Talk:Something Awful

Comedy blog

The New York Times refers to it as a "comedy blog." Do not revert edits reflecting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.221.232 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite the source in the article then.--Drat (Talk) 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not really relevant since it's more than just a "blog"- it's got some bloglike entries, but it's also known for user-generated content and for its forums.-Wafulz 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But you're making that determination on your own, which can be considered original research. I edited the page again, and put the source this time. If the way I cited was incorrect, please fix it, but do not revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.233.139 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the citation, since it looked hideous that way in the article's first sentence. I do have serious reservations about using a music blog as an authority to determine the nature of a website. If a couple of other sources can be provided which refer to SA as a website, it should probably be reverted back with citations for both. Cumulus Clouds 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it isn't original research. Within our other citations, we have SA described as a weblog, online community, comedy website, a humour site, etc. "Website" adequately covers all of this.-Wafulz 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly object to having my name used in that edit summary to justify your position. I've already stated that I believe SA meets the definition of a website, and I was merely fixing a citation, and I did not mean for this to give any credibility to the argument that SA is a blog. I mentioned earlier that I have serious reservations about using a music blog (the cited source in the blog quote) to determine the definition of a website on Wikipedia. I agree with Wafulz' logic that it doesn't meet the burdens of the definition of a blog, and is referred to more often as a website. It's my personal opinion that changing that sentence to read "comedy blog" from "website" is an attempt to marginalize the authors of that site and their material.Cumulus Clouds 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"cameo placement"

has earned him cameo placement in nerd culture: I guess that "nerd culture" means video games, but what does "cameo placement" mean? -- Hoary 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It means the same as "redundancy department of redundancy"-Wafulz 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"video game easter eggs"

Maybe the easter egg in the game "Morrowind" should be mentioned here, In Morrowind the player can find a dead body of an NPC with the name Arlowe. This is a reference to Kyanka who used to go by the name "R-Lo" on the SA forums. (R-Lo is pronounced the same as Arlowe) The player can loot this corpse and find the "BanHammer", (on the SA forums R-Lo/Kyanka said he used the BanHammer when banning someone). The game's expansion "Tribunal" also contains a weapon named the "Mace of Slurring", when this Item is taken to the curator of the museum and the player asks her about it she will say: "Yes, it's a rather...odd piece. From what I've gathered, it was crafted near the end of the Second Age by Kyanka, a slightly deranged Altmer weaponsmith and enchanter. He had a rather warped sense of humor, and apparently delighted at the thought of reducing opponents to a gibbering mess before crushing them to death. The mace has, admittedly, seen little use." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.248.114 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My rewrite

I've commented out the tax section because it's the only part of the article that doesn't have secondary documentation (the court case itself is not secondary). Seeing as it wasn't noted in any media and someone had to approach Kyanka for an answer, I don't think this section can ever be neutrally presented. Some other things I did:

• Merge "conflicts" into other sections. This is mainly for style reasons- it fits better to have historical events in the history section and forum-related events in the forum sections.
• I rewrote the intro because it was a bit awkward.
• Moved the EW prank as a subsection of "forums". I hope it's self-explanatory.-Wafulz 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Who cares if it has secondary documentation? That reference is a government source and I don't how you could get anything with greater verifiability than that. The fact that the media didn't comment on it isn't surprising and there isn't a precedent for removing material based on a lack of coverage alone. Lowtax's comments on it were presented to maintain NPOV, so I guess I don't understand why you think that section was POV. Cumulus Clouds 02:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's the notability of the event really- every other part of the article was included because some secondary source discussed it. I've always found that section really weird because it's a fairly minor court case. Without some sort of secondary documentation, I can't see this type of material being included in any other corporation's article.-Wafulz 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment unrelated to taxes: I'm not sure how organize the information in terms of the "forums" and "history" section. As you can see, the SPEWS/Katrina/Shooting stuff is under "history" right now, but they're clearly forum related.-Wafulz 03:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well I imagine that if Wal-Mart or McDonald's were found in areers on their tax payments, that the subsequent court case would be commented on, provided only that it could be sourced. Lowtax's celebrity, however minor, should also be considered, since he is the sole proprietor of Something Awful, LLC and any legal actions taken against the company are directly connected to him. Since virtually every detail of Britney Spear's "personal struggles" are detailed in her entry, I don't see why we wouldn't use the same level of scrutiny on SA's article, given that Kyanka's article was merged. Since when did Wikipedia prefer less information over too much? Cumulus Clouds 03:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• The difference between Wal-Mart's, McDonald's and Spears' articles are that all of their issues have been noted in secondary media (users aren't trawling through Spears' legal files to find out about her taxes). All that we have on it is a two sentence section saying "Kyanka did not pay taxes. He then paid them." It almost feels like someone is trying to dig up dirt on Kyanka.-Wafulz 03:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I disagree with that reasoning, but I won't reinsert the material or revert the edits. Cumulus Clouds 03:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not too hell-bent on the issue, but I think searching through court records that other sources haven't picked up on is unethical, especially for something of this nature.-Wafulz 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your opinion on the ethics of where a source came from is immaterial (as mine is). If you're going to argue that the event is nonnotable because it wasn't picked up by a secondary source, do so, if you're going to argue that the primary source is inappropriate, do that. You can't argue, however, that the primary source is inappropriate because it wasn't used by a secondary source.

