Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Blocked by Google (?)

A curious article concerning ED today in a Sydney (Australia) newspaper stating (and I quote) "Google agrees to take down racist site"- I'm not sure what to make of it all, so am leaving the link here for others to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.55.19 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Link on Reddit 32.156.41.88 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The ED crew will be saying "Thanks for the free publicity" this morning. Here is part of the news story mentioned above: "He tried to modify the entry on Encyclopedia Dramatica, a satirical and extremely racist version of Wikipedia, but was blocked from doing so." Unfortunately, this perpetuates the myth that ED is somehow affiliated to Wikipedia. A search on the terms "Aboriginal" and "Encyclopedia" on Google Australia [1] now produces the message that one of the results has been removed after a legal request, with a link to Chilling Effects at [2]. This may be notable enough for the article, what do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

[3] More media 32.152.114.105 (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote from the above article: "Of course the ultimate stupidity in the attempt to censor the result comes in two ways: first, the censored results are still there outside of Google.com.au (and many Australians use Google.com,) and secondly, the publicity the story has gained is about to introduce Steve Hodder-Watt to the Streisand Effect. I bet Encyclopedia Dramatica is doing some great traffic and ad views today based on the coverage." It is rare for ED to pick up mainstream media coverage, but this may have the usual counterproductive effect. Probably notable enough for the article with these sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is some original research related to all of this: According to here, "In late 2009 Stephen Hodder Watt googled the words “Aboriginal” + “encyclopedia” and was directed to a racist website... "When I tried to follow the guidelines by registering in order to edit the webpage in question, my edits were removed, I was promptly abused and called a ‘petrol sniffer’ by an anonymous author (who I presume uploaded the contents of the page) and I was then banned from access to the website for a period of time.” This seems to be User:Bunbajee on ED. On 11 December 2009, he replaced the page content of Aboriginal with "The True Owners of the Lands!", and was told on his talk page "Enjoy being a petrol sniffing piece of sh*t."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've confirmed IanMacM's speculation. Steve Hodder Watt is Bunbajee Hodder Watt (see [4]). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I copied the paragraph on this incident into Internet censorship in Australia. It might be appropriate to include a link from here to that article, but I'm unsure of a good way to word it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Like most attempts at Internet censorship, there is a surreal edge to all of this. Let's hope that Jewish people in Australia do not look at the ED article "Jew", which is by the same standards a clear violation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (come to think of it, just about every article on ED about a racial group is a violation of this law). It is also annoying when the mainstream media thinks that ED is related to Wikipedia just because the pages look similar and are both based on MediaWiki software.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ED was on the Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist leaked in March 2009 [5]. Unfortunately, this is hard to source for the article, because the full list is on Wikipedia's User:XLinkBot revert list.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In today's news, Stephen Hodder-Watt is complaining that people can still access the material via Google.[6]. Sadly, he has now joined Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber in discovering the futility of legal action on the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should also point out that the "offending page" can now be seen as directly insulting Watts since his lawsuit AND that ED has changed the name of the page to "abbo" from "aboriginal" with redirects such as aborigine, stephen hodder-watts and a few others all on ED pointing to the original article to bypass the block - 202.137.170.51 (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

See Streisand effect - that article has had more edits in the last week than in the last year, too - Alison ^❤ 05:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In today's news, Steve Hodder-Watt calls for Google to develop a racism policy.[7]. After the Michelle Obama brouhaha in November 2009, Google redirected people to this page. ED's policy is to redirect people to the "Offended" page, which is now at the top of the "Aboriginal" article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian news story www.lenta.ru/news/2010/01/18/censor/ Just run it through google translate and it's another news ref about this. 32.156.154.179 (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ED-Tan

Why do we need one picture of her, much less two? She's not mentioned anywhere in the ED article; the pics are just decoration. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's fairly superfluous. Especially given that with both of them, it stretches down into the references section. –xeno^talk 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The usual practice with images is to mention them in the text. These images are out on a limb without any explanation in the article to establish the notability. This needs to be addressed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The ED article on Æ-tan says that she may be based on Girlvinyl (Sherrod DeGrippo). This is about the only source of notability for the cartoon. Any other thoughts here, or the image is unlikely to be put back?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should list it as "inactive"

Encyclopedia Dramatica's homepage stated this:

Due to hosting costs, Encyclopedia Dramatica may not have long to live...

Please join and use WhatPort80 and help make it into a quality, safe-for-work alternative, created and maintained by the community.

