Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:52, 21 July 2006 editHipocrite (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,615 edits →I'm back, sorry - does this meet V, RS?: lolarticle← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:28, 21 July 2006 edit undoPmanderson (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →I'm back, sorry - does this meet V, RS?Next edit →
Line 674:		Line 674:

	: Ok, we can do with this article: "Encyclopedia Dramatic is a wikimedia based website which contains a picture of George Bush with tl;dr inscribed on his forehead." ] - ] 11:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)		: Ok, we can do with this article: "Encyclopedia Dramatic is a wikimedia based website which contains a picture of George Bush with tl;dr inscribed on his forehead." ] - ] 11:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
			:: <chortle> But seriously, I think this ignores the section of ] which says ]. ] 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:28, 21 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.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:TrollWarning

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Encyclopedia Dramatica. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Encyclopedia Dramatica at the Reference desk.

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Protection

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

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 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)

So, are you suggesting that this page and ED's main page be constantly monitored, and the link removed here whenever there is a personal attack (on a wikipedian, presumably) featured there? If you would like to do this, I suppose it could be considered "within policy", for whatever good that does, but it doesn't seem like a tenable policy itself, in the long run, given all the many external links to which it might be needed to apply in other articles.... Eaglizard 11:29, 19 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)

What is the reason for continued protection of the talk page? rootology 17:02, 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)

What are you accusing me of? I see that you have had an account with us for a year and have less than 150 edits total and you want me to take your commentary seriously? I was alerted to this situation...I don't have the time to be everywhere, buddy. How about you go write one long well referenced article and stop your trolling.--MONGO 09:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

ED Page Link

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

What for?--MONGO 09:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It’s unfortunate, because I was just about to defend the trolling accusation thrown at me as in that everyone who disagrees on a subject is not necessarily trolling. ~ IICATSII 10:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it per WP:ARCHIVE. Mongo, you gotta calm down, dude. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

No, what for? I don't see any reason to be linking there yet. No matter what, there really isn't any reason for another screen grab anyway. I see little reason to give them much of anything here. I might even fix this article better yet as I have serious concerns about it's notability. We don't prmote that website here...if that is your mission then go away. Maybe we'll re add the link in a few months.--MONGO 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL, Mongo. This is getting tiring. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There’s no “mission”, as I work on other articles as well (not in the same capacity as other wikipedians admittedly, if I had more time then I would strive to contribute more.) However I do feel that personal issues with that site are clouding you judgment and causing you to lose site of what Misplaced Pages stands for. ~ IICATSII 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need a screen grab at all? If someone is reading this article on wikipedia, they already know what a wiki page looks like, and that is all that the screen grab shows, a wiki page with whatever content. The logo image OTOH has some value. NoSeptember 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't. Consensus at the time was that the screenshot was useful. Regardless, unilateral abuses of power should be opposed, and the article should be restored to its previous, not-attacking, neutral state so we can work it out as opposed to this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ED must be a minor site if its most useful purpose is to be used as an attack wikipedia site. As an attack site, it should be treated as the other attack wikipedia sites are. Spam black listing the link seems reasonable to me, and we should redirect this article to Criticism of Misplaced Pages. NoSeptember 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Except it's not. In fact, Misplaced Pages is a very small subset of what goes on over there, it's more into LiveJournal culture and net stuff. Some douchebag decided to change the screenshot picture is all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages was important enough to have their mainpage set up as an attack page for a surprisingly long time. If the admins there promptly reverted the main page attack, then I would agree with you, but the ED admins cooperated in the attack, the ED admins are quite culpable, and your "small subset" argument doesn't hold water. NoSeptember 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly long time? Check the page history over there, it was two days. I don't know of any ED admins who edit over HERE regularly who "cooperated in the attack," I in fact know of two (myself and Schmucky) who opposed using the attack page as an image. Do some research before making claims like that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On the internet, two days is an eternity. Also, I was not limiting my reference to ED admins to only those who edit here, please don't make that assumption. As a group, the ED admins acted poorly, I am sure there were some who objected, but the bad actors prevaled and it reflects poorly on the site. NoSeptember 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So our main page here is updated once every half-eternity? In all seriousness, they certainly don't care what anyone over ehre thinks, some are pissy I'm even half-defending what goes on here right now. They certainly don't care how the site is reflected, so I'm not sure what is being accomplished here with this constant, meaningless back and forth, especially considering the multiple bad faith accusations throughout this talk page about the motives of editors here. The longer it stays protected, the more attention it recieves. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ED is more of a really really bad copy of uncyclopedia, especially making fun of those who don't like being made fun of. So, not feeding the trolls is a good approach here, IMHO. (And yes, I have an article about me there, too.) --Conti|✉ 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I disagree. Let's not wheel war, Tony Sidaway is capable of reverting his protection at an appropriate time. NoSeptember 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I asked instead of just unprotected. :) --Conti|✉ 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. Just minutes after they changed the main page, it was announced here and we are expected to forget all about the attacks and trolling. We should not be "played" here by ED editors (and these comments are not knowingly directed to anyone on this talk page, since I don't know if anyone here was involved in those attacks). NoSeptember 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So who's playing you? You're not assuming good faith by those of us here who oppose the needless protection, you know... --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We really really should all calm down here. I don't care if ED will disappear tomorrow or not, or rather, I'd very much like that. But I think that there's some overreacting from both sides here. And that's pretty much what the trolls want. --Conti|✉ 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The protection lacked merit from the beginning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be unprotected, but with the view of several wikipedians keeping their eyes on the article so as personal attacks don’t become a problem. ~ IICATSII 13:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection Bias