Notability concerns over this topic have been addressed in the past, with the result being the retention of that section. You yourself have previously conceded to the logic that this event should remain in an article about Something Awful because it is relevant to the material presented in this article, namely the history of that site and the actions of its operators.

I actually never "conceded" to it. I just didn't feel like putting that big of an effort into it. If we're going to re-reference that discussion we had April, you did mention that there was too little information to verify anything or keep it neutral.-Wafulz 13:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't easily claim that a topic is nonnotable because of its lack of coverage, as there has been a relative paucity of news stories about Something Awful in the past 6 years (despite the number of users who traffic that site). It wouldn't make sense, therefore, to eliminate pieces of the article that were judged under this criteria, because it would create an unreasonable burden on the information currently present within it (and any future information that is to be added).

I use the external coverage criteria mainly to keep cruft out.-Wafulz

In addition, if you gauged the notability of the information in this article based solely on citations by secondary sources, you would lose most of the article. One could argue that the information about West's double homicide story is irrelevant because it is only cited in one (poor) source and, even then, is only tangentially related to the website itself. I would argue that the information presented by SA's default is more relevant than a section about an article about a thread where a guy said he knew some guy who killed some people. Cumulus Clouds 05:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And one last thing, to clarify: I no longer support the inclusion of the section about Something Awful's tax default. My only concern is that it is somewhat dangerous for us to conclude, unilaterally, that a source should be removed simply because we disagree with how it was found or whether it might makes the subject of an article uncomfortable. The source was valid, where it came from wasn't important, and (while it was there) it was used appropriately to cite a relevant topic within the article. Cumulus Clouds 05:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we'll have to just disagree on this, I guess, although I don't entirely care if people are uncomfortable with material (unless there are WP:BLP concerns).-Wafulz 13:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of references to archived Something Awful posts by Lowtax?

To better substantiate this entry's claims w.r.t. copyrighted file sharing in Something Awful's former subforums NMP3s, BTB, and DPPH, I added a reference to the entry. This was reverted, understandably, because the reference I'd chosen was relatively anonymous.

I wanted to maintain the level of sourcing, though, so I took two new sources — posted by Kyanka with his Something Awful account "Lowtax" on the SA forums — and added those to the entry in the appropriate place. These two references were also removed, this time by User:Ohnoitsjamie, on the grounds that the references linked to forum posts hidden behind a pay wall.

