Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:03, 18 July 2006

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 Jun 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 March 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Excessive inline links to ED

I'm unhappy with all the links to ED within the page text. Do we really need links to Jameth and mediacrat's User pages on ED? I changed the links that pointed to Misplaced Pages User pages to point to ED User pages, per Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references, but I'm not convinced they're necessary. We also don't need to link to ED's statistics page just to say how many hits they've had, I don't think. Thoughts? Hermione1980 22:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• The link to the ED statistics would be a pretty stnadard inline footnote style "source" link. The rest should probably go. SchmuckyTheCat 03:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversial

I was going to put in "bigoted" instead of contreversial since that's more accurate IMO, but it's likely that a revert war would have followed from that. Karmafist 15:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• The only reason I can see for you changing it to "bigoted" is the fact that you look like you have trouble spelling controversial --IICATSII 17:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You actually have it right. They are more bigoted than controversial, are the home of ageist's, sexist's, and other -ist's and -ism's. Really, I don't understand why anyone would go to their page. Their arguements are flawed at best, and lies at worst Christopher

• Perception is rarely fact, especially in a case like this. Sour grapes? And how are you not seeing why/how people visit the site? Wouldn't people of all the traits you ascribe to the userbase flock together? --Alex-jon 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• "Their arguements are flawed at best, and lies at worst" - It's a parody website -- IICATSII 21:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• 220.237.218.98 10:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Karmafist on this one. A while back, I created an account on ED just to poke around and observe. Within days, I had all sorts of attackish templates pasted on my user and talk pages. Whenever I reverted them, they would be reverted back plus more added on. I requested protection on the pages but who knows what the hell's on there now because I refuse to check it. Probably attackist trash is still there, feel free to check for yourself (username Nathan or nathanrdotcom. I forget). — Nathan 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I have an account there and I've been very happy with the site. I think it's the second best site on the internet, and sometimes when Misplaced Pages's giving me the blues, I think it's the best. I once got a "hey stupid" message from an admin there, and enjoyed it. I think the way to handle ED is to not take anything seriously there. Nathan, I couldn't find your userpage there under "Nathan" or "nathanrdotcom", so I don't know what kind of templates you're talking about. -GTBacchus 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

His page (which has since been protected) can be found here. I think the whole issue was due to a misunderstanding of the site's rules on talk pages, which are a bit different from those of Misplaced Pages. --EBCouncil 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think his mistake was not taking being insulted and belittled in the right spirit. Maybe Nathan isn't into the whole snotty drama kid aesthetic. -GTBacchus 18:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember that case. What happened was that nathanr contravened rule number 4, the “no unwarranted self importance rule”. Anyway, it’s all water under the bridge now. ~ IICATSII 09:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

nathanr's user page seems to be exactly as he wanted it (after minor edit drama that lasted a single day), and he was never blocked from editing. I hope it can be agreed that his talk page displays patience in explaining the then-prevailing Encyclopædia Dramatica etiquette. On the whole, I don't understand nathanr's complaint. --Jacknstock 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess he meant this version of his userpage, which you reverted a few times. The page is also protected, although according to the logs, it never was. Apparently, the logs on ED start somewhere in March 2006, so he could've been blocked before that time without it appearing in the logs. --Conti|✉ 14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the archive of the pre-March 18 block log. Apparently, he was blocked indefinitely, then quickly unblocked, and later blaocked for 12 hours by another admin. That was actually fairly tame punishment by ED's standards. And as IICATSII stated, the blocks were only administered due to repeated disregard for the rules. --EBCouncil 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I think wikifur could be a secondary source on this article. DyslexicEditor 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know . . . I'm not sure our article really adds much, and it is written by a group of people who have reason to dislike the site, even with our NPOV policy. GreenReaper 15:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As this article is still devoid of reliable sources two months after the AfD, I merged what could be verified into LiveJournal. Ashibaka tock 04:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The site itself is a primary source. Losing a VfD and turning around and making the article a redirect is not ok. SchmuckyTheCat 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Our usual rule is that site's can't be sources for themselves, isn't it? Wouldn't that make this whole page original research? Aren't we supposed to be a tertiary source? Don't get me wrong; I like Æ, but I don't understand how we aren't appying much looser standards than usual here. -GTBacchus 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the key point is verifiability. We would not use ED as a secondary source for subjects written about on ED. ED is obviously a parody site. But ED is a primary source for our article on ED. If a statement is made "ED tells its writers not to be unfunny." and we cite an ED policy page that says so, then it is verifiable. Examination of a primary source is not original research unless you are making novel new claims from the examination. This is true whether your primary source is a website or the Declaration of Independence. SchmuckyTheCat 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