Perhaps we should list it as such. Joe9320 of the CUWP | Contact the Council 04:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The ED website is up and running at the moment, but the notice on the main page is interesting. This is something to watch.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll get you back on the updates. Via talk page. Joe9320 of the CUWP | Contact the Council 23:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, reports of ED's death are greatly exaggerated, and the site is far from inactive. Let's just leave it alone until there's something concrete to actually report - Alison ^❤ 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall posts like this happening before. Often coinciding with fundraisers. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If that doesn't scream JOKE in 10 foot neon letters I don't know what does. --85.108.103.59 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This site is not safe.

I went to Encyclopedia Dramatica and instantly got weird virus/trojan horse, etc, and upon research quickly found that it's apparently very common. Unfortunately, all references are from forums. Belasted (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been claims before that some of the pages on ED have a malware risk. Unfortunately as you point out, this lacks reliable sourcing, so it is unsuitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, mentioning it in the article prose would indeed require an RS. But how about a simple and fair warning next to the external link at least? Sending unsuspecting readers to a site that contains malware without any warning due to a lack of reliable sources seems a bit odd. --78.34.216.138 (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to ED, Google search results do not list ED as "This site may harm your computer", as it does for some sites. This does not alter the fact that there have been quite a few claims of malware on ED (see the talk page archive) but there is not enough evidence to make a clear statement on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's likely that any virus from ED are coming from the advertising network they use. It's a very common vector these days. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There are no viruses or "malware" on ED that can infect your PC. Just simple scripts that mess with your browser. People who say ED has "viruses" don't actually know what a "virus" is and don't even have proof of attack or the name of said "virus". I could post a link to such browser manips here, but I'd probably get banned. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this deserve an article?

Seems more like an unofficial fansite,with tons of unrelated articles. Does it deserve an article,let alone be involved with "Anonymous and the internet". 4chan isn't very fond of it at all. my .02--Hitamaru (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it deserves an article. This has been debated ad nauseum, and it meets our standards. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What about "Anonymous and the internet"? Surely its pretty far off on that. The article is pretty unorganized and messy.--Hitamaru (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is deserving of an article. Please read the entire talk page for more discussion of whether or not is should be here. Anson Stark (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The references speak for themselves; the subject of the article is indeed notable (and noteworthy). Also, 4chan isn't the boss of Anonymous, especially since 4chan is dying of cancer. In addition, why would Wikipedia care about 4chan's opinion on what deserves to have an article or not? Wikipedia isn't affiliated with 4chan. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What he said. ED is independently noteworthy and has repeatably been shown to meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion - Alison ^❤ 08:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

lol, u mad? i jes had to do it.Seriously tho, ED doesn't warrant much of a reference. Its like saying their should be an article for My life is twilight and it should be part of Twilight portion of wiki. --Hitamaru (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The article can be nominated for deletion, see WP:AFDHOWTO. However, it would probably not have much chance of success, as ED is notable enough to be worth an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading Hitamaru correctly, it seems in addition to questioning the existence of this article, s/he is also questioning the inclusion of this article in Template:Anonymous and the Internet and the inclusion of the template here, and this is why s/he mentioned 4chan's opinion on ED. Siawase (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I've stated before, 4chan doesn't equal Anonymous. 4chan doesn't get to dictate what belongs on Template:Anonymous and the Internet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

4chan is the medium for discussion among anons, am i correct? Even trolls don't like ED. Its more of a fan wiki wiki with an ongoing insert word that redirects to an article lol am i funny yet? but thats my opinion and opinions don't hold much weight in arguments. but Its a fact that its not deserving of being an addition to anonymouse & the internet, like i said a fan wiki thats not welcomed among anons.--Hitamaru (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, 4chan is a medium for those who wish they were a part of Anonymous. 4chan is Newfag Central. Attention-seekers post there so that their friends would believe that they're a part of a group of leet hackers and DDoS'ers when, in fact, those attention-seekers couldn't tell the different between HTML and BBCode. 4chan is filled with people trying to create forced memes as a way to gain "Internet fame". Contrary to popular belief, 4chan isn't synonymous with Anonymous; anyone can post anonymously, but anonymous isn't synonymous with Anonymous either. Of course, Hitamura, Wikipedia isn't about the personal opinions of you or me; it is about sources. Have you read any of the material in the "References" section? There are plenty of sources linking Encyclopedia Dramatica to Anonymous. Do you have reliable sources stating that ED isn't connected to Anonymous? Also, please note that 4chan isn't a reliable resource. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention-seekers D'oh hoho :), ED is the exact opposite amirite? It's full of personal army requests with people writing biographies with the same unfunny joke of redirecting to pages. It's like preschool humour with an extra penis joke thrown in. "Newfag Central", anyone still referring to anything as suffix -fag should meet their local firing squad for a lead enema. I,one up your argument by giving you the same exact task as to finding a reliable source that 4chan isn't connected to anonymous. 4chan is the medium among anons. Anyone still participating in raids are the cancer. These "Newfags" are the only way you can create new content. I respect your opinion but disagree--Hitamaru (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you reading with your QUALITY set of eyeware or something? I said that 4chan isn't synonymous with Anonymous; I don't say that "4chan isn't connected with Anonymous". If I had said that "4chan isn't connected with Anonymous", then I would attempt to remove 4chan from Template:Anonymous and the Internet just like you're trying to remove ED from that template. I'm not disputing 4chan's connection to Anonymous; I'm just saying that 4chan isn't the same as Anonymous. You, on the other hand, are questioning Encyclopedia Dramatica's connection to Anonymous. You and your little wannabe anons wish to remove Ed from the template simply because you hate ED. Unlike you, I don't have any desire to remove any entry from the template. 4chan isn't the top Authority of Anonymous, and 4chan doesn't control Wikipedia. I respect your opinion, but I must ask you to gb2/b/. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