I find this curious. There are many entries that reference LexisNexis or other proprietary online sources hidden behind a paywall. Is there an actual Wikipedia policy that prohibits using online references that point to sources behind paywalls? I haven't been able to find one myself, and the use of proprietary online repositories suggests that there is no such policy, but I know I'm not always up-to-date on the latest Wikipedia Policy RFCs. --Jacj 02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:EL recommends not linking to pay sites, but it doesn't really have anything against citing them, as far as I can tell. Aren't the archives free now anyway?-Wafulz 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Some months ago Lowtax claimed that he was opening the archives to anyone with a normal (non-archives) Something Awful account, but he reneged on that promise a little while (a few weeks?) later. --Jacj 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see the goldmine while logged out, though I think the goldmined threads have always been free.-Wafulz 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's my understanding too. --Jacj 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the main point: I don't think there's anything wrong with pay-sources if they're in citations. I imagine it's similar to linking to any other online article, or even a printed source.-Wafulz 03:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. --Jacj 04:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The official forums history project, the newly coined "Awfulpedia," mentions now that the file-forums did exist in its "important events" section for 2005:

January 1, 2005: the files forums (Bit Torrent Barnyard, Don't Post Porn Here, and I think no mp3's here?) were deleted and any discussion of illegal file sharing resulted in a ban. This was caused by the legal issue of file sharing, and also people registering just for the files.

The deletion caused a flood of threads, mostly consisting of "where the files at" and the :filez: emoticon was born.

The section should be editted to remove the ambiguity that looks like disgruntled SA users trying to justify something the website doesn't want to talk about exists, since now even the official history for the site admits they once existed.--Jadams2484 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't think that people sharing files on an internet forum is all that notable. Dedicated sites that make news for being sued or rebuffing the MPAA or RIAA can claim that, but I think we can all agree that file sharing on run of the mill forums isn't worth mentioning. --William Graham ^talk 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not denying its existence- we're just pointing out that the FAQ denies its existence, which is probably tongue-in-cheek since the SAclopedia has had information on them since 2004.-Wafulz 14:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is the basis for your addition that the denial is tongue in cheek, then it is mere speculation and is thus inappropriate for inclusion in this article. It does not meet encyclopedic standards. Perhaps you could locate some other article or source that more clearly illustrates your point? Addisonstrack (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article

Right now the article is basically split into "History" and "Site content", which has the "forums" subsection. I'm not sure how to best organize this information, namely because the history and forum content tend to overlap. Any thoughts?-Wafulz 03:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

the summary of the article in the intro paragraph needs to mention the illegal file sharing, but the dumbass bot keeps reverting my edit. --75.68.239.243 03:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous version was better organized and better written. There was no need to rewrite it in a less organized way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fandow (talk • contribs)

I agree. Why is it that as soon as something potentially incriminating is added to the article, Wafulz goes ahead and reorganizes the entire article to bury the info he doesn't like? --75.68.239.243 03:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you guys are from SASS (anti-SA forum, for those not in the know) and probably won't listen to me, but bear with me. From an outside perspective, the file-sharing was not the be-all and end-all of the website. Material in the lead should summarize the article and give appropriate weight. Admittedly, SPEWS probably shouldn't be in the lead, the Uwe Boll section needs expansion, and since the site is very forum-driven, the forums' impact (through photoshop and the perpetuation of online fads) should be mentioned.

With regards to the rest of the organization: ideally an article should be chronologically written, because this is easiest to follow. So for example, the shooting deaths, as the most recent events, should go to the bottom. Other sections that have received significant attention (such as the Katrina charity and ensuing Paypal bitchfest) can have their own subsections. In terms of organization, the article is still in a very fluid state, and as I've stated above, I don't know the best way to arrange it.

I also ask you to keep in mind that you have a bias, just as I do. I've made compromises, even when I'm clearly dealing with a pedantic troll. I'd like for you to do the same.-Wafulz 04:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You admitted that you don't know how to organize it, then reorganized it anyway to downplay the file forums which is where a large portion of the userbase came from, removing any semblance of organization the article had. You then made small edits to your revised version which were not issues in the previous version that I reverted it to and claimed the revert was taking out important editing. The article was more readable and coherent before you messed with it. Conflict is a part of what makes SA notable, and was relevant to the article. It should also be noted that the article still doesn't mention things in chronological order so even were that the reason you did it wrong. Moving supported facts around so they are less visible is not "compromising" by allowing them to stay. They should be allowed to stay because they are supported and an important piece of information regarding the topic. My bias doesn't show as I was using a reasonable organization scheme. Yours does as you are messing with it simply because you want to bury facts. As an administrator you should be more responsible.Fandow 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sass is not anti-SA, it was created by SA members as a place where the administration could be questioned without fear of retribution. Many of the administrators read it as well and if the conflict section returns it would be a good thing to mention. Fandow 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