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

I don't want to escalate it if we don't have to. There are certainly options in place, but I don't think that will be necessary once Mongo cools off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've never seen an article on my watchlist get locked in this fashion before (let alone for such a bizarre issue). What recourse as editors withour escalation exists to get this article unlocked? Getting an admin to do it? Can a vote be called for concensus (and made to be honored)? How does it work? Or do admins get veto power on anything? Thanks. rootology 15:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's unprecedented for me, too, and I've been editing nearly a year and a half. They're outright ignoring us at requests for page protection, a second admin came in and reprotected already to take it off MONGO's hands. We're pretty much at the mercy of whoever's willing to actually step in and reverse the lack ofstandard operations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So concensus of editors does not have to be honored if say a vote were called? Isn't that a standard policy? Surely there must be some recourse if there ever an overtension of administrative priviledges. rootology 15:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've never dealt with this type of thing before. We could go to the administrators noticeboard, but it's been discussed already and it's how User:Tony_Sidaway showed up. With no attention at WP:RFPP, the next step might be WP:RFC or a mediation request, but, again, I'd hope that those who came in here like gangbusters instead of working with us would step up instead once it cools off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be worth bringing it to User:Tony_Sidaway Attention? ~ IICATSII 15:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone hasn't, it might be worth a shot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So, just so I'm clear: admins have authority to veto/suppress the overwhelming opionion of editors on an article? i.e. if a vote is called for unlocking (hypothetically) on a given locked article, and it's a vote to unlock, any admin can just say "No, sorry!" and thats that? rootology 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in the protection policy about "voting" or "consensus" to unblock. Of course, there's nothing in the protection policy to justify this page protection either, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if a an actual vote were called here that showed the majority of editors prefer for no more than semi-protection or no protection on the article of ED, and if the admins didn't follow through, it could be seen as bad faith on the part of the admins? Just want to be clear who gets to make such decisions--the majority, or the few. Any editorial oversight/interference beyond group concensus would seem to be biased based on subject matter at this point as the MONGO article no longer is on ED's home page. If no one objects I'm calling a vote in a few hours. rootology 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Misplaced Pages policy is not a suicide pact. 2) Just because the main page has changed doesn't mean that the trolls are gone from here, so policy still applies (it's a value judgement as to whether the attack vandalism will continue). 3) There is no need for such impatience. Tony can be trusted to decide when to remove his protection, he may already be ready to do so, for all I know. 4) Keep in mind Jimbo's comment on an article more notable than this one: We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it (link). This article is not so important that is even has to exist, especially if it encourages trolls to come to wikipedia. 5) I see no evidence that any admin has acted out of emotion here, protecting against attack trolls is a reasonable thing to do. NoSeptember 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

2) Where are the trolls, then? Where's the evidence that editing isn't able to solve any minor troll problems? 3) There was never any need for protection, and one has yet to be presented. 4) This isn't Brian Peppers, and the comparison is completely without merit given the specifics of the case. Check the history of the article - it doesn't "encourage trolls" at all, and any minor trolling has been dealt with swiftly. 5) You don't? This entire charade has to do with acitng out of emotion, rather than discussion, consensus, or policy. Why make excuses? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You realize, No September, that you're essentially giving in to trollery here? John Kerry and George W Bush attract trolls, predictably. Well, the solution they've come up with is pretty good; semi-protect, and put a trollery warning on the talk page. Why was so much more censoring action done here, while allowing MONGO to edit without accountability and locking up the talk page and refusing to hear of the matter on his talk page, effectively giving him total control of the article? This is not a "value judgement" case; policy provides for a specific case just like this!

Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Misplaced Pages:Accuracy dispute or Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies.

Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over.

Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest.

Important Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.

Why weren't these policies complied with? This is not a special case; the policy provides for cases just like this. WHy are you ignoring this, and why is this being ignored at the requests for unprotection? Moreover, If MONGO is so innocent, why is he refusing to discuss it, unless he is mocking editors who raise concerns?

As posted on the Request for Unprotecting page just now based on all this evidence (no offense, mongo) but I do not feel that MONGO has any place in this article for administrative purposes given possible POV/bias issues--justifiable or otherwise. It's simply too heated and adversarial. The appropriate thing would be for him to recuse himself from any further edits or actions on this matter and for this to be addressed by other admins. rootology 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Unprotecting

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

I'm impressed Tony, thank you. For the record, the entry was not being used to harass, but the image, and it's unlikely any similar image that doesn't harass will be making its way back anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Perhaps if any further issues occur we should go semi-protection *first*, to allow editors of the articles to manage the issue internally...? rootology 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony ~ IICATSII 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

WP:V

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

Please insert {{fact}} templates where required to give editors a chance to cite. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

]. Inserting the scores of fact tags required is not valuable. Assume every single sentance requires verification. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but am I misinterpreting this edit cited that we have to provide a references that ED is a parody site or an encyclopedia...? rootology 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not an encyclopedia. You would not need to provide references for obvious statements (mediawiki, collection of LiveJournal events and Internet memes). However, statements of not-obvious fact (December 10, 2004, proxy servers, reason for creation, negative point of view, weed out, themes, DCMA) will requite sourcing, and statements of opinion (skewers topics related to Misplaced Pages with a satirical slant, caricuture) will require both sourcing and attribution. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

everything bar the DCMA is easy, every reference to it comes back to this site. ~ IICATSII 19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly, strongly doubt that the majority of the article is verifiable. Specifically, I doubt that you can verify December 10, I doubt you can verify the reason for creation (please note that Misplaced Pages is *NOT* a reliable source for Misplaced Pages), I doubt you can verify the skewer comment, I doubt you can verify the blocking policies, I doubt you can verify the example themes, and I doubt you can verify the comments about the flare-ups. I welcome you to try. Do not violate WP:V or WP:OR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You underestimate the power of the Dark Side ~ IICATSII 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you doubt that it's verifiable, you haven't read enough ED. It would be much more productive to put in the fact tags as needed, since to seasoned readers of ED, most of this stuff is obvious just by checking out the page. It's either that, or every single sentence is going to have to be referenced, and that will make for one ugly article. Karwynn (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"since to seasoned readers of ED" is not the standard WP:V requires. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How long is standard time with the {{fact}} templates to allow citing before deletion? rootology 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. Jimbo Wales says "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"spam for kooks"

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

...for records-keeping purposes in the event of possible issues/ongoing issues. rootology 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey buddy...that is to be left on the talk page...keep the link for your own record.--MONGO 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Can I ask why? If I'm violating a policy I want to know which, I didn't see any against reposting information related to an issue. Also, isn't editing comments left in talk pages against policy? Thanks, looking for confirmation. rootology 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You can link to there but you don't copy and paste.--MONGO 19:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Which policy is that defined under so I know for the future? rootology 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