By that standard, would absolutely any website be a fair topic for an article here, whether or not it has any notability outside of itself? What's to keep all the webcruft out? I ask because I found my way here after talking about AlmightLOL on WP:DRV. If it can serve as the only souce for itself, why not let it in? Am I making sense? -GTBacchus 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is not a substitute for notability. Apples/Oranges, etc. SchmuckyTheCat 21:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Scmucky, I know all the mantras around here; are you saying that since any website can be used to verify its own contents, that any website is worth a Misplaced Pages article, or no? -GTBacchus 21:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not by most notability standards but this isn't about notability. SchmuckyTheCat 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that's an answer to the question I asked. -GTBacchus 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because your question doesn't make sense to me. Whether a website is deserving of inclusion as a Misplaced Pages article is a question of community consensus and notability. ED has been through deletion reviews several times already. Your question is about verifiability. Things (including websites) can be verifiable without being notable, so no, being verifiable does not grant automatic inclusion to Misplaced Pages.

The problem with ED is that it is notable but difficult to verify with secondary sources. In which case, we use the site as a primary source. We should only report the things that are obvious and restrain ourselves from making novel interpretations of observations. This isn't difficult because the creators and primary authors of ED material have publicly written their motivations and such into ED documents and policies. We don't need to interpret because we can observe. SchmuckyTheCat 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources must be used selectively:

1. We can say "the site tells its users to be funny".
2. We cannot say "the site's users try to be funny".
3. We can say "the site claims it is run by girlmecha".
4. We cannot say "Sherrod DeGrippo heard of the deletion of the LiveJournal-related article" blah blah etc.

If you won't let me merge the entire thing in, I'll at least remove the "history" section due to this obvious issue. Ashibaka tock 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But it is verifiable from writings of Sherrod DeGrippo that that is the reason she started it. That is actually sourced, isn't it? (And girlmecha is a livejournal/somethingawful user who has an article, she's got nothing to do with the site.) SchmuckyTheCat 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not verifiable in an independent published source. Isn't that the standard? Has any independent reliable source written about ED? -GTBacchus 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

History

Encyclopædia Dramatica's history began when LiveJournal blogger and LJ Drama co-founder James Lee from Seattle, Washington, started using Misplaced Pages and created an article about LiveJournal blogger Grayden Rayne (former legal name Joshua Williams). The article was subsequently deleted, despite LiveJournal users, including members of LJ Drama, lobbying to keep the article.

Verifiable based on Misplaced Pages records alone, but also based on entries from ljdrama and ED.

LiveJournal user and LJ Drama administrator Sherrod DeGrippo heard of the deletion of the LiveJournal-related article, and, as a response, came up with the idea of creating Encyclopædia Dramatica so LiveJournal users could write about their experiences on LiveJournal and other blogging Web sites, as well as various Internet phenomena. DeGrippo stated in a Misplaced Pages discussion that " vanity pages and personal flame wars on wikipedia is the reason Encyclopedia Dramatica exists".

Self-verifying. DeGrippo, in her own words, quoted within the paragraph.

Since its creation, Encyclopædia Dramatica has wgrown to over 2000 articles. By September of 2005, Encyclopædia Dramatica had surpassed five million page views.

Non-controversial statistics.

SchmuckyTheCat 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• It would help if this stuff was actually cited in the article. Might lead to fewer misunderstandings and make the article more workable. --W.marsh 23:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted them a long time ago, actually, with an edit summary of "too many ED inline links" or something like that. SchmuckyTheCat 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"DeGrippo, in her own words, quoted within the paragraph." How do we know she's telling the truth? Ashibaka tock 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The article on the US Declaration of Independence quotes Thomas Jefferson on reasons certain statements are in it (and not in it). How do we know he's not lying? The truth of the GV statement isn't at issue. It's a quotation, properly sourced to the speaker, and immediately relevant to the topic. Misplaced Pages editors should make no claim to either it's truth or fiction. SchmuckyTheCat 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the thing where ED is a response to Misplaced Pages. That's an interpretation of someone's comments. Ashibaka tock 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What? SchmuckyTheCat 00:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The US Declaration of Independence, and Tho. Jefferson's comments on it, have been thoroughly documented in independent, reliable secondary sources by historians who are uniquely qualified to comment on the relevance and meaning of various statements. That's why we ask for citations from good secondary sources. As far as I can tell, the best secondary source we have on ED is WikiFur. -GTBacchus 01:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It was rhetorical. Jefferson may be well sourced and still be a liar, right? Ashibaka is accusing a primary source of being mendacious about her own motives. SchmuckyTheCat 01:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an "accusation" so much as a rhetorical question making a point about sources, but ok... -GTBacchus 01:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It raises the question that we should be questioning the "truth" about a primary source. That is absolutely not why we are here.