While SASS may have at one time been a place where SA members could criticize the administration, it is clear that it is now primarily an anti-SA site, consisting mostly of people who have never been SA members or refuse to join SA 71.188.11.75 05:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? --Jacj 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is segwaying from the issue at hand, but I read the forums and applied the duck test.-Wafulz 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As did I, and I'm really not seeing anything that backs up Anonymous' claim that most of SASS' 4600+ users are non-SA users. --Jacj 20:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were disputing something else. Nevermind.-Wafulz 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Content within the "history" and "forums" sections is chronological, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The article had a bloated "conflicts" section which was basically a bunch of loosely connected events. I tried to make it more cohesive by merging that content into relevant sections. There is overlap between "history" and "forums", and I came to the talk page to gather more input- that's what I meant by not knowing how to best organize it.-Wafulz 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"SPEWS" and "shooting deaths" belong in the forum section, not history. --Beyonce fiance 06:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, he forums section belongs as its own article again. 71.188.11.75 13:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way of reporting a wikipedia admin for abuse of power? It's pretty obvious that Wafulz is trying to downplay all of the sketchy things SA has done in the past. I tried to title the file sharing section "illegal file sharing" and he deleted it for being unobjective. wtf? How is that unobjective? In fact I think what Wafulz is doing could be considered vandalism because reading this discussion page, it looks like nobody is agreeing with the way he is running this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyonce fiance (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not abusing administrator tools. I haven't used administrator tools once.
2. I'm dealing with several people on a forum with the aim of smearing Something Awful or removing reference to it from other articles.
3. "Illegal file sharing" is not objective for several reasons. "File sharing" is objective. However, single paragraphs shouldn't be given their own headers (which is why I'm asking for help in organization). Judging from your contributions (such as labeling the EW poll as "fraud"), you've come here to push your own agenda.-Wafulz 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Waffuls, in keeping with your removal of the word "Illegal" for lack of objectivity, I am removing your subjective comment that the declaration in the faq that the file forums never existed was "tongue in cheek." Even by an objective standard, the evidence substantially supports that the denial of the existence of these forums in the faq is due to legal trouble and not just to be "funny" or tongue in cheek. I've seen you engage in revert wars regarding this specific phrase in the history of this page; can you tell me why it is so important? Am I missing something? Are we all missing something here? Perhaps if you clarify why you feel that this phrase is so important, we can find some middle ground to more perfectly reflect the truth. Let's settle this here on the discussion page rather than having an edit war. Addisonstrack (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal. As long as the "thoroughly retarded" part remains to specify the tone of the message.-Wafulz (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ALOD

"ALOD" redirects to this article, but isn't mentioned in the text. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think redirects from acronyms have to be in the article as long as they're likely search terms.-Wafulz 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No Torrent Tracker

The section on the forums, where it's referenced that SA hosted a BitTorrent tracker, is wrong. While SA did host file forums, it never had its own tracker; trackers were run off-site by individual forum members.

I'd change it, but the page is protected, and I don't want to register a Wikipedia account. 69.204.199.161 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blue Ball Machine

Why does "Blue Ball Machine" redirect to this page? There's nothing here about "blue ball machine". 192.91.147.34 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone changed it from YTMND about a month ago because SA made it.-Wafulz 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Young, white male website

I think the type of humour on Something Awful speaks specifically to young, white males. It's not to say the forums is absent of non-young white males though. I'd like a section that analyses the kinds of humour propagated on SA forums.

Unless it's sourced to reliable, independent sources, it's original research, and not permitted.--Drat (Talk) 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrible secret of space redirect

It redirects to this page, but there is no mention of it in the article. Why? Pgrote 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably related, or a product of the website. It doesn't have to be mentioned- it just has to be a likely search term.-Wafulz 00:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is likely due to a thread from "Let's Play" forum (a subforum of Games) called "The Terrible Secret of Animal Crossing." The archived version, if anyone really cares: http://fromearth.net/LetsPlay/Animal%20Crossing/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.232.159 (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It is a reference to this ICQ prank: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/icq-pranks/icq-transcript-space.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.182.149 (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GOONS