So what, as I said, the article is going to be undergoing revisions...if it can't comply with wikipedia policies, then it will end up being deleted.--MONGO 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! So long as it goes through the same neutral unbiased peer-reviewed procedure/discussions, vote, etc. as all other articles do in case someone nominates it for deletion. rootology 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno...we may have to redirect this page in the near future. Suggestions welcome, but may not be followed.--MONGO 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do admins have authority to override concensus? I am thinking this article needs to be rolled back, and certain people barred from editing due to their aggressive stance and clearly biased POV until editors have time to source content given it's contested nature. Also, who put you in charge? Not an attack, but your tone seems to imply that you get "final say" on what happens here. Do admins > concensus and procedure? rootology 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Any attempt by you or another to remove or force this article to a redirection will be rolled back immediately (or when found) as what I perceive to be biased editing. If needed this will be appealed as well above you--no offense. Your personal issues with ED and of your friend admins is apparently biasing your role as an admin. Perhaps you need to be restricted from editing on this page outright by higher authorities. This article should not be removed or redirected, and your tone of "I run the Internets" is inappropriate. Please see other Wiki-project articles on WP that also are small:

http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Psychology_Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/Jurispedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/Mac_Guide

http://en.wikipedia.org/Open_Source_Reiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/OpenFacts

http://en.wikipedia.org/OrthodoxWiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/PSConclave

http://en.wikipedia.org/PeanutButterWiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/Personal_Telco

http://en.wikipedia.org/ProductWiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/Quicksilver_wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/State_Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/Symbolwiki

On what legitimate, policy based reason could this thus be conceivably redirected or deleted? Thanks!! rootology 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't edit those articles.--MONGO 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Stats URL from ED

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

I have not removed any links yet. In fact, I haven't weighed in on this issue yet. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, that was a MONGO edit. rootology 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy...find reliabel third party sources for information on ED...using their own posted information, due to the website's entire issue with credibility, is not going to fly. Nothing they have to say can be trusted, they even admit this on their pages! So you must find reliable third party references. See:WP:NOR--MONGO 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is getting a bit biased again. So this article is being held to unique standards that others arent? rootology 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't ED, it's Misplaced Pages...and no, the article isn't unique...we expect this for all our articles...surely, since your goal is to be a wikipedian of the highest magnitute, you must know this.--MONGO 19:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I like to think I am. Can you verify on 3rd party sites the count of Misplaced Pages articles with evidence beyond quoting press statements from Misplaced Pages? I am contesting that the stats page on ED is not valid. It uses the same application was WP. How is that page not valid thus? rootology 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't totally disagree with that, but Misplaced Pages does state that they are building an encyclopedia, whereby ED makes it clear that they aren't to be taken seriously.--MONGO 20:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why we should start such sentences with "According to ED...", so people can make up their own mind. That's a pretty usual procedure for controversial sources, AFAIK. --Conti|✉ 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please readd info in this format. Further revisions beyond that, removing them afterwards, in my opinion would be hostile/abuse. rootology 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How do we file for arbitration?

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

Why is it stupid? The article before was based on original research and was promotional...see WP:NOT.--MONGO 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFAr. I do not consent to meditation, so we can skip that step. You could try an article RFC at WP:RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's some good faith right there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here WP:AC ~ IICATSII 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

THey delete material, saying we need links to show the nature of ED. Then they revert the sources, saying ED articles are unreliable. obviously, ED articles are the best source for seeing how ED articles are. Karwynn (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any more evidence necessary as to the willingness of these two to cooperate? Karwynn (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts with sources

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

Creation date

I used the 'whois' linux command to query the DNS servers for the domain and recieved : Record created on 2004-12-08 18:01:34.. This means that is when the domain was registered. This doesn't indicate the date of installation of the wiki software or the creation of the content of the site, but it does give a concrete date for registration of domain. --Bouquet 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR is prohibited. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How is a whois record--which is a legitimate PUBLIC RECORD in legal cases/US Court--original research? rootology 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I thought looking up the facts was helpful and the point. What can I actually do that is ok? --Bouquet 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not original research. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexa online since

According to Alexa, the site is Online Since: 08-Dec-2004

source: http://alexa.com/data/details/main?url=encyclopediadramatica.com

Alexa site summary

The articles in this parody of an encyclopedia explain things in a funny and not necessarily correct way. is the quote describing the site at Alexa.com.

Source:http://alexa.com/data/details/main?url=encyclopediadramatica.com

Alexa is a reliable source. Readding. rootology 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I did that here, and it was reverted by Karwynn (he's not biased and on your side, right?) here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Semantics. You guys are loving looking for any little nit to pick on this article at this point, aren't you? One of yours was offended and mocked by some 3rd party site, so now it's open season on the related article... Even my patience is wearing a bit thin. Imagine if you two actually spent this much time working on the rest of Misplaced Pages how much work you could have done. But vengeance must be served for yours, eh? Please only post if you intend to help improve the article in some fashion rather than baiting editors trying to improve it. rootology 23:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. For reference -

Username Rootology

Total edits 355

Distinct pages edited 88

Average edits/page 4.034

Versus

Username Hipocrite

Total edits 5363

Distinct pages edited 1464

Average edits/page 3.663

Whats your point? That you've been around longer? Is there a WP:YourMoreSpecialThanMe policy I overlooked? Irrelevant. I read WP since like 2001, but only recently started to really help out. Please contribute to postively build the article or else refrain from trolling. Or would you like a barnstar for beginning to engage in troll-style activity? rootology 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bantown

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

It was in a Wapo forum. It's now archived, but the wapo link in the article is the URL where it was. You'll have to deal with Wapo's archive (which, like many newspapers, may be paid) to look it up. SchmuckyTheCat 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Forum posts are not reliable sources per WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It was an article signed by a Wapo editor in their interactive section. That's not really a "forum post". He was reporting news behind the news that didn't go to print in the technology section. SchmuckyTheCat 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not accurate. The blog post by the editor is available at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html and does not mention ed at all. Please provide a WP:RS that does. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly has a link the the Bantown ED article. --Weevlos 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

While ED *MIGHT POSSIBLY* be a slightly reliable source for non-laudatory facts about ED, it is definently, pound the table, absolutly positively not a reliable soruce for facts about anything else. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It hardly matters if you agree with ED's reliability or not. The fact remains that Bantown used to announce the cross-site scripting attacks they were exploiting on Livejournal. This is a record of a notable event that ED was involved with and it was independently verified by a reporter from the Washington Post. It is not up for dispute. --Weevlos 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that says that Bantown announced the attacks on ED. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The ED page is linked from the Washington Post article. --Weevlos 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. The accurate WP link, which you removed, is and contains no such link. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove such link, and if you open that page and search for the text "I would not recommend visiting their site at work" you will notice the words "their site" are hotlinked to the Bantown ED page. The announcement of the attacks was made on the ED page and is still there, and the attack and methods used were verified by a Washington Post reporter. Your continual press to remove this information is in bad faith and should be ceased. --Weevlos 23:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is evidence they keep a site at Encyclopedia Dramatica. It is not evidence they announced the attack at that site. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. This tidbit is not really relevant. Karwynn (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Complaint lodged

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

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

Internal/archived wiki pages as source

What policy says this isn't allowed? rootology 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

YOu can't use the apple ARTICLE to reference that "apples come in red, green, and yellow" ini another article, but obviously using an archived DISCUSSION to verify the existence of a referenced Misplaced Pages action or discussion is logical. See Jimmy_Wales#Controversy. Karwynn (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be logical, but it is using Misplaced Pages as a primary source. It used to be on WP:V, but it seems to have been split to WP:SELF, which is a guide not a policy. Let me dig and see if it is still in policy anywhere. KillerChihuahua 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As my last comment made clear, there is a difference between using an article from an Encyclopedia and using just a discussion section. As far as I know, discussion sections are not considered encyclopedic. We're verifying the existence of something here, the existence of a discussion. t makes absolute, perfect sense. Why would it be a problem? Is there some question as to whether or not the described events actually happened? Karwynn (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"administrator of LJ Drama"

Is this really important to the subject of the article?

