linking to something like this is allowable as a procedure. Thanks. rootology 07:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you support the linking to a website in which the mainpage consists of a personal attack on any wikipedian...or anything other that is highly offensive to people in general, then support of said link is a personal attack in and of itself. Support of linking to a personal attack page off wiki definitely would constitute something that would violate good faith. Support of harassment websites in general, would in my opinion, be reason enough to suggest that some have decided to come to the wrong forum. I have long defended others against off wiki harassment. There are a number of editors here that have been banned in the past for posting offensive commentary about wikipedians in a number of other websites.--MONGO 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there is overall precedent for blocks of usernames based on attacks on Wiki staff themselves, precedent I guess is precedent, it's what Wiki is based on. New procedure hits concensus critical mass and becomes law. The point you make about "...or anything other that is highly offensive to people in general". This has me boggled. We have articles that cover all sorts of things on WP that are highly meritous. To pick one at random, List of sex positions. To me this is no more offensive than the classic volume the Kama Sutra. Both have a place here on WP. Personally, I don't bat an eyelash at either. However, if my Mom saw either, she'd have a fit if not a seizure, and in some countries and cultures overall such articles themselves (let alone the content) may be culturally offensive if not criminal. Are articles, content, and offsite links subject to review and possible elimination based on tests of offensiveness if they do not directly relate to WP staff or users from an offensive standpoint? I.e., if Encyclopedia Dramatica had no attacks on WP staff or users, by the previous votes to retain, and by the rules and policies of WP itself, it's a keeper... right? The thought that some things may be filtered for "pure offensiveness" regardless of other legit WP qualifications boggles my mind. Prince Albert piercing is a great example. The topic and image can be seen as very offensive by some people. However, the article is meritous. It links to http://wiki.bmezine.com/index.php/Prince_Albert_Piercing, which can be also seen as offensive. Should it be removed? Shouldn't such determinations be made by concensus of editors on the WP article in question and honored? Thanks for your time and answer to this. Really curious now... rootology 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of wikipedians (including yours truly) have articles written about them on Encyclopaedia Dramatica. The best thing to do is take it with a pinch of salt and/or a sense of maturity; not run around an unrelated site like a wet hen. ~ IICATSII 07:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UUMMM...have you seen WP:NPA? I guess not.--MONGO 07:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I notice how that covers accusing other wikipedians of being trolls. ~ IICATSII 07:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, the sole reason that there is no link to ED because MONGO is the current featured article there? Ryulong 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's about the size of it ~ IICATSII 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Ryulong 07:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any examples of this sort of thing previously? Or is this link removal new precedent? This is fascinating. rootology 08:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each case has it's own merits I guess. ~ IICATSII 08:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not about me...ED just decided to pick a fight with me...probably one of the least tolerant of off-wiki personal attacks of any wikipedian. They know this, hence the effort to have me on their mainpage. It isn't "about me", it's about protecting all wikipedians from harassment. As far as my comment that "anything other that is highly offensive to people in general"...well the sight is supportive of calling African-Americans (and blcaks in general) by the "N" word...so if there was an article that used that word on the mainpage, that would not be worth linking to either. If the site had a purpose other than a hive for trollery, then there might be leeway, but as far as I am concerned, I see no reason to link to their site at this time.--MONGO 08:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel that this was the case, if it wern't for the fact that you've shown no interest in other articles like GNAA ~ IICATSII 08:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I am not aware of them or their activities. I have worked very hard in the past to protect many wikipedians from off-wiki harassment by those that have posted at wikipediareview and hivemind. I can't be at all places at once, and I was alerted by someone about this stuff.--MONGO 08:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you are aware, it’ll be interesting to see if you spend the same amount of time and energy on that article. ~ IICATSII 09:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you accusing me of? I see that you have had an account with us for a year and have less than 150 edits total and you want me to take your commentary seriously? I was alerted to this situation...I don't have the time to be everywhere, buddy. How about you go write one long well referenced article and stop your trolling.--MONGO 09:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the article page is now protected by someone other than me.--MONGO 08:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ED Page Link