Nobody is raising Sherrod as a reliable source on anything but one question: the motivation behind the creation of ED. There is no other source to get that information. Where would a secondary source get better information about the motivation? It is unquestionable that Sherrod has made the same statement multiple times in multiple places. She said it. We write it (attributed to her).

If there was some controversy about it from a secondary source then the proper thing to do is cite BOTH. That isn't the case. SchmuckyTheCat 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok, but this herring is very red. I'm not claiming that Sherrod is lying, nor is anyone, I don't think. I'm simply asking whether there exist any WP:RS secondary sources for the information in this article, and if not, why it's cool to base this article on primary sources when that isn't our usual standard. I regularly see articles deleted because there's no independent, reliable source for the facts in them. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a tertiary source, right? -GTBacchus 06:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is unusable as it is currently written because it contradicts the very policies that it is trying to backup (as well as itself). That's why it's a guideline and not policy. It does, however, give general credence to using primary sources (which the NOR policy says is essential and the verify policy says we should try to source as close to primary as possible) as "in general, Misplaced Pages articles should not depend on primary sources". In this case, we are relying on primary sources.

Reliance on primary sources here is acceptable, because the basics of the article are factual and not interpretative. There is no interpretation going on because ED editors have stated these things widely and openly. SchmuckyTheCat 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

DeGrippo stated as such during a deletion debate. Perhaps the first one for this article, or maybe the mediacrat one, I don't recall at this moment. The phrase was something like "Moved to Encyclopedia Dramatica, which was created for these types of things." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

About Wikifur as a source here.... ... Wikifur uses Encyclopædia Dramatica as many of its own references for furry-related happenings (even though ED is supposed to mock furries, wikifur doesn't get all sensitive and just links the info.) DyslexicEditor 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikifur isn't a source about anything. SchmuckyTheCat 03:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki features

Dyslexic Editor repeatedly puts in phrases about ED use of Show Preview and such as "criticism of Misplaced Pages". These are basic features of the MediaWiki software that both Misplaced Pages and ED run on. It has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages.

Secondly, he keeps putting in references to Chuck Norris based on a single sentence in the ED Welcome message. ED is not a site about Chuck Norris. SchmuckyTheCat 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're the one edit warring here. I restored some of your deletions. You act like you control the article. Several admins here have done edits and you've edit warred with all of them. Also I the 7-11 the you keep re-adding I remove fails WP:V and WP:Notability. DyslexicEditor 06:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your additions and deletions don't seem to make sense in the context of ED, though. What's your justification for them? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Verify slurpees in article on Canadia , Verify Slurpees in Japan , Taiwan has Slurpees , China is full of Slurpees , including pictures.

This is notable in the context of a list of common themes.

Unlike other wikis you may edit where Admins are given great control to abuse people and whatever they say goes, Misplaced Pages admins just have easier access to tools. On ED if an admin wants an article deleted, they just delete it. On WP, it is an abuse of power to delete an article that has survived community consensus, twice. SchmuckyTheCat 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

4 articles is lacking as ED has maybe 1000 articles. Can you cite 20 with 7-11 references that have been there before May 2006 that are 7-11 references that you haven't personally added? I'm assuming you yourself added those 7-11 references some time in the past. DyslexicEditor 04:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just look here and here. And a good number of these articles are ones that SchmuckyTheCat has never touched. --EBCouncil 05:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In your links, old meme links to these. The site is full of old memes. 7-11, should be mentioned as an old meme in this article, unless you want every old meme to be a common theme? DyslexicEditor 06:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Other wiki views

I personally think that "Encyclopædia Dramatica" is total shite. Now, that's my POV, but many websites that use the wiki technology share this opinion. Wikipedians seem to be in the opinion that it's a waste of good internet space, while Uncyclopedians, well, look for yourself. http://uncyclopedia.org/Encyclopedia_Dramatica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.154.33 (talk • contribs)

I have to disagree. Encyclopædia Dramatica is the second best site on the internets, sometimes first best. Don't try to speak for Wikipedians, anon. -GTBacchus 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It has better content control over removing lame attempts at jokes. It's nowhere near perfect (i.e. 7-11 slurpie crap is there), but it's better than uncyclopedia. DyslexicEditor 07:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what a person's opinion on ED is? It stil deserves a supposedly factual article. I don't like Hitler too much, but I still think there should be an article on him. How is what you think about ED relevant at all?
Sidebar: Encyclopædia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia are two different websites which are home to two different types of humor. Just because something is different, it doesn't mean it is better or worse. --The Finn 06:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ED is down

today i found that ED was down.70.20.240.199 02:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Today I ate yogurt. Despite that, ED was available online. Maybe your Mom installed some censorware. --Jacknstock 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Jacknstock Notable for inclusion in this article? DyslexicEditor 13:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

what? SchmuckyTheCat 00:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

DyslexicEditor is asking if I am notable enough to be included in the ED article. Perhaps I am, but I have serious doubts about my verifiability. Here is the reversion of my edits by Crayolacrime, the core of the disagreement. There has been very little change to that article since, leaving all grammatical errors and misspellings intact. Since reverting the article on June 8, Crayolacrime has made no other edits, and neither has Sloth (who I suspect is the same person or a very close friend). --Jacknstock 01:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Furry administrators