If you want a SHerrod article, put it there. Karwynn (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"as a Misplaced Pages-style collection of LiveJournal events and Internet memes."

Where is the subject header above cited? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here:

*"Drama" from LiveJournals and websites.

And here:

*"Old memes" such as "in the ass", "16 year old girls", "13 year old boys", "42", "7-11," and "At least 100 years ago".

Plenty more cites can be found. Karwynn (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are "Example themes," not "a Misplaced Pages-style collection of LiveJournal events and Internet memes." There is a WP:RS - what I wrote from the alexia description. Why not use that? Hipocrite - «Talk»

Because a specific in-article phrase citing the source isn't particularly great for an intro. Karwynn (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You consider a violation of WP:OR preferable to "The site is described by Alexia as "a parody of an encyclopedia explains things in a funny and not necessarily correct way.""

Already linked to cites, not original research! Karwynn (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are links to "Example themes." You are using some themes you pulled out to demonstrate that it is "wikipedia style" and that it is "a collection of LiveJournal events and Internet memes" One could just as easily say it is a collection of personal attacks - you have that as a theme, right? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages style is evident by visiting ANY page and viewing layout, structure, functions etc. Additionally, "personal attacks" are covered in the mention of the use of misinformation to mock people. Karwynn (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR - you need to find a third party source that says it is Misplaced Pages style. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete the whole thing, and block anyone who admits to being associated with their site--messanger 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- - Admitted run-in contributor and censorship advocate. Karwynn (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    - You have confused a strawman sockpuppet of one of your Encyclopedia Dramatica friends for one of the people on my side of this issue. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      - Quite the accusation. Got proof? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        Is your email active? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        As always. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        As soon as I get home and create a dummy email for you I will demonstrate the obvious proof to you. If you spent about 3 minutes looking at the history of the thing, you'd know in about two seconds. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        A dummy e-mail? Wow, that's insulting. Don't bother, if you think i'm going to screw with you, I don't need to waste my time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        
        Better question: who cares? Ignore him, as an admitted bad-faith contributor. Karwynn (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is up for deletion

Come express your view on wether or not this article should be deleted or not on its AfD page. (→Netscott) 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stub

I have stubbed the article, leaving only material that complies with WP:V. This can be a good starting point to add material that is properly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this edit of mine only lasted for less than a minute, which supports my pessimistic assessment about the future of this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss your issues with the lack of proper sourcing. Most of the "fact" tags have been replaced by citations. Which ones are inadequate? Karwynn (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged procedure is to find and add proper sources, rather than blanking most of the article. T.K. 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the job of people who want information in the article to add such sources. People who don't believe such sources exist because the information is either false or unverifiable are advised to remove the information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it would be nice (given the current storm surrounding this article) if folks would tag appropriately (or comment out) anything that's majorly disputed, and give editors time to find references. Besides, the deletion tag in the header says explicity "this article must not be blanked". T.K. 22:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags and commented out sections are routinely reverted out of the article without providing reliable sources - as yours just were. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And article was once again blanked (Ok, not 100% blank, but leaving a single paragraph is deleting all meaningful content!) even though progress was being made on adding appropriate references. Only two sections that lack ref are about bantown and the livejournal incident. I'm reverting to earlier and also tossing out the section on IP bans, it's common knowledge that these affect those that they don't mean to, it has nothing to do with the article in general. If you disagree, put it back and i'll leave it, but PLEASE stop blanking the article. T.K. 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The following sections also have no WP:RS cites - everything not in . Encylopedia Dramatica is NOT an RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As you are cited in my complaint I am requesting that you stop editing this article--yourself and MONGO as admins cited in my good faith complaint should recuse yourselves. If need be we can escalate this further, and/or pursue action to see if we can get your editing abilities restricted temporarily. This is borderline if not outright harassment and revision warring and disruption on your part. rootology 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The only way I will stop editing this article (and I have not reverted it yet), is if ArbComm tells me to. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And also in WP:RS is the following: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is: relavent (yes), not contentious (with the exception of the bantown and livejournal sections), not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing i see no bias, we're listing facts about AD's history., about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject again, excepting the livejournal incident and bantown sections And I feel the need to again point out the article blanking as prohibited by AfD discussions.

The links to each of the individual sections are pure spam, there is reasonable doubt who wrote every word in a wiki except for special pages (the community portal, the statistics page). Please note that every one of the adminstrators, who know policy better than most, have all shown up to stub the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how we're at an impasse, i'd suggest putting the article back as it was (with controversial links) and wait for the AfD discussion to end. T.K. 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the stub is much better. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You should also think of stubbing Uncyclopedia too. - Hahnch e n 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking Site Content