>implying i got to /b/ anymore. Wannabe anonymous? Who said i was? >implying you are herp derp anonymous. This exactly how /b/ went stale when you children came about, /b/ is finally getting back good with funny humour and sorts. >implying i hate encyclopedia dramatica. You should stop having a temper tantrum because your favourite website is under attack of possible deletion from anonymousey & the internet.You act like anonymous is a sekret klub,where you get sworn in to sekretsee :-D,Anonymousey is people who post on an imageboard anonymously. It's very separate from Anonymous[ED],Its not like everyone in anonymous has an afro.I,myself,has one so does that make me anonymoose? Come on, its on the verge of dying from no donations while 4chan gets tons of donations to keep it in rotation. you gotta keep 'em seperated.--Hitamaru (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Whatever. Hitamuru, there obviously isn't any point in arguing with you anymore. You are the only person on this talk page who wants to delete ED or remove ED from Template:Anonymous and the Internet. There isn't any point in me trying to convince a person who can't be convinced. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to thank ED for giving me Nice gift of being an admin on the site :)! Yeah encyclopedia dramatica is totally awesome.--Hitamaru (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ED's advertisers installed Security Tool on my PC :)--Hitamaru (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Protip: Firefox + Adbock_Plus + No_Script. Don't forget to install actual security on your PC as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The very question "Does this deserve an article?" shows a lack of understanding about our inclusion criteria. Our personal feeling about the subject of an article have nothing to do with it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'd go delete Scientology immediately. Eventually, we'd run out of articles. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

They don't "deserve" an article any more than water deserves an article, but this subject meets our inclusion criteria. –xeno^talk 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, it has gone through the deletion process 23 times, which must be some kind of record. We might as well make it 24 for good measure. I'll go ahead and add what Wired think of ED, "world's lamest wiki".  :) - Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does not deserve an article. It's all part of a game where they play Wikipedia against itself and delight in feeling that they have won by forcing an inclusion of themselves as an article on Wikipedia. Sadly, the more I read over there, and here, the more I find that they are right, and it burns me, much to their delight. Hi Alison! --75.4.204.158 (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. ED got featured in several newspapers, thus passing the notability threshold that is required from all subjects. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it deserves an article. Honk2234 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Awards section

Please edit the awards section to say that it beat WikiHow. The great majority of planet earth do not know or indeed care about Mashable's 2nd Open Web Awards, and at letting them know who E.D. was victorious over gives at least some idea of the competition, and lets readers decide whether to take the award seriously.

Or just delete it. I don't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.93.85 (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done The Mashable awards are reasonably notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, there were disagreements over whether or not the runner-ups should be added to the article:

• 20:13, 16 December 2008
• 12:53, 19 February 2009
• 02:33, 9 September 2009
• 18:02, 9 December 2009
• 00:58, 16 January 2010
• 12:29, 17 February 2010

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is agreed by now that ED is not considered "notable" by the mainstream media (or the "old media" as ED likes to call it). If anyone wants to remove the runner up, feel free.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This wiki article does not mention Joseph Evers

ED is owned and paid for by Joseph Evers as cited in this news article http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/1025127/interview-with-encyclopedia-dramatica-moderator Sherrod DeGrippo merely founded the website but long ago Joseph Evers bought it and has long been the owner and person who funds the site. This Wikipedia article really needs to be updated with these facts. The supposed source for that is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all which is a cloaking site that won't load if cookies are disabled. But basically all it says is Sherrod DeGrippo runs the site. It never says she owns it. Joseph Evers owns the site, though Sherrod DeGrippo still does a lot of the site running. This article needs to get its facts up to date. Well I fixed it but it was hell trying to get those cite news templates to work and I almost gave up. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Go troll somewhere else. --Conti|✉ 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Troll? I thought that this information was correct.... --Enric Naval (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a reliable source for that above, so I think it should stay. And it's also common knowledge that Evers is the driving force behind ED. Any ED 'insider' will tell you this - Alison ^❤ 09:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (disclaimer: I'm an ED sysop)