Despite the immense amount of furbashing on the site, many of their administrators have fursona names and a few, like SchmuckyTheCat, even state their furry fandom in the website's furry article (which has been protected for years and the mention has been there for years). This is verifiable. DyslexicEditor 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

protection log DyslexicEditor 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

First added 22:09, 18 January 2005 by Jacknstock and the mention remained to this day. DyslexicEditor 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you not understand parody? No ED admin is a furry. Calling me a furry borders on WP:NPA. I don't remember the circumstance, but I think some vandal hater there added my name to it. I found their vandalism attempt as humorous and left it (I try to incorporate vandalism to my wikipedia user page as well, rather than wholesale removal of it).

I did unprotect the article there, I don't believe in long term protectionism on any wiki, thanks for pointing that out. SchmuckyTheCat 18:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How does being a furry be a personal attack?

It appears you didn't read what I wrote. Jacknstock did it. Link proves this. DyslexicEditor 18:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexic editor, what's your point? If there are furry admins at ED, if there aren't, who cares? That's not material for an encyclopedia article. Are you actually trying to use Misplaced Pages to point at someone and call them a furry? This isn't the Wiki on which to play out these dramas, ED is. -GTBacchus 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose three of the admins have an animal in them. Killhamster (which is about animal cruelty, not impersonation), Schmucky (who just told you he's not a furry), and Blu_Aardvark (also not a furry). You know, if someone has an animal in their name, it doesn't make them a furry. 71.112.141.236 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The important point is - who cares? Talking about who is and isn't a furry among the ED admins is so not what Misplaced Pages is for. If we all grow up a notch and focus on WP:ENC, the problem will just go away. -GTBacchus 19:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "furry" is a slur. Like faggot, or nigger. I don't appreciate your referencing me with that term. SchmuckyTheCat 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So then do you consider "furs" or "furry fan" the non-racist version? DyslexicEditor 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, do you know what a slur is? 71.112.141.236 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Or just misuse of the term racist? 71.112.141.236 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat I was just going off your website. I'm not sure what you consider wrong with being a furry, but if you enlighten me, I will listen. DyslexicEditor 23:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a discussion forum. That subject has nothing to do with this article. SchmuckyTheCat 06:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• This disussion - - Hahnchen 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree that we shouldn't upload a screenshot of an article featuring a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Accuracy dispute or Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

The older version attacked no one.--MONGO 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Find an admin to unprotect it - I suggest you go to WP:RFPP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I already had. SchmuckyTheCat 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

I've reprotected this article with myself as protecting admin. Misplaced Pages isn't to be used for the purpose of harassing people. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

The current version doesn't seem to contain the picture that was used to harass. --Tony Sidaway 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Mongo deleted it instead of reversing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

When he gets bored we may restore the screenshot. Have you ever seen a bored kook? --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

Don't see why we should. We're not bound by their editorial policy. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

A troll, in the form of a snide personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

I work in customer service and deal with crazy people all day. DyslexicEditor 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Evers

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

• Because it is stupid. SchmuckyTheCat 18:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

External link

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. Misplaced Pages is not going to promote that website anymore than we promote hivemind.--MONGO 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hivemind? DyslexicEditor 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

Then you are misunderstanding the policy. I don't know what more can be said.--MONGO 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You could explain what I'm misunderstanding, perhaps? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages...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)

Protection of Talk: page

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

Of course it wouldn't.--MONGO 05:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

;) 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)

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)

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)

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)

Um...how about at the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--MONGO 07:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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/Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica#Link_to_the_site Thanks. rootology 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to the site

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)

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)

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/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-Misplaced Pages venues reflect badly on the attacker and are unlikely to achieve a positive outcome. Misplaced Pages 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-Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages--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)

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)

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)

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)

UUMMM...have you seen WP:NPA? I guess not.--MONGO 07:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, I notice how that covers accusing other wikipedians of being trolls. ~ IICATSII 07:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

That's about the size of it ~ IICATSII 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Ryulong 07:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Each case has it's own merits I guess. ~ IICATSII 08:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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