Why isn't there anything on here about the GOONS? They're one of the largest online game groups in existence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.111.135 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about the CN GOONS, not anymore they aren't :V Atheist Haircut (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a sizeable GOONS presence in dozens of games, ranging from Eve to Uranme. Full disclosure, I'm in GOONS government in Lunar Wars Lamuella (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are new articles about goon presense in various MMORPGs, and in particular there are a couple of articles about their involvement in EVE-O. Could warrant mention. 75.178.83.47 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Show us the sources and we'll see what we can do. The more sources and the more reliable they are, the better.--Drat (Talk) 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the goons in EVE make the New York Times last year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.210.192 (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm....

As terrible as it may seem to consider that such a thing even exists, the pervert named Metis and his whole, hideous SWAP.avi have a WHOLE lot to do with SomethingAwful.... as does the concept of >.> Furries (furry fandom, etc)... and anti-furries.... (SomethingAwful, Goons etc...)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.153.217 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just yesterday heard from other goons that furries don't get banned on SA anymore. Any truth to this? :effort: tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.63.170 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Elimination of redirects

I don't understand why people put redirects to this page if the item being redirected is not mentioned in the article itself. If you do not feel that the activity in question is worth mentioning on this page, then the redirect should not exist. 76.102.100.52 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous

Quit putting the Anonymous template on this site. It is completely irrelevant to the article. This is also NOT abuse so quit being biased assholes and reporting me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.175.8 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 June 2008

Please discuss the matter at Template_talk:Anonymous_and_the_Internet#I_removed_something_awful --Enric Naval (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting more information on the writers

I think this article would be much improved if somebody added bios for the key SA writers. I think some of the writers are notable enough to even get their own articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.12.247 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find some info on the writers, but the best I could find was from here: http://sassclopedia.info/index.php/Main_Page which I don't think is a very reliable source. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any scholarly sources about the SA writers. I'd like to do some research on the writers, but the only way I could see doing this would be to send emails requesting information to the writers or to Lowtax. Would this violate the policy concerning original research? Anybody have any idea how I could go about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.12.247 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles on the writers were already created and deleted for being non-notable. Don't bother.--70.112.7.228 (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

100,000 users?

"Since the website's creation, its forums have amassed over 100,000 registered users" - I believe this terminology to be misleading. They may have had 100,000+ users over the history of the site but they themselves recently admitted to having approximately 50,000 inactive accounts plus the tens of thousands that were banned over the years that are counted in totals. Additionally, due to the nature of the site, it isn't determinable whether they've had 100,000 unique users since people have been known to have numerous accounts by themselves. Claiming over 100,000 is essentially republishing Something Awful LLC hype at face value and can't be considered encyclopedic. I would be more satisfied with referencing it as one of the largest general-purpose forums on the internet without listing an unverfiable number of users.--70.112.7.228 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think stating the number of registered users they have is out of line. As with all forums, a number of accounts are banned and inactive; but if we start excluding such groups it's hard to know where to stop. How do we determine, for example, who is inactive? - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 11:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that SA's user count is misleading compared to most other forums in that its user count doesn't decrease when an account is banned and also increases when somebody re-registers a banned account. So 114,000 doesn't really tell you anything about anything.--70.112.7.228 (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed "users" to "accounts", if that helps any.-Wafulz (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds awkward. By noting the 114,000 accounts you're attempting to convey how large the forum is, correct? Why don't you cite the forums position at big-boards.com instead? Then the number of accounts won't have to be continuously updated and you can provide a more accurate picture of SA's size compared to other American forums.--70.112.7.228 (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Bigboards' methodology so I can't comment on it, but if someone is unfamiliar with message boards, being told an approximate number of users/accounts is clearer than being told its position relative to other forums.-Wafulz (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Doom House Link

I'm removing the link to the film; since the article doesn't mention it, it seems to be tangentially-related promotion. If the article includes a section on the film, the link can be restored. Thanks, Eeblet (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Website Alliances

GOONS has had a few alliances including Cyber Nations, would it be kosher to go into those into more detail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.159.16 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Goons? No, I don't think that will be necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.46.12 (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Omissions