I have a feeling that Conti is trolling me after it was a serious pain and hours of work trying to get those web cite things to work and I nearly gave up. ED has for I think 4 years or so said Joseph Evers is their owner. Most of the news articles about ED talk about its present activity and now, after about 4 years, finally this one is actually states Joseph Evers is the current owner. Keep in mind that, as I previously stated, no news article says Girlvinyl is the present owner. One from two years ago said she runs it, but that's not the same. It's the difference between the owner of a business and the general manager. There's one that said she created the site I think, but I don't remember the URL, it's the Weev interview one and if someone knows the URL, that probably should be the ref on the infobox under "author" that says "created by". That's a tricky infobox too as it has no "founder", just "author" and for a wiki that's confusing and then it goes and changes "author" to "created by" when it should have just been saying that in the first place. Anyway, now people spread all these rumors about how Encyclopedia Dramatica works behind the scenes, but Wikipedia policy last I checked (and it could've changed but this was the last I checked it a couple years ago) said they go by verifiability to settle which they write as accurate and this news article is the best thing to pass verifiability about who is the current owner. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source may be a wee stretch. The person's identity is not revealed, the interview was not in person and the quoted individual says "I am not an official organisational voice of ED". :) DeXXus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC).

Can you find better reliable sources on this? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy. Everyone, please read Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 10#Owner tags in infobox, continued, this topic came up before multiple times. Evers is an ED meme, an in-joke that's all about convincing others that he really exists and is running ED (Y'know, for the lulz). An anonymous ED member saying that Evers owns ED really isn't a very reliable source, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 10:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• For "Evers is an ED meme, an in-joke that's all about convincing others that he really exists and is running ED (Y'know, for the lulz).", do you have a reliable source on this? Also in the news article [8], it said, "[Encyclopedia Dramatica's chief executive, who was on vacation in the Yucatan and couldn't be reached]." Notice the [] brackets, mean it's not quoting the interview subject, but the article writer himself is asserting that as a fact. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So I read it and surprise - he's had a nonsense ED article in the past. I mean - who hasn't? You have -I have. It's largely meaningless as a data point. However, this source is different. LinkedIN is different, etc, etc. I don't suppose my own testament is of any use, given that I'm not anonymous (or Anonymous)? Also, I note that you're edit-warring against consensus right now - Alison ^❤ 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, this source is not different. It's awfully convenient that Evers never can actually be reached in such cases, isn't it?
• Yes, he had a nonsense article on ED. That's exactly the point. 100% of his article has been nonsense. And 100% of his article still is nonsense, although now it claims one thing while it used to claim something else entirely.
• Everyone can created Linkedin profiles and write whatever they want in them.