Hipocrite: Please do not do this again, it is in violation of Articles pending deletion policies. Perhaps these need to be added to the complaint already filed. rootology 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Hipocrite please leave the tagged up article as it is... it corresponds better to the AfD. (→Netscott) 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Rootology reverted MONGO with the following edit summary: Reverting MONGO edit. Per AfD do not torch this page. These links been removed MANY times in edit war. Take it to talk page to hash out. Otherwise, vandalism. Follow policy. The AFD boilerplate itself says: You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. Also the Guide to deletion says that you can edit the article during an AFD. Guettarda 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's better off to leave most of the article unblanked while it's on AFD while readers look though the quality of the article. As for the current revert was, quite a few of you broke WP:3RR already, as it's any 4 non vandalism reverts in 24 hours. It's confusing to tell who broke 3rr than who didn't. Stop revert warning. Jaranda 06:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I blanked nothing...I removed external links to their website that violate WP:RS since they are not from a reliable third party source. I am trying to maintain policy and accusations to the contrary are incorrect.--MONGO 06:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't slogged through all the diffs, but I don't see blanking. Anyway, my comment was meant narrowly - MONGO's edit isn't vandalism, and doesn't conflict with AFD instructions (as quoted above). Of course edit-warring is bad, especially at the breakneck speed it's been going here - looks like 119 edits since Tony unprotected this article about 13 hours ago? Wow. Guettarda 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If anything, myself, MONGO, and Hyprocrite all certainly violated 3rr on certain edits I would think. Perhaps all three of us should stop editing this article for a day? Of course Hypocrite vowed to never stop, so.... rootology 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you 3 along with SchmuckyTheCat, Karwynn and KillerChihuahua all broke 3rr I think, I advise you 6 to avoid the article for 24 hours. Thanks Jaranda 07:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed my edits to the article, and am fairly confident that I did not violate the 3rr in any meaningful way. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. There is a whole debate on that on the 3RR page, along with an accusation that I reverted the talk page here, which is utter nonsense. KillerChihuahua 13:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding: I am, however, taking Jaranda's advice and leaving the article alone. KillerChihuahua 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant to add are close to 3rr, not broke it, only about 2 people did, it was 3:30 AM so I was too tired to check. Sorry about that Jaranda 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Washington Post in refs

The link seems to be bad - will whoever added that please check and see if its fixable? And is the title of the link correct, it is to a blog? KillerChihuahua 08:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the ref, since it's broken for me as well. It's still in the history, and if someone else knows how to find a working link to the referenced content, they should feel free to add it back in. -Hit bull, win steak 12:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the reference in this edit, but I was reverted by an anon, and then SchmuckyTheCat blindly reverted to his preferred version with the bad reference. The reference does not support the statement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct link to Washington Post, a valid news source that cites ED and acknowledges it's notability, restored:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html rootology 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that - The article is Account Hijackings Force LiveJournal Changes and I see no reference to ED anywhere in the article. The only mention is an anonymous comment "Bantown seems to be associated with a bunch of people whose mission on the Internet seems to be to find, laugh at, encourage, and cause "drama", especially around Livejournal. LJDrama, Frienditto, Encyclopedia Dramatica, now this." Is that supposed to be a reference? And if so, of what? That an anon mentioned the name? KillerChihuahua 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "dramatica" is not used in the article, anywhere. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello? The article doesn't even mention Encyclopædia Dramatica, this is not a valid reference. KillerChihuahua 14:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Direct link to them at "An established hacker group known as "Bantown" (I would not recommend visiting their site at work)" section. Why would a major news source link to URL that is not notable? rootology 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a section, that's the comments - as in, random guest-page like entries from anyone on the 'net. KillerChihuahua 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the Post did not link to, or mention, Encyclopædia Dramatica at all. KillerChihuahua 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you see, the author of the wapo blog linked to the bantown page on ED, mistakenly calling it the hackers page. He dosen't actually say that they announced the attack on ED. No one actually says this. The only reliable sourced information that comes out of the blog is "Bantown has a page on Encyclopedia Dramatica." Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stats

"Since its creation, according to automatically generated statistics, Encyclopædia Dramatica has grown to over 3300 articles as of July 2006, with over 8000 registered users.,

This keeps getting removed from the article by a handful of people. Prover here that these do not belong in this article, or else they stay. Notethe Misplaced Pages article says: "Since its inception, Misplaced Pages has steadily risen in popularity" and cites itself as a reference: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngUsageVisits.htm. This is reliable but other unverifiable sources are not? That article also says:

"Midway through 2006, Misplaced Pages had more than 4,600,000 articles in many languages, including more than 1,200,000 in the English-language version. There were more than 200 language editions of Misplaced Pages, fifteen of which had more than 50,000 articles each."

Can this be verified by any source that is 1. 3rd party ( doesn't count, if this doesn't count). 2. Not just a reposting/reprinting of a press release by Misplaced Pages? Is it an objective source that did their own research?

Do you see why deleting this section is pointless? rootology 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Newsvine.com review

This is now formatted correctly to match the rest for reference citation, as is the Washinton post one:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html http://shaolintiger.newsvine.com/_news/2006/03/14/132384-another-alternative-wikipedia-encyclopedia-dramatica

What else do we have that can be added? rootology 14:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Shaolintiger, L33t h4x0r, food lover and SCUBA diver, is not a WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

His work is listed as a column on a valid news source that has it's own Misplaced Pages article at newsvine. Is the site a valid source? He appears to be a columnist talking about pop and Internet culture. Whats not RS there? rootology 14:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Newsvine is a blog-like service that lets anyone start a column. I just registered wikipedia.newsvine.com. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't demonstrated it's not a valid news source. Demonstrate to me where the site fails RS. rootology 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:RS...it's basically just a blog.--MONGO 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.

However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngUsageVisits.htm

Shall we be hypocrites and remove this newsvine reference yet not remove this link from Misplaced Pages? Let's play by the rules, not just on the articles we don't like, gentlemen. Or perhaps we should also remove this reference from here, that one from Misplaced Pages--I don't see Jimbo making raw access logs available for review and oversight, no one can verify his source there (plus it's self referential, as cited here by admin represtatives of Misplaced Pages as not valid). In fact, perhaps newsvine should be AfD as well based on your arguments? So, if this is removed from the ED article we need to remove that link from Misplaced Pages's article, Newsvine has to go AfD... anything else? You're gaming the system, exactly as cited in my still open complaint. rootology 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We have an article on Weekly World News, too, but that does most certainly not make them a reliable source. KillerChihuahua 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the published article doesn't it? Please review: http://www.newsvine.com/ If Drudge Report a valid news source? They broke Clinton/Lewinsky. If Weekly World News had, would that make them legitimate? rootology 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Newsvine does not require editors to do any fact checking at all. The drudge report is on the borderline of WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Newsvine is a blog-like service. Anyone can write anything there. This is not acceptable, full stop. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages a valid news source? rootology 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is specifically listed as an not a WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am officially requesting then that as an admin you remove this: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngUsageVisits.htm as a source from Misplaced Pages as a flagrant policy violation. rootology 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No. If you feel it should be removed, you go do it. I don't feel either it, or the stats page from ED, fail WP:RS. I do, however, think that newsvine does. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves. To a certain extent, you can use ED as a source for this article, and you can use Misplaced Pages as a source for the Misplaced Pages article. You can not, however, use other unreliable/self-published sources for these articles. --Conti|✉ 15:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTE, request: As this is going to very contentius, I request that this news cite NOT be removed without concensus. rootology 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As soon as you are blocked for your multiple 3rr violations, I intend to remove the newsvine quote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone else will readd it I'd imagine if proper concensus hasn't been reached. We'll all just have to keep on eye on your revisions as well. Are admins bound by the 3rr rule? rootology 15:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's reversions, of which I have one. Yes, they are. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