This article seems to omit the numerous acts of e-bullying, griefing, e-stalking, sadism, etc. the majority of goons are infamous for. Care to fix that ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllFactsPlease (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you got reliable sources, then there may be a place for mention. If you've got nothing but forum posts, random blogs, and anecdotal evidence then no.--Drat (Talk) 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This Wired article should do the job, at least for the griefing matter. As for all the rest, there are plenty of instances in the forums, especially in the Comedy Gold section. AllFactsPlease (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That article looks to be a good source of info. Of course, the more sources you can find, the better. However, forum posts are not reliable sources.--Drat (Talk) 05:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

added new sectin?

i added the new section about the forums culture. if any others would have input, it would be great. :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.120.202 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

wow... if you dont like what i am sying mayhaps intsead of just deleting it like an authoritarian dictator such as saddam hussein, and stalin, as well as hitler, quite frankly, maybe say why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.120.202 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk about Godwinning yourself. While the first people who reverted didn't give any reason, the last person did: "utterly unsourced and uncited". In addition, you had replaced the References section header with your own instead of making a new one. You need to cite reliable sources (which forums and 99.99% of blogs are not) for your information. You also can't use personal experience for input, as that would be original research.--Drat (Talk) 05:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

go on the forums and you can see lolcats, its not something said on cnn or whatever idiot. wow.. you are sos tupid. ho wolda re you? i bet you are 3 years old.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.120.202 (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article (again)

I'm just a random Wikisurfer and sometime contributor, so if you can, take this as a reasonably objective editorial comment (never been to SA, etc. although I do know what a furry is): I think the basic information on what SA is needs to be immediately after the contents box, before the history box, or some summary of it (better than the introduction). The history delves into details that don't make sense until a reader gets into the 'forums' section. Jed (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish's Edits