I mean, I can go on about how all this simply makes no sense whatsoever (Mysterious behind-the-scenes guy who happens to have his own article, including a picture; Said article starting out as something entirely different; Ridiculous linkedln profile; Never actually showing himself, always away; ED users doing their best to spread the meme everywhere; etc.), but really, a passing mention in an interview isn't going to make the cut either way (Hello, WP:BLP). --Conti|✉ 11:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Conti, I see you yourself have an Encyclopedia Dramatica article written about you. As distasteful as it is, it likely contributes to a state of heightened emotional actions regarding this particular issue. ED claims Joseph as owner, Joseph claims himself as owner and CEO and there is an article in what is perhaps a continent's most influential news source citing him as the current CEO. I recommend you take a break from this specific issue and not violate WP:3RR. --Truthseeq (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Convenient to see you around again. --Conti|✉ 12:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay now regarding what Truthseeq said about Conti being emotional. Conti has been on Wikipedia as a sysop since 2005 or maybe before going around keeping anti-furry edits off Wikipedia articles. Anti-furries tend to gravitate toward ED and so Conti saw that site a bunch of times. Anti-furries are not necessarily trolls as people are anti-dentist, anti-gorean, etc. Anyway, well Conti has been fighting them a lot for 5 years and being very successful at it. And well when one sees sysop here doing that, one thinks, "I bet they block people like crazy", right? Well go and look and Conti rarely ever blocks anyone. He's probably one of the least blockingest sysops Wikipedia. Now in 2006 or 2007 some sysops came to this Encyclopedia Dramatica article and they hated ED and so anyone who said anything positive about it, they blocked forever and well they got away with it every time. Well I don't know if Conti hates ED or what and it's possible he doesn't since his ED article doesn't show signs he's been there to "fix it", which most people do when they get ED articles. But anyway, the point is Conti gets all this stuff done as a sysop with all kinds of disputes with people he could block for years and yet he rarely ever blocks anyone. The furry articles have had maybe a fifty thousand accounts come along that he could have and yet he didn't block them and still got the work done. This is actually pretty perplexing and impressive. Basically the fact that Conti rarely blocks anyone and yet manages to get the job done despite this shows he has a very calm head to him. It's quite unusual to see on Wikipedia and maybe how he handles problems could serve as an example. It also shows that he is very very rational and calm. There's also evidence that he isn't emotional over his ED article since he hasn't tried to "fix" it or made a YouTube video complaining about it like many people do. Conti, of course, appears to me to simply be skeptical that Joseph Evers is real. I think it's how ED presented Joseph Evers. ED is always having money problems and so got a silent partner or something. That's not hard to believe. The silent partner wants to avoid fame as you can see him trying to avoid the public. That's not so hard to believe. But then ED dramatized Joseph Evers into some superhero and that made it hard to believe. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you pointed out in your last few sentences why it's pretty darn hard to believe the whole Evers story. There's not one legitimate source about him out there (not even one that would be unreliable by Wikipedia's standards) that cannot be faked in a couple of minutes. Not one. If that guy would exist, that would support the assumption that he'd actually like some privacy. And then there's the ED article about him, including a picture that's supposedly him (And that used to be an entirely different picture of an entirely different person, but I digress). Wouldn't he be, like, bothered by that? :) And if he does exist, and owns the whole damn thing, wouldn't anyone out there (who's not an ED fan) notice? How the hell do you own a website that's all about internet memes without actually being found on the internet yourself? How come that none of the ED guys (and gals) manage to actually show some kind of proof? --Conti|✉ 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the bracketed statement involving "...vacation in the Yucatan...", it's actually NOT a convention that the interviewer is asserting that as "a fact", but rather symbolizes putting words into the interviewee's mouth (as having been stated or explained outside the interview portion) to help to clarify a statement. Nothing more can be inferred. DeXXus (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Anonymity and confidentiality doesn't mean that the interviewee is unreliable. Anonymity and confidentiality are ways to maintain piracy and security. Giving out his true identity may do harm to his character and his family. Due to ED's reputation, ED moderators are potential targets for harassment. If you've read the interview, you'll see that the interviewee has children, and like any good parent, the interviewee wants to protect his children from harassment. This is why anonymity is necessary on the Internet. If anything, being anonymous shows that the interviewee has a sense of responsibility. Revealing his identity would not only be reckless, but it would also be incredibly naïve. From this, one can judge that an anonymous source is a more responsible, caring, and mature source than a source with a name. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That may or may not be correct, but to me it's rather irrelevant. My point wasn't that the source is unreliable because the interviewee remains anonymous, my point was that the source is unreliable because the interviewee is a member of ED. --Conti|✉ 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The NineMSN interview is a rare event anyway, because the mainstream media rarely covers Dramatica. Given some of the content on the site, this is hardly surprising. The article as a whole needs expanding, but the lack of reliable sources has held it back. It's a pity that some of the material in the NineMSN article cannot be used if the source is anonymous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Conti, being a member of ED doesn't make a person unreliable. NineMSN wouldn't do with ED with someone unreliable. Due to the interviewee's anonymity, he is able to speak his mind freely. If he had revealed his name, he would be withholding sensitive information in order to prevent backlash. Anonymity allowed the interviewee to say things he would otherwise not be saying. Anonymity is a good thing. An interview with moot on 4chan would still be a unreliable source despite moot's affiliations and anonymous identity. An interview with an ED sysop should hold equal weight as an interview with moot. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not about anonymity. Usually sources are reliable information about themselves. In ED's case, they're not. ED is all about inventing nonsense and writing about it, and we wouldn't use ED's article about itself to source this article. And we wouldn't use the interview to say that ED users never vandalize facebook tribute pages, for instance. --Conti|✉ 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing humor with misinformation. ED seek to inform, offend, or please (through humor); ED doesn't seek to mislead anyone. Also, ED doesn't encourage trolling or vandalism. If an user trolls or vandalizes, they're doing it based on their own free will and not because an external force like ED is telling them to. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ED provides humor by presenting misinformation (or lies, as they are commonly called), amongst other things. That's why an ED article is not a reliable source about anything whatsoever, that's why comments from ED editors should be taken with a huge grain of salt, at the very least. --Conti|✉ 22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Can't we just all get along? You're forgetting that we're "innocent until proven guilty", and that right extends to ED users as well. You're assuming that every ED user has a bad motivation. I believe that we should all assume Good Faith. Not all ED users lie. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• There has been a discussion about all of this on my talk page at User_talk:Ianmacm#Re:_This_revert. As an ED outsider, I cannot make any judgment about who does what at the site. The claim that Joseph Evers is basically a fake person may seem silly, but are there any direct interviews with him from a reliable source?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well there was that news article [9] where the reporter says in his own words, as he says it in brackets to show it's not the intervewee speaker, that Joseph Evers is the owner. You know normally when a website says someone is owner, Wikipedia simply goes with whatever the website says is the owner and just takes the website's word and that's that. But this is pretty silly how for 4 years so far, not everyone on Wikipedia has wanted this obvious mention of who the owner was on the article. Sure Joseph Evers has a dramatized article on ED, but even the site's founder, Girlvinyl, has a dramatized article on ED where she is depicted as being as tall as a skyscraper and fighting Godzilla. So yeah is there any other website article on Wikipedia where this kind of thing has happened of people not putting the obvious real owner up? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Once again, you failed to answer the actual question. Are there any actual sources about him out there? Anywhere? As for the interview, please read DeXXus' comment above. --Conti|✉ 07:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• How strict are the notability requirements for putting that the website's owner is what the website has said its owner is for the past 4 years? I've never seen a precedent like this before. This kind of thing is going to end up on wikipedia's "lamest edit wars" page. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Usually, self-published sources can be used for information about themselves. But in this case the self-published source is ED, which - as you yourself have said - makes up all kinds of ridiculous claims about everyone and everything, real and not real. How are we to distinguish the ridiculous from the serious claims when they are right next to each other? --Conti|✉ 12:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Conti, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Just because there isn't evidence of his existence doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. For example, there isn't any evidence that God exists, but that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. People still believe in God despite the lack of evidence. Conti, how about you show us evidence that Joseph doesn't exist? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You cannot prove the negative. And we don't write anywhere on the encyclopedia that God exists, either. :) We just write that people claim such a thing, or that they believe it. So if we'd write that ED claims something, instead of pretending it to be a fact, that would be fine by me. --Conti|✉ 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This debate is becoming weird and wandering off into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Conti's belief in the apparent non-existence of Joseph Evers is bizarre, but Mr. Evers (unlike Girlvinyl/Sherrod) does seem to be a somewhat shadowy figure. It is unusual (even on Wikipedia) for someone to be asked to prove their own existence, but it would help if there was some rock solid sourcing, such as the mention of Sherrod in the New York Times.[10] Failing that, can Alison and Michaeldsuarez give their word of honour that Joseph Evers is a real person and not a nom de plume? Bizarre, I know, but let's put an end to this thread.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Some rock solid sourcing is all I'm asking for. :) I already asked Alison on her talk page about this, but have not received a response so far. --Conti|✉ 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is reversing the burden of proof (WP:BURDEN). There is already a source for Evers being the owner of the website, even if it's weak. You don't have to prove a negative, you only have to provide some source that Joseph Evers is actually a fictional character. All the rest is original research and especulations. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not being able to disprove something is the term unfalsifiable and it's an important one in science. I searched information on him from google, from all revisions of his article, and I looked for every page on ED that mentions him. From what I know of Joseph Evers, he was some computer administrator for the trolling group bantown (I'm not calling them trolls, they call themselves a "trolling group" like gnaa and those that call themselves "Patriotic Nigras"). Well he also did a lot of that to ED. The thing is we know Girlvinyl founded ED but it seemed to be a group of people from the website ljdrama that also helped cofound it. We have no idea if girlvinyl puts her own money to cover what donations and ads make up or if she can't afford it and one or more people do. The site gets a lot of traffic and it's really expensive to run. As for Joseph Evers being real or not, now remember that moot, owner of 4chan, claims Christopher Poole as his real name when anyone who's been to 4chan for a while knows that name is just a compilation of 4chan injokes. Joseph Evers could be an alias for someone else like that. It's possible the pictures of him are not him. But either way, someone who uses the moniker Joseph Evers is the one who is paying for the surplus expenses of ED beyond what donations and advertising can't handle and he also does web administrator work on ED. If you see old versions of the ED article, he was originally just a guy doing the webmaster work and such for a bunch of people. I know some people who are good at the *nix operating systems can make a lot of money so he'd make more income than girlvinyl. If he's traveling, it's possible that part of his job is some traveling tech support. I once temped at a company using this operating system called Pick or something and they had it installed on companies all over the world and when there was a problem if they couldn't solve it remotely, they'd have to send a person out. They'd also send people out to do that when they first install software. So my theory is that Joseph Evers is the moniker (unknown if it's his real name) of some techie guy who makes a lot of money doing tech work on computers all over the place and he was one of the original webmasters of ED and he's footing all the surplus expenses of ED. His ED article tries to make him look like a jock because being a super-smart computer guy doesn't sound as cool. But anyway, this is all just theory. All I know is that someone who goes by that name is paying the bills for ED as girlvinyl doesn't have enough money and that I've seen actions done on ED where people said it was the order of Joseph Evers. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave the debating about falsifiability to Karl Popper. The question still stands: Is Joseph Evers a real person or an alias?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. But ED says that's his name and a news article says that it his name. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Alison about this on her talk page. Without a straight yes/no answer on this question, even my suspicions have been aroused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP considerations mean that until some sort of verification is obtained (beyond the trivial mention, we should leave him out as a person of marginal notability/non-public figure. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. If the owners of sites like ED and 4chan want to live in the shadows, they fail WP:BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Will they be removing the Christopher Poole alias from the 4chan article, too? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