Seeing as the main page is off limits here, would it be fairer to insert a link to one of their articles that’s a little less controversial (and indeed funnier) like the Noone page [2], as having links to rival sites in the article and none to ED seems a little unfair. ~ IICATSII 09:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What for?--MONGO 09:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It stands unbalanced at the moment, what with all the links to “rival” sites giving their opinions of ED. Surely an external link to ED that we can all agree on will give this article the balance it needs. ~ IICATSII 10:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we archive ongoing discussions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s unfortunate, because I was just about to defend the trolling accusation thrown at me as in that everyone who disagrees on a subject is not necessarily trolling. ~ IICATSII 10:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored it per WP:ARCHIVE. Mongo, you gotta calm down, dude. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main page at ED has changed [3], is it OK to insert a link and a screen grab now? ~ IICATSII 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what for? I don't see any reason to be linking there yet. No matter what, there really isn't any reason for another screen grab anyway. I see little reason to give them much of anything here. I might even fix this article better yet as I have serious concerns about it's notability. We don't prmote that website here...if that is your mission then go away. Maybe we'll re add the link in a few months.--MONGO 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:EL, Mongo. This is getting tiring. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no “mission”, as I work on other articles as well (not in the same capacity as other wikipedians admittedly, if I had more time then I would strive to contribute more.) However I do feel that personal issues with that site are clouding you judgment and causing you to lose site of what Wikipedia stands for. ~ IICATSII 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a screen grab at all? If someone is reading this article on wikipedia, they already know what a wiki page looks like, and that is all that the screen grab shows, a wiki page with whatever content. The logo image OTOH has some value. NoSeptember 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we don't. Consensus at the time was that the screenshot was useful. Regardless, unilateral abuses of power should be opposed, and the article should be restored to its previous, not-attacking, neutral state so we can work it out as opposed to this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ED must be a minor site if its most useful purpose is to be used as an attack wikipedia site. As an attack site, it should be treated as the other attack wikipedia sites are. Spam black listing the link seems reasonable to me, and we should redirect this article to Criticism of Wikipedia. NoSeptember 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Except it's not. In fact, Wikipedia is a very small subset of what goes on over there, it's more into LiveJournal culture and net stuff. Some douchebag decided to change the screenshot picture is all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia was important enough to have their mainpage set up as an attack page for a surprisingly long time. If the admins there promptly reverted the main page attack, then I would agree with you, but the ED admins cooperated in the attack, the ED admins are quite culpable, and your "small subset" argument doesn't hold water. NoSeptember 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Surprisingly long time? Check the page history over there, it was two days. I don't know of any ED admins who edit over HERE regularly who "cooperated in the attack," I in fact know of two (myself and Schmucky) who opposed using the attack page as an image. Do some research before making claims like that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the internet, two days is an eternity. Also, I was not limiting my reference to ED admins to only those who edit here, please don't make that assumption. As a group, the ED admins acted poorly, I am sure there were some who objected, but the bad actors prevaled and it reflects poorly on the site. NoSeptember 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
So our main page here is updated once every half-eternity? In all seriousness, they certainly don't care what anyone over ehre thinks, some are pissy I'm even half-defending what goes on here right now. They certainly don't care how the site is reflected, so I'm not sure what is being accomplished here with this constant, meaningless back and forth, especially considering the multiple bad faith accusations throughout this talk page about the motives of editors here. The longer it stays protected, the more attention it recieves. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ED is more of a really really bad copy of uncyclopedia, especially making fun of those who don't like being made fun of. So, not feeding the trolls is a good approach here, IMHO. (And yes, I have an article about me there, too.) --Conti|✉ 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the main page has changed, anyone still disagrees with unprotecting the article? --Conti|✉ 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Let's not wheel war, Tony Sidaway is capable of reverting his protection at an appropriate time. NoSeptember 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That's why I asked instead of just unprotected. :) --Conti|✉ 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand. Just minutes after they changed the main page, it was announced here and we are expected to forget all about the attacks and trolling. We should not be "played" here by ED editors (and these comments are not knowingly directed to anyone on this talk page, since I don't know if anyone here was involved in those attacks). NoSeptember 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
So who's playing you? You're not assuming good faith by those of us here who oppose the needless protection, you know... --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We really really should all calm down here. I don't care if ED will disappear tomorrow or not, or rather, I'd very much like that. But I think that there's some overreacting from both sides here. And that's pretty much what the trolls want. --Conti|✉ 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The protection lacked merit from the beginning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be unprotected, but with the view of several wikipedians keeping their eyes on the article so as personal attacks don’t become a problem. ~ IICATSII 13:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Bias