Tryptofish, if you continue to alter Something Awful's entry on Wikipedia I will take it up with the admins. Your apparent vendetta against members of the site became clear with the heavy-handed, bureaucratic way you handled discussion in the Crucifixion thread and will not be tolerated. There is no way I can take any edits you make in good faith. Gustave Pennington (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An example: "His suicide was mocked in the Something Awful forums." Why would an unbiased person possibly add this to the article? It's unnecessarily hostile to the users of the forum, and certainly not accurate. Gustave Pennington (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gustave, your comments here are a violation of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN. It is only natural that my attention has been drawn to this page, and my edits have improved the page. The edit that you specifically quote was a replacement for a recent edit by another editor that was unsourced, and my edit is correctly sourced and factually accurate. (I note that other editors have decided to delete that entire paragraph, which was started by another editor, not me, and I accept that decision. I also note that the numerous other edits I made appear to be accepted as constructive.) You have previously made it very clear that you have a vendetta against me. Please do not threaten me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I think it's fair to say that based on comments you have made deriding somethingawful.com as a "hate site" [such as you did here here]. for instance, that you are probably too involved to be able to edit this article according to WP:NPOV. Attempts to do so could be construed as pushing an agenda. It's probably for the best in this case if you step down from this one and concentrate on articles you could really improve, rather than swatting a potential hornet's nest. Your opinion on SA is well known and hardly neutral in this instance, given the recent activity on your talkpage. IgorsBrain (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Igors, I appreciate that you are saying that in the spirit of constructive advice, thank you. But the fact is, that if you look at this page now, after I have edited it, then other editors made further edits which I am not contesting, the page has been improved. I did not create this hornet's nest. And the editors (not IgorsBrain, to be clear!) who seem to devote all their edits to commenting about me on article talk pages might, themselves, want to instead concentrate on really improving articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing. This issue of "bias" cuts both ways. A number of editors who are involved with this page have stated on-Wiki that they are members of SA. If anyone wants to scrutinize my edits for POV, then their edits are just as much fair play. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, hornets make hornet's nests, but that doesn't mean swatting them is still a good idea. ;) I appreciate that you are here constructively but given that the issue surrounding the crucifixion pages is still rather raw it might be an idea for both sides of the argument to take a step back from the discussion for a while, have a bit of a breather, and concentrate in other areas of wikipedia that need improvement - at least for the time being. I don't think anyone can fault you for removing unsourced material and correcting grammar and so on, but the inclusion of material that isn't particularly accurate or relevant, such as the bit about the forum member committing suicide and being "mocked" for it (which doesn't seem to me to be the defining element of that thread - plenty of people also gave commiserations and discussed what could have driven someone to such an act) is unnecessary. I note, however, that you have not contested any reversion and appreciate that you were only trying to expand the article, but with a website that has as many users as SA one might as well apply the same standards as one would to a commenter on a CNN.com news article. The views of the forum do not represent the views of the site etc. etc. If you disagree with me and feel it does warrant inclusion then I would be more than happy to discuss that on here, but given recent events I think sitting out for a while and concentrating in other areas would be a good thing for all of us, myself included (because I do visit SA.com frequently so cannot hold myself to impartial standards either). I completely agree that the issue of bias cuts both ways here. I think it would therefore be a fine thing to stick to articles we can be 100% sure of impartiality over, at least until the situation has become less provocative to those concerned. I want to make it clear that I feel this applies to everyone involved, not just Tryptofish and myself. :) IgorsBrain (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's very fair, thank you for that. Just to be clear, it was NOT me who added the material about the person who committed suicide. I saw it added by someone else, and tried to replace an unsourced statement with a sourced one. That's it. Other editors then decided to delete the paragraph completely (in fact, one editor expanded what I had written slightly, then another decided to delete it) and, no, I am not interested in contesting that point. But let me underline this point: the bias issue cuts both ways, and editors who are SA members need to be careful about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In regard to that, I note these two edits: [1], and [2]. In both cases, they are reasonable instances of the kinds of editorial judgments we make all the time, and I'm not contesting them, but I note that both were made by editors who have self-described on site as being SA members. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Look at these edits! Not that I'm contesting them, but... look at them"? I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I can remove a bad passage from United States, being an American doesn't change the fact that it was a bad passage, and I very much doubt I would have my nationality brought up on the talk page after removing said bad passage. So please explain why you highlighted my edit. --Golbez (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please look calmly at the discussion above. Per IgorsBrain, "I want to make it clear that I feel this applies to everyone involved, not just Tryptofish and myself." It's a matter of opinion whether the passage here was "bad", or simply something where editors honestly disagree about whether it helps the page or not. In this case, there are POV issues, about which editors can honestly disagree. Seeing that other editors disagreed with me, I'm not contesting the reversions. In your hypothetical, I could imagine situations in which editors from outside the US would have POV concerns about material. So I'm not saying you were wrong, but I am saying that, if, per the heading of this talk section, my edits are going to be highlighted, then the edits of editors who self-describe as SA members should be highlighted too. Now having said that, I want to add that you, personally, have been very helpful both here and at SA in speaking thoughtfully about what is and is not the right way to do things at Wikipedia, and I am grateful to you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition

I am not making this edit to the page, but rather proposing it in this talk. There is this reference about the role of SA in griefing: [3]. Perhaps it would be appropriate to add a mention of this to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see how that would improve the page at all. Xenomrph (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

By adding to the page additional information about the societal influence of the site. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean by adding it you can make the SA userbase seem more antisocial/negative than it really is. 75.6.151.91 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean what I said. As was pointed out above, WP:NPOV cuts both ways, and editors who are members of SA do not own this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You really aren't fooling anybody and it's painfully obvious that you wouldn't have done anything to this page had that whole mess with the crucifixion article not happened. 75.6.151.91 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But that addition wouldn't actually contribute to or improve the content of the page, especially since it's arguably negative and biased. Have SA members engaged in griefing in video games? Yes. Is it the focus of the forum? No. Is it even prevalent or widespread? No. There's only one sub-section of the forums that even relates to video games, and the topic of griefing is exceedingly infrequent and is often frowned upon. Adding comments about griefing would be pretty obviously biased, and unnecessary. Merely adding content doesn't make a page better - part of being an editor is also knowing what *not* to add. Xenomrph (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the source was that it was not focusing narrowly on the video game meaning of the term, but rather on the broader meaning, and that, according to the source, SA was very central to the phenomenon. Are there other sources that argue the contrary? If SA has something advising against griefing, that would certainly be very appropriate to include as a rebuttal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think SA is "central to the phenomenon" of griefing then include a reference on the page on greifing. Greifing is certainly not central to SA and the article does not claim it is.64.252.69.33 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