4chan states: The Washington Post concurred that "Christopher Poole" could be "all a big hoax, a 'gotcha.' It would be just what you'd expect from the creator of 4chan". It looks like we are facing a similar situation with the almost permanently untraceable Joseph Evers. The article cannot name Joseph Evers as a real person unless this is cleared up.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference is, Moot is a very public figure. Even if his name, Chris Poole, is a pseudonym, he makes public appearances often. He has given talks at conferences, spoken to newspapers, and was even the number one most influential person named by TIME Magazine for 2009. Hell, I even met him once. Moot certainly exists. Mr. Evers may or may not exist, and has never made a public appearance.

I don't know what the BLP thing is about. Is it allowed to be written that girlvinyl is "no longer the owner" or "not the current owner" and just say that without mentioning the new owner's name, citing the sources that say she's not the owner? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This debate has become focused not on who does what at ED, but whether "Joseph Evers" is a real person. I am satisfied that Sherrod DeGrippo/Girlvinyl and Alison Cassidy/Alliecat are real people, but would admit to doubts about the damned elusive Mr. Evers. Has anyone ever met this person?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, that standard would need to be applied to every single website article on Wikipedia. Every website article where the owner doesn't make public appearances often would be deemed possibly not real by this qualification. Since Joseph Evers already even has media qualification, being fair means removing the owners of every website article until they have done whatever needs to be done for people to say Joseph Evers is real. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

By WP:BLP standards, the question still stands. Has anyone ever met him? See And Then There Were None. Is Mr. U.N. Owen a real person?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I researched it and found that Girlvinyl, Fubster, and Weev have met him. I googled and also found that years ago Weev had some stuff on his blog with photos about how he went to Mexico to hang out with him. Joseph Evers did go to Lulzcon 2006 and everyone who went there met him. Lulzcon 2006 was ED's most recent lulzcon. People from the group bantown have met him as he was some techie there. Plus you can apply the "Has anyone ever met him?" to almost every website article where the owner hasn't been interviewed by reporters and find they fail that too. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any links that go with your research? --Conti|✉ 10:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that he does not exist, but given what happened in the Essjay controversy, there are times when solid information about a person is needed. There is still a lack of reliable sourcing about Joseph Evers, which is why there is a need for WP:BLP caution. Even if he exists, the name Joseph Evers may be a pseudonym for someone else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A new article came out http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/1028037/encyclopedia-dramatica-owner-could-face-charges Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's some strangely convenient timing. --Conti|✉ 07:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ninemsn is a reliable source, so this may be worth putting in the article. It is also interesting that Evers says "My counsel has advised me that I can never under any circumstances visit my family in Sydney again, nor otherwise make any appearances on Australian soil." As for the legal aspect, the courts in Italy ran into controversy recently over their conviction of three Google executives.[11] There is little doubt that ED is not flavour of the month in Australia, but since it is hosted overseas, the Australian government's options may be limited. The conviction of the three Google executives was little more than a technicality.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There's Gary McKinnon. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If the Australian government attempted to extradite Joseph Evers from the USA, it would almost certainly be told that his speech had First Amendment protection there. Unfortunately things have worked out differently in Gary McKinnon's case. At the moment, it looks like the Australian Human Rights Commission is going through the motions with a lawyer's letter. Sometimes these things come to nothing, so there is a long way to go.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed a convenient timing. The AHRC letter and the article removal were back in February of this year. He has been saving an old news story, and now he is recycling it at the moment when he needs to get some attention. "You publish in day X an article where I appear, and I'll give you material for that article". I'm afraid that this is a fairly common occurrence for all newspapers. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be unduly paranoid to suggest that Joseph Evers is following this thread on Wikipedia, since ED rarely gives a XXXX what happens here. The two ninemsn stories are the only reliably sourced things that Google has to say about Mr. Evers, and there is no reason to believe that the AHRC letter is fake.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Evers (or whoever is behind that name) is following this threat, but ED users in general certainly do read what's happening here, and I would be surprised if they wouldn't discuss this issue amongst themselves. Anyhow, we could mention the AHRC letter in the "In the media" section, which already talks about the censorship issue. --Conti|✉ 10:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the email from the AHRC doesn't mention Evers anywhere ("Dear Sir/Madam"; "in an email from ED" instead of "..from Mr. Evers"). Only the blog post itself claims that Evers himself is possibly going to be charged with anything, so our article should reflect that (With the usage of "According to.." or something). --Conti|✉ 11:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did take this into account when adding it to the article. Since ninemsn is a reliable source, the wording is given "as is". No attempt was made to introduce original research or WP:CLAIM.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And the ninemsn story claims that the AHRC contacted Evers directly, which not even ED's blog post itself is claiming. That's not making me trust that source very much. To me it looks like they simply paraphrased the blog post without any research whatsoever. But yeah, pointing that out would be original research. There's also a difference between "threatening" legal action and an "initial investigation into charging" someone. --Conti|✉ 11:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sickipedia: bid to shut offensive 'encyclopedia dramatica' - The Sydney Morning Herald
• Encyclopedia Dramatica Owner May Face Charges Down Under... Despite Not Being In Australia - Techdirt