It seems that the protection at this point on the page is based on personal POV from some admins and based in personal dislike of the content in question that is being linked to. Should offensive content not be linked to? MONGO is not on the front page of ED anymore. If the article isn't unblocked from protection, based on previous history on a third party site, wouldn't that be biased? At this point in time what WP policy allows for the block and exclusion of the ED link to remain in place? Perhaps as MONGO was unwilling to work with us after the ED main page was changed, and he has apparently asked like-minded admins to assist him, can this be escalated? rootology 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to escalate it if we don't have to. There are certainly options in place, but I don't think that will be necessary once Mongo cools off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've never seen an article on my watchlist get locked in this fashion before (let alone for such a bizarre issue). What recourse as editors withour escalation exists to get this article unlocked? Getting an admin to do it? Can a vote be called for concensus (and made to be honored)? How does it work? Or do admins get veto power on anything? Thanks. rootology 15:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unprecedented for me, too, and I've been editing nearly a year and a half. They're outright ignoring us at requests for page protection, a second admin came in and reprotected already to take it off MONGO's hands. We're pretty much at the mercy of whoever's willing to actually step in and reverse the lack ofstandard operations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So concensus of editors does not have to be honored if say a vote were called? Isn't that a standard policy? Surely there must be some recourse if there ever an overtension of administrative priviledges. rootology 15:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never dealt with this type of thing before. We could go to the administrators noticeboard, but it's been discussed already and it's how User:Tony_Sidaway showed up. With no attention at WP:RFPP, the next step might be WP:RFC or a mediation request, but, again, I'd hope that those who came in here like gangbusters instead of working with us would step up instead once it cools off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth bringing it to User:Tony_Sidaway Attention? ~ IICATSII 15:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone hasn't, it might be worth a shot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, just so I'm clear: admins have authority to veto/suppress the overwhelming opionion of editors on an article? i.e. if a vote is called for unlocking (hypothetically) on a given locked article, and it's a vote to unlock, any admin can just say "No, sorry!" and thats that? rootology 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the protection policy about "voting" or "consensus" to unblock. Of course, there's nothing in the protection policy to justify this page protection either, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if a an actual vote were called here that showed the majority of editors prefer for no more than semi-protection or no protection on the article of ED, and if the admins didn't follow through, it could be seen as bad faith on the part of the admins? Just want to be clear who gets to make such decisions--the majority, or the few. Any editorial oversight/interference beyond group concensus would seem to be biased based on subject matter at this point as the MONGO article no longer is on ED's home page. If no one objects I'm calling a vote in a few hours. rootology 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wikipedia policy is not a suicide pact. 2) Just because the main page has changed doesn't mean that the trolls are gone from here, so policy still applies (it's a value judgement as to whether the attack vandalism will continue). 3) There is no need for such impatience. Tony can be trusted to decide when to remove his protection, he may already be ready to do so, for all I know. 4) Keep in mind Jimbo's comment on an article more notable than this one: We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it (link). This article is not so important that is even has to exist, especially if it encourages trolls to come to wikipedia. 5) I see no evidence that any admin has acted out of emotion here, protecting against attack trolls is a reasonable thing to do. NoSeptember 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2) Where are the trolls, then? Where's the evidence that editing isn't able to solve any minor troll problems? 3) There was never any need for protection, and one has yet to be presented. 4) This isn't Brian Peppers, and the comparison is completely without merit given the specifics of the case. Check the history of the article - it doesn't "encourage trolls" at all, and any minor trolling has been dealt with swiftly. 5) You don't? This entire charade has to do with acitng out of emotion, rather than discussion, consensus, or policy. Why make excuses? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You realize, No September, that you're essentially giving in to trollery here? John Kerry and George W Bush attract trolls, predictably. Well, the solution they've come up with is pretty good; semi-protect, and put a trollery warning on the talk page. Why was so much more censoring action done here, while allowing MONGO to edit without accountability and locking up the talk page and refusing to hear of the matter on his talk page, effectively giving him total control of the article? This is not a "value judgement" case; policy provides for a specific case just like this!
Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies.
Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over.
Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest.
Important Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.
Why weren't these policies complied with? This is not a special case; the policy provides for cases just like this. WHy are you ignoring this, and why is this being ignored at the requests for unprotection? Moreover, If MONGO is so innocent, why is he refusing to discuss it, unless he is mocking editors who raise concerns?
As posted on the Request for Unprotecting page just now based on all this evidence (no offense, mongo) but I do not feel that MONGO has any place in this article for administrative purposes given possible POV/bias issues--justifiable or otherwise. It's simply too heated and adversarial. The appropriate thing would be for him to recuse himself from any further edits or actions on this matter and for this to be addressed by other admins. rootology 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the "editors" fighting to defend that website and promote their nonsense are not to be trusted at wikipedia...that is the bottom line. If indeed so many here are such great wikipedians, then I recommend they all step aside from this article...prove that you care more about wikipedia, than promoting ED, by not defending that website. You only prove your motives when you come here to defend something so indefensible...that is what is well known as a POV push. See WP:NOT--MONGO 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for ascribing motives to me (I assume this is to me, as the person who posted this point?). I simply want all things to be judged neutrally. As I said about the Prince Albert stuff, or other offensive stuff, whether something should be linked to or not--be it ED, rings in someone's penis, Nazism, Christianity, etc., should be by CONSENSUS. If the majority believes it should be, it should be. I could care less whether it's right or wrong as a matter of nature of content. Shouldn't it be a question of whether it was notable? I'm just saying. If I was a public/semi-public figure, and ED or another site made a libelous, slanderous, or satirical thing about me and linked to it from my Wikipedia article, or their own, as long as it fell within the rules of WP I'd have to live with it. I'm not defending or advocating what they did. I just think it's a wildly slippery slope on controversial topics or content. Each little slip towards removal or censorship is one that cannot be easily recovered. Each step forward in that takes two or three to undo. If anything I am pushing neutraility and NPOV only. As for being an "editor" I have lots of good and legitimate things I've done here. Not as many edits as you or others, but so what? Aren't all voices equal? Was that a dig at me? rootology 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting

I don't think bias comes into it. The article was protected because it was being abused to harass a Wikipedia editor. I'm unprotecting now but if harassment resumes there will be reprotection and most likely blocks. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed Tony, thank you. For the record, the entry was not being used to harass, but the image, and it's unlikely any similar image that doesn't harass will be making its way back anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Perhaps if any further issues occur we should go semi-protection *first*, to allow editors of the articles to manage the issue internally...? rootology 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony ~ IICATSII 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting a bit didn't hurt anything, and as I suspected, Tony was ready to unprotect. Everyone should be happy :). NoSeptember 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:V

This article fails to cite its sources. If Reliable Sources are not added rapidly to the article to justify statements made in the article, I will remove the statements that are unsourced, or sourced only to blogs, community journals or wikipedia adminstrative articles/diffs. If your pet statement is removed, feel free to reinsert it with reliable sourcing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please insert {{fact}} templates where required to give editors a chance to cite. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[[4]]. Inserting the scores of fact tags required is not valuable. Assume every single sentance requires verification. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be pedantic, but am I misinterpreting this edit cited that we have to provide a references that ED is a parody site or an encyclopedia...? rootology 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an encyclopedia. You would not need to provide references for obvious statements (mediawiki, collection of LiveJournal events and Internet memes). However, statements of not-obvious fact (December 10, 2004, proxy servers, reason for creation, negative point of view, weed out, themes, DCMA) will requite sourcing, and statements of opinion (skewers topics related to Wikipedia with a satirical slant, caricuture) will require both sourcing and attribution. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
everything bar the DCMA is easy, every reference to it comes back to this site. ~ IICATSII 19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly, strongly doubt that the majority of the article is verifiable. Specifically, I doubt that you can verify December 10, I doubt you can verify the reason for creation (please note that Wikipedia is *NOT* a reliable source for Wikipedia), I doubt you can verify the skewer comment, I doubt you can verify the blocking policies, I doubt you can verify the example themes, and I doubt you can verify the comments about the flare-ups. I welcome you to try. Do not violate WP:V or WP:OR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You underestimate the power of the Dark Side ~ IICATSII 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you doubt that it's verifiable, you haven't read enough ED. It would be much more productive to put in the fact tags as needed, since to seasoned readers of ED, most of this stuff is obvious just by checking out the page. It's either that, or every single sentence is going to have to be referenced, and that will make for one ugly article. Karwynn (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"since to seasoned readers of ED" is not the standard WP:V requires. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How long is standard time with the {{fact}} templates to allow citing before deletion? rootology 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should ask. Jimbo Wales says "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"spam for kooks"