THe whole "Alexa/Alexia" thing

Hey, in the intro where it talks about the whole Alexa comment on the site - I don't think that's a good quote for the intro. It just doesn't sound introductory. The other phrase, saying "as a Misplaced Pages-style collection of LiveJournal events and Internet memes", fits the intro much better. The "Misplaced Pages-style" part is evident in just glancing at the site, and the "Livejournal events" and "Internet memes" is sourced later in the article; those sources can easily be repeated in the beginning. Please comment here. Karwynn (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than "Misplaced Pages-style" I suggest simply saying it is a Wiki, possibly mentioning that it utilizes the Wikimedia software. KillerChihuahua 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I dispute that it is merely collection of LiveJournal events and Internet memes. According to you, it is also a base of operations for a hacker group (though I dispute this) and a venue to personally attack wikipedia editors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

According to who? Not me certainly, since I agreed with the removal of the bantown stuff. Besides, the statement I'm endorsing doesn't say that's what they do exclusively. Saying it is a wiki would be fine with me. I'll craft a sentence, review please. Karwynn (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the "Alexa" quote is redundant, it's just a more clumsy version of what was stated above. I'll give it a good 15 minutes or so and remove it if no one has objections. Karwynn (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your concrete proposed change, please? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph as stands -

Since its creation, according to automatically generated statistics, Encyclopædia Dramatica has grown to over 3300 articles as of July 2006, with over 8000 registered users., According to Alexa Internet, "The articles in this parody of an encyclopedia explain things in a funny and not necessarily correct way". and the site ranked 24,462nd as of the July 18th, 2006 Internet traffic ranking.

Propose change to (not including the already present citations)

Since its creation, according to automatically generated statistics, Encyclopædia Dramatica has grown to over 3300 articles as of July 2006, with over 8000 registered users. Alexa Internet ranks the site 24,462nd as of the July 18th, 2006 in their Internet traffic ranking.

Since its creation, according to automatically generated statistics, Encyclopædia Dramatica has grown to over 3300 articles as of July 2006, with over 8000 registered users. According to Alexa Internet, the site ranks 24,462nd as of the July 18th, 2006 in Internet traffic.

By the way,, leaving "no" in all your edit summaries might, perhaps mistakenly, give the impression that you are being intentionally uncooperative, so you may want to consider leaving more descriptive summaries. Karwynn (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Registered usernames, not registered users, I think. I have no problem with any of them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Coo, coo. Anybody else? I know we're not the only two editors here :-) Karwynn (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Note on ED as a source

In case you haven't figured it out, ED is only being cited as a "source" when an example of the described aspect of ED is needed. It is not being used as a source for information regarding matters outside of ED. Therefore, saying ED is not a reliable source does not make sense any more than citng this video (right-click and save) as evidence of Lara Logan criticizing Laura Ingraham. Or better yet, this as evidence of Jimbo Wales' prevous self edits (that's a citation used in Jimmy Wales. Obviously, ED being referenced just to verify the existence of certain types of articles just makes sense. Karwynn (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, Misplaced Pages's endless self-referencing is valid precedent that our referencing ED thus is legitimate--including the stats page. rootology 14:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Karwynn - what reliable source do we cite for anything about ED's tone, intent, or contents? We can link to examples of things we describe as being there, but our description of what's there has to come from reliable independent sources. Does it, or is it original research instead? -GTBacchus 23:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Any comment on this? Misplaced Pages references itself. rootology 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the existence of one policy violation in no way justifies another. If the Misplaced Pages article uses Misplaced Pages as a source for information about Misplaced Pages, then it's wrong, unless there's some very good argument that's been made for why we should make an exception for that article. If that argument exists, in that special case, then whether or not it applies to this special case is a question we'd have to ask. -GTBacchus 23:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts of Jeff's reply below? rootology 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only type so fast... see below. -GTBacchus 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Who do we ask? Also, question (not sure if this is allowed or not). As we can't edit the article for good reason, is there a rule against me making a mockup at me user page in a sandbox and posting the link here for additional commentary and working towards a resolution? I feel I can create a cited larger than stub size article that would be exempt from deletion based on policy standards and would like to get input on it. rootology 23:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Who do we ask?" Each other, ourselves. We discuss and decide, same as with every decision here. As for making a sandbox version somewhere like Encyclopædia Dramatica/Temp, I think that's a fine idea. There's certainly no rule against it, and if someone gets upset or calls it a POV fork, they're being silly if it's clear that we're using it to work on the article. -GTBacchus 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The verifability policy allows for ED to be used as a source as long as the source meets certain requirements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to cite this for the third time now. Basically, you can use ED as a source for the ED article and you can use Misplaced Pages as a source for the Misplaced Pages article, as long as nothing controversial is being sourced. --Conti|✉ 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would fly in the face of our original research policy to use a website as the only source for information about itself. That's what AboutUs.org is for. The spirit of all our inclusion/exclusion policies is simply this: when something is important enough to enough people that secondary sources start talking about it, then we reference what they had to say. That's it. Sure, we can link to a website to provide a good example of whatever, but writing about whatever in the first place has to be based on someone else's decision to write about it, in a reputable publication. -GTBacchus 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... what do you think of the sources I cited below? rootology 00:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to say that we can use the site as a reference for itself, for example to write how many articles they have. The site itself can still be non-notable and might be deleted, of course. Hmm, and yes, having additional sources about this would be very much preferable. I'm not sure if this is needed per our policies, tho. --Conti|✉ 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Would any of the ED cites on the page *now* count per policy? rootology 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't to abstain from linking to websites on article about those cites; the point is to comply with the spirit of our inclusion/exclusion policies, as I detailed in my reply to Jeff and ContiE above. -GTBacchus 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for lock from edit warring until AfD completion