Arbitrary break 1

- two more sources mentioning Evers and the latest controversy - Alison ^❤ 02:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Techdirt source is based on (and links to) the ninemsn story, so it can't be considered a separate source as far as demonstrating the existence of Mr. Evers. Both ninemsn and SMH seem to be based on the Evers blog post; neither contains an original comment or statement from him. So, it may well be the case that I created a blog, called myself Joseph Evers, and showed the post to friendly media outlets who are all too willing to show the Aussie government being naughty. I still don't see this as a definite confirmation that Mr. Evers exists, or is the owner of ED. In the spirit of BLP, when there is doubt, we need to err on the side of caution. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Then we need to remove Sherrod DeGrippo's mention from this article too, as there is less evidence for her involvement with ED than Evers' at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.118.218 (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP is about articles whose main subject is a living person. Hence "biographies". It is not used to reject properly sourced statements. You people have tinfoil hats on, seriously. Someone above seriously suggesting that Encyclopedia Dramatica users somehow manipulated NineMSN, which according to Alexa is the largest news source in Australia, into printing false information to... satisfy requirements for a Wikipedia edit war? Do you people ever listen to yourselves? The statements about Evers are properly sourced and belong in the Wikipedia article. Hands down. Trolling is not tolerated on Wikipedia. --Truthseeq (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

After Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden it was clarified that BLP applies to information about living people in all articles, not just articles for which the subject is a living person.

And yes, I am suggesting that somebody at NineMSN saw the blog post and didn't bother to verify Evers' credentials or actually talk to him. It contains very little that is not in that blog. If (normally) reliable sources base a story on inherently unreliable sources, we can't accept it as valid. I've seen errors and sloppy journalism in not only NineMSN, but also the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and some of the biggest media outlets in the world. Things do slip through the cracks, and that's why most newspapers print corrections daily. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, however, do you have conclusive proof that Joseph Evers doesn't exist? By the same standard, do you have conclusive proof that Sherrod DeGrippo does? --Truthseeq (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't, but i'm not required to. As someone who has gone out of his way to be a non-public figure (as opposed to Girlvinyl, who is very well-known, even in RS), unless very strong proof is recorded, we need to err on the side of protecting Evers (if he dies exist). I have no idea who Ms. DeGrippo is, but if there are no sources that discuss her then she should go as well. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

All the claims here that Joseph Evers does not exist or is a pseudonym are purely original research. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not research, even. Raw speculation. --Truthseeq (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting bored with the Joseph Evers does/does not exist debate, but would still point out that little is known about him. He has kept out of the public eye, and it is hard to tell how much of his online profiles are accurate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If someone tries very hard to be a non-public figure, we should respect that. The Wordsmith^Communicate 13:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And if someone tries very hard to be a non-public figure while his followers try very hard to get his name into Wikipedia, we should be suspicious. --Conti|✉ 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That too. Especially in the case of ED, which is comprised of trolls more or less by definition. For all we know, Alison could be Joseph Evers (I'm not seriously suggesting this, its a joke). The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, sod what ninemsn said, we are still no further forward than when we started all of this. Will anyone go on the record and say that Joseph Evers is not Essjay Mark 2? See also: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)