About this edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=64512609&oldid=64512554, I was trying to establish it's merit as a source of criticism and commentary similar to other sites routinely contested on WP. This was a preliminary thing to comments posted by certain admins elsewhere on WP that implied they intended to destroy and/or undo this article entirely. rootology 18:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...for records-keeping purposes in the event of possible issues/ongoing issues. rootology 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey buddy...that is to be left on the talk page...keep the link for your own record.--MONGO 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can I ask why? If I'm violating a policy I want to know which, I didn't see any against reposting information related to an issue. Also, isn't editing comments left in talk pages against policy? Thanks, looking for confirmation. rootology 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can link to there but you don't copy and paste.--MONGO 19:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy is that defined under so I know for the future? rootology 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to comments of concern about possible conflict/bias towards this article. Content left out at request of author MONGO, here is the raw link instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125 Please let me know if policy prohibits reposting comments. Thanks. rootology 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what, as I said, the article is going to be undergoing revisions...if it can't comply with wikipedia policies, then it will end up being deleted.--MONGO 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! So long as it goes through the same neutral unbiased peer-reviewed procedure/discussions, vote, etc. as all other articles do in case someone nominates it for deletion. rootology 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno...we may have to redirect this page in the near future. Suggestions welcome, but may not be followed.--MONGO 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do admins have authority to override concensus? I am thinking this article needs to be rolled back, and certain people barred from editing due to their aggressive stance and clearly biased POV until editors have time to source content given it's contested nature. Also, who put you in charge? Not an attack, but your tone seems to imply that you get "final say" on what happens here. Do admins > concensus and procedure? rootology 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any attempt by you or another to remove or force this article to a redirection will be rolled back immediately (or when found) as what I perceive to be biased editing. If needed this will be appealed as well above you--no offense. Your personal issues with ED and of your friend admins is apparently biasing your role as an admin. Perhaps you need to be restricted from editing on this page outright by higher authorities. This article should not be removed or redirected, and your tone of "I run the Internets" is inappropriate. Please see other Wiki-project articles on WP that also are small:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psychology_Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurispedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Guide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Reiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenFacts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrthodoxWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSConclave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeanutButterWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Telco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProductWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksilver_wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolwiki
On what legitimate, policy based reason could this thus be conceivably redirected or deleted? Thanks!! rootology 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit those articles.--MONGO 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Stats URL from ED

MONGO and Hypocrite, this keeps getting removed. Do I have to ask that this be edited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page? It says "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page". Where can this be verified by a 3rd party? I see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Statistics. Where is the WP:NOR for that? Same principle. If no one objects here by end of day I will readd. Three edit rule? rootology 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed any links yet. In fact, I haven't weighed in on this issue yet. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, that was a MONGO edit. rootology 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the policy...find reliabel third party sources for information on ED...using their own posted information, due to the website's entire issue with credibility, is not going to fly. Nothing they have to say can be trusted, they even admit this on their pages! So you must find reliable third party references. See:WP:NOR--MONGO 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is getting a bit biased again. So this article is being held to unique standards that others arent? rootology 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't ED, it's Wikipedia...and no, the article isn't unique...we expect this for all our articles...surely, since your goal is to be a wikipedian of the highest magnitute, you must know this.--MONGO 19:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think I am. Can you verify on 3rd party sites the count of Wikipedia articles with evidence beyond quoting press statements from Wikipedia? I am contesting that the stats page on ED is not valid. It uses the same application was WP. How is that page not valid thus? rootology 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves. I don't see why we can't write "According to this and that ED page, they have so many edits and users" and link to their statistics page. Actually, pretty much the same thing happens on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia#_note-13. --Conti|✉ 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't totally disagree with that, but Wikipedia does state that they are building an encyclopedia, whereby ED makes it clear that they aren't to be taken seriously.--MONGO 20:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we should start such sentences with "According to ED...", so people can make up their own mind. That's a pretty usual procedure for controversial sources, AFAIK. --Conti|✉ 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please readd info in this format. Further revisions beyond that, removing them afterwards, in my opinion would be hostile/abuse. rootology 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we file for arbitration?

This is just stupid now. rootology 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it stupid? The article before was based on original research and was promotional...see WP:NOT.--MONGO 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFAr. I do not consent to meditation, so we can skip that step. You could try an article RFC at WP:RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here WP:AC ~ IICATSII 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THey delete material, saying we need links to show the nature of ED. Then they revert the sources, saying ED articles are unreliable. obviously, ED articles are the best source for seeing how ED articles are. Karwynn (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts with sources

I am hesitant to edit the actual article, so I am going to put some notes here. Feel free to incorporate them into the article as needed/appropriate. Also, others with verifiable facts and their sources, you can put those here too. --Bouquet 20:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Creation date
I used the 'whois' linux command to query the DNS servers for the domain and recieved : Record created on 2004-12-08 18:01:34.. This means that is when the domain was registered. This doesn't indicate the date of installation of the wiki software or the creation of the content of the site, but it does give a concrete date for registration of domain. --Bouquet 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR is prohibited. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is a whois record--which is a legitimate PUBLIC RECORD in legal cases/US Court--original research? rootology 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bantown

I doubt bantown used ED to announce their hack. Is there a WP:RS that says so? ED is not an RS for the actions of Bantown, and self aggrandizing statements from dubious sources about themselves fail WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint lodged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/I#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details

Editors, please contribute with additional evidence. rootology 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica&oldid=64533591"