I have asked http://en.wikipedia.org/User:William_M._Connolley to keep the page locked in it's current, "relatively" agreed upon state until the AfD concludes. rootology 15:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsment of the current version of the page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I never called nor implied endorsement. Per the current concensus at the talk page the article at the moment of locking was relatively stable. You have vowed in the talk pages to undo edits of mine as (paraphrase) "you're blocked for 3rr". Locking the article is to stop this pointless temporary war that yourself and MONGO apparently have to dismantle the article, and allow AfD to run it's natural course. All the edits and revisions on both sides since unblocked with reeking of POV bias. What is curious is that before MONGO was attacked randomly by ED on their website, this article was relatively stable for ages. This has become a vendetta from certain admins to "get even" with the outside ED people by taking apart the article that talks about them. As mentioned in the complaint it is biased and improper for MONGO to have had anything else do with this article, and he still has not been addressed for having violated policy by editing this article AFTER it was locked, and he even said in Tony Sideaway's talk page that he would effectively "break" this article. rootology 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually William protected the page over half an hour ago. And yes, protection is not an endorsement of the current or any version - in fact, stability is a good reason not to protect. Guettarda 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why all this random quoting of policy with no context explained? How is that helpful? What is your point? Karwynn (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Beginning to suspect the deck is weighted in a biased fashion by multiple admins from some clique due to MONGO getting satirized on the third party website. Retribution perhaps. If this passes the AfD and the attack editing continues, or if it survices AfD and someone takes it upon themselves to delete this will probably go right to ArbCom. If we can find evidence of collusion by anyone perhaps there may be cause for admin status to be revoked. rootology 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just now beginning to suspect? Wow, I wish I had your WP:AGF resolve, I'm much more suspicious.

Anywhoo, if this encyclopedia were being run fairly, he would have already lost his admin status. Bullying users around, leaving intimidating messages, refusing to WP:AGF, blanking articles, admitting intent to decrease the quality of an article in order to bypass the last two AfDs, refusing to discuss any changes with anyone, insulting users who question his edits, protecting a talk page to prevent dissent, and at least 4 page protection policy violations. It's shameful that nothing, NOTHING has been done in the form of consequence for him.

Would you mind detailing them combined with my admin board listing of issues so that we can do a comment request vs. him? Perhaps his admin status does require review based on possible actions here. rootology 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire situation with ED in general is all being hindered by the self-created social heirarchy here. The only reason MONGO has any support is because it's all personality-driven. There is no intention to create an encyclopediahere. This AfD is all a content dispute driven by wounded pride over being featured on ED's front page.Karwynn (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's not stable at all. As soon as protection comes off, this will resume again by *someone*. It's happened non-stop since MONGO's original inappropriate freeze was put in place days ago. He made the comment in Tony Sideaways' talk page that they would 'break' the ED article, and since the moment it was unlocked it was pursued endlessly by himself and Hipocrite in a concerted effort--its all in the logs. The article before MONGO's unlocking, aside from a couple instances of random vandalism--which is what made him lock it--*HAD* been stable until MONGO and Hipocrite took it upon themselves to get rid of it. rootology 16:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. Yes I protected the page, because of all the 3RR reports. Now... as soon as I protected, I noticed that TS had only just unprotected, and unprotected it again... or so I thought (which was why I didn't add the template... thanks G). So... I think we can assume that G has reviewed the protect and is happy with it; for myself, I don't mind, and if, for example, TS wants it unprotected again, thats fine with me William M. Connolley 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks William. Out of curiosity--or not reading this right--who is TS? I didn't see that in history unless I missed something obvious. Can I also possibly ask for input in that for the time being given the hostility that MONGO and Hipocrite be asked to not block/unblock, but to leave it to neutral admins? As their role in this on their side is as editors (so far, aside from MONGO's previous locking), I don't think use of their admin privs here would be appropriate for lock/unlock purposes. Thanks again, let me know what you think. rootology 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear that I am not an admin, nor do I ever intend to become one, because the first thing I would do with buttons is indef. block scores of users whose sole goal in editing the encyclopedia is to either validate their own existance or to engage in political slapfests. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the "TS" above is a reference to me. I protected the article a day or two ago and then unprotected shortly afterwards. Since then the article has seen much productive editing but also been nominated for deletion. The reprotection is in order because of the edit warring, however. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant you, sorry if the abbreviation is a bit... abbreviated. Anyway, I'm pleased you agree with the repro - I didn't mean to step on your toes William M. Connolley 18:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Valid sources? Please comment on each.

Our very own WikiZine. Apparently a user named User:Oscar and some user named User:Walter, who is:

   ::::: user: wikimediafoundation.org
   ::::: sysop; wikipedia:nl, wikiquote:nl, wikimedia:nl, commons, meta
   ::::: bureaucrat; wikipedia:nl, wikiquote:nl
   ::::: ambassador: wikipedia:nl
   ::::: Steward; Wikimedia
   ::::: OTRS-user for the dutch queue
   ::::: editor-in-chief of Wikizine
   ::::: list admin of; WikiNL-l, contact-nl, moderators-nl, announce-l
   ::::: Communications committee member

http://meta.wikimedia.org/Wikizine "Wikizine is a weekly news letter. It attempts to bring the most important news from the global Wikimedia family for everybody involved with Wikimedia." Cited ED in this mass mailing in April 2006:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/Wikizine/2006-04

Also, this:

From the site articled at : http://backstage.purevolume.com/page/3/

Thoughts? rootology 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me - Karwynn, too damn lazy to log in right now

sandbox proposed version #1

http://en.wikipedia.org/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica/sandboxfork1

Thoughts? rootology 00:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I am done for today. I am going to enjoy laughing hard on general principle after all this when these guys get some bullet proof press and the clique that has set upon this random article is left helpless in the future to fight this thing. Just on principle. :) Are you guys going to raise holy hell if someone begins to AfD the various other "non-notable" articles about other MediaWiki projects here on WP? Because... I think maybe two or three out of ALL of them pass this stringent criteria all of you have applied *here*. It's funny too how nearly every other article never draws this level of attention nor ire. I stand by all my previous statements that the ED attack is based purely in administrative and clique bias because some random site flamed the admin MONGO. NOTE: those articles will not be AfD'd to prove a point, but simply to "follow your editorial example". I doubt there will be--I am serious--more than 2-3 WikiMedia project articles left along these lines. All the ones I cited in the AfD for ED fail except one I believe. rootology 00:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I need more time to look at versions and whatnot, and I'll comment on them when I do, but I can answer for now about other articles. Anything that isn't cited in reliable independent sources should go from any Misplaced Pages article, period. If that leaves nothing in the article, then the article should go, no matter what it's about. I'm speaking as someone who likes ED a lot, but also likes WP:NOR and WP:V and takes the idea of an encyclopedia as a tertiary source seriously. I've had my eye on this article for some time, but didn't nominate it myself because it's been nominated recently. Still, when I saw it nominated again, I was delighted that someone was finally taking our policies seriously on web-related articles, where we tend to be inexcusably lax, just because we like "the internets", and want to write about it.

When the press actually noticed ED, and starts writing about it, and providing us with reliable sources, I'll be happy too, about the good work there being recognized. Right now, the published world isn't really talking about ED though, is it? -GTBacchus 03:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this fair the article Uncyclopedia? Hardvice 04:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

At a glance, that article looks like a huge masturbatory pile of original research, but I haven't examined it closely to see whether any of the content comes from reliable independent sources. That's the only criterion I'm thinking of applying, just like with articles about non-internet topics. -GTBacchus 04:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, how do you feel it would compare to this version? Hardvice 01:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional/related question. If a "stub" articles passes V and NOR, but fails the WEB notability test, is that still per policy grounds for deletion? rootology 07:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be a judgement call. The verifiability and original research policies are absolute and non-negotiable; WP:WEB is just some people talkin', and although they make some sense there, it carries a lot less weight than policy. -GTBacchus 07:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zanimum

Why are you editing a protected AfD article in violation of policy? rootology 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One reference made it sound like the Washington Post was mentioning ED, it was not, a discussion post mentioned it. I corrected the text to resolve this. Newsvine is notable enough to warrant an article, Misplaced Pages:Notability, however is clearly against established policy on sources, WP:RS.

Additionally, the quote added nothing to the quality of the article. "I love Encyclopedia Dramatica, just like I love Uncyclopedia, alternate views on Misplaced Pages." That's great, but so what. Is "Oh, I hate washing dishes, but I vacuum. I really love to vacuum. It's instant gratification." a worthwhile quote for vacuum?

Policy simply says I can't edit the controversial areas, that should be discussed on the talk page. Once things are sorted out on the talk page, those topics should be changed to represent what was decided. Since policy overrules concensus, what's done was done with the RS discussion. Any of my other edits were simply cleaning up shop. -- Zanimum 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a protected article. I move your bias by overwritten by other admins. You are abusing your power. rootology 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zanimum, you cite the Afd template on your talk page as why you "feel free" to edit the page: the Afd template is boilerplate; it is not usual for Afd articles to be protected. Editing a fully protected article is in clear violation of policy: WP:PPol#Editing_protected_pages - Administrators must be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In all cases, administrators should first raise the issue on the relevant talk page. (emphasis added) There is no consensus on this page; that's why it is protected. You did not raise the subject on the talk page; you made unilateral edits without even bringing it up here. The parts you are editing are the controversy; check the history. KillerChihuahua 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please post this to my AN:I submission I made about this abusive situation. rootology 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to discuss this reasonably here. This constant hysteria and reaction-mode posting hither and yon is part of what is so annoying about this article. KillerChihuahua 17:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reposted the "Reviews" section, although I still feel that the policy is clear enough that discussion is unwarranted. The other edits remain. Dramatica was not mentioned by name until the discussion board; only Bantown was. The other links into references changes have no affect on the content other than stylistically bringing it up to standards. -- Zanimum 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy allows for admins to edit protected articles? Thats not what the template says. rootology 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) As most of the edit warring was also over policy violations, the situation here is a bit... odd. Thanks for self-reverting. Yes, rootology, Admins can and do edit protected articles, but there are guidelines and limits. KillerChihuahua 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not the point whether your edits were ok or not, to me they looked perfectly fine. But no one, including admins, should edit protected pages. That's the whole point of protected pages, actually. So unless there is a really good reason to edit a protected page, please don't. --Conti|✉ 17:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

POLICY: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Editing_protected_pages

He violated this, he didn't discuss it, he did it unilaterally (abusively) and now states he will not revert. Thank goodness any admin can be overruled by another--and should in this case if not reverted. I'm tired of people overextending what they should/shouldn't be doing on here and thinking they are in charge. rootology 17:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, stop obsessing. I now know Rootology. Anyway, the remaining edits actually help the quality of the article, and thus actually help your AfD chances, Root. You shouldn't be the one complaining. -- Zanimum 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want the refs reverted? -- Zanimum 17:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you edited them while the article was protected? Much of the problem with this article currently stems from admins overstepping their bounds and misusing the tools. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What Jeff said. Why didn't you discuss them as required by policy? Thats my concern, and what seems to be bias on all this since MONGO got hurt by ED, so the most vehement anti-article voices now are MONGO, his friends Tony and Hypocrite, and what seems like most of the admin votes' commentary are more aggressive to 'get rid of it', perhaps disproportionately so. Given the EXTREMELY contested nature of all this, I have no problem with edits--I made a damn sandbox for that--but I think that everyone, in particular admins in this case--need to play by the letter of the law here. Or else it will just screw up things ever more. rootology 17:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that rootology has a point here, so I've reverted Z's changes. I don't think anyone should be editing this thing while its protected unless there is some over-riding need. Which I can't see William M. Connolley 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm out, sorry

I'm unwatching this page (and nearly all this ED related cesspool). I'm just sick of all of this. Sorry again if anyone feels their time was wasted--I'm going back to my old projects. If anyone has any important questions or whatever for me hit me on my talk page or email me if it's private. rootology 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. It does feel like things won't be resolved without tears; and like I said on your talk page, you've really gone out of your way on this. ~ CBGB 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm back, sorry - does this meet V, RS?

On this newspaper source from one of England's major newspapers,

"Encyclopaedia Dramatica contains a photo of George Bush with the American Constitution and with tl;dr inscribed on his forehead. TL;DR - or tl;dr, tl:dr, tl,dr or tl/dr - is net-derived lingo for 'too long; didn't read'.

refers to this section on Encyclopedia Dramatica, quite clearly. So, a reputable news source (RS) has now apparently cited Encyclopedia Dramatica the site directly for something that factually does exist, the article in question, and has drawn attention to it's existence (V). It's also NOR. If nothing else, based on this and the other "minor" citations from sources PLUS the borderline stuff (which should be debated in the article's talk page) I can't see a deletion based on this. If nothing else this article has to go back to the drawing table as a stub. But a deletion should not occur based on this. Going back to lurk, you guys can discuss this. rootology 01:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we can do with this article: "Encyclopedia Dramatic is a wikimedia based website which contains a picture of George Bush with tl;dr inscribed on his forehead." Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
<chortle> But seriously, I think this ignores the section of WP:V which says self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves. Septentrionalis 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica statistics page

Encyclopedia Dramatica member list"

Category:

Misplaced Pages controversial topics