SA doesn't engage in "forum invasions", and in fact engaging in such behavior (or even trying to organize it) is generally seen as a bannable offense. SA is a comedy forum - even the "general discussion" area mostly consists of people posting links to funny/stupid things from the internet so that readers can point and laugh, not go off and rile up targets and grief/troll/bait them. Does that happen sometimes? Yes. But once again, it is not the focus of the site nor is it widespread, or even common. Mentioning it on the SA article could at best be seen as negative propaganda, even if it's being cited from a Wired.com article - just because Wired said it does not actually make it so. There isn't a hard-and-fast rule in the SA rules about griefing because it's so uncommon on the forums that it doesn't warrant one. Xenomrph (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the source: "This particular culture's roots can be traced to a semi-mythic place of origin: the members-only message forums of Something Awful". As far as I know, Wired is an RS. And, as I said, it would be very appropriate to include as well a reliable source countering what Wired said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article you linked to, it says exactly what I've been saying: "Not all the message boards celebrate the griefers in their midst: Kyanka finds griefing lame, as do many Goons and /b/tards." At best the article makes it clear that while the concept of "griefing" may have originated with SA to an extent, that it is not the focus of the site. Again, what's the point in including it in the SA article if that's not what the site is about? At best I guess you could include it in the article about griefing, that would make the most sense. Xenomrph (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You make a very good observation: that the article should (if used) be cited to document both sides of the issue—that the phenomenon is thought to have originated at SA, and that SA officially condemns it. As for which page to include it on, I would think both are possible, but it makes sense here in that SA is credited as the origin. There is no reason to say that it's what SA is about, or that the majority of its members support it, but it still seems to have been a notable example of SA's influence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But that's my point, why bother even including it on SA's page if it isn't (and never was) the focus of the site's existence? Just because it was a minor byproduct at one point in its history doesn't mean it's worth including on the page itself. Including it on the griefing page under "history" (I guess, I haven't looked at the griefing page to see what it actually says), sure, that makes plenty of sense and one could cite the Wired article as the source I guess. But including it on the SA page seems unnecessary and potentially prejudicial. Readers could easily misinterpret it as justification for condemning SA out of hand as being a breeding ground for trolls and griefers, when that plainly isn't the case. However this is all pie-in-the-sky theorycrafting since you said you weren't going to make the edit anyway, and it doesn't look like anyone else is going to either. Maybe we should visit the issue if it actually happens, instead of talking about hypotheticals? Xenomrph (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Typofish, I have something you might like. No, it's not anime,it's something called a "WP:SPADE. Specially this part:

"Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review."

You keep saying to Pennington how his edits are personal attacks and stuff like that. However, your edits seem to fall under WP:NPOV since you're a biased against Something Awful. Your edits also fall under WP:GAME since your edits are obviously bad faith all to make Something Awful look bad to the public. You seem to be going around on a personal vendetta against Something Awful by editing the article. That seems like it could break a few of Wikipedia's policies but I can't find anything talking about revenge.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how griefing can be attributed to SA. SA is a huge forum, in fact going to it's main page right now it says there are over 7,500 users logged in at this very moment near noon on a Friday afternoon, not exactly a high traffic time. SA is not one coherent forum, many users often generally stay in one sub-section, and different sub-sections of the forum often throw flak at each other. You can't with a straight face say SA encourages griefing, some of it's members may do it yes, but of 136,000 registered members, tens of thousands of active members, this is just a case of sheer numbers, SA is probably near involved with everything on the internet if you really want to make a point of it. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

But that's not what anyone was saying. The source does not claim that SA encourages or endorses the practice. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not everything is a valid source just because it says something. SA has been behind many popular internet phenomenons in the past 9 years, it's not a valid point though of something a collection of some members get together in their own free time to do. SA itself and the forums as a whole don't actively participate in this and often denounce it, a group of dedicated and connected people working by themselves don't represent SA, they just have a common connection of being part of the same forum. Which as stated also many members who generally stay in one sub section of the forum often don't really interact with other parts, while some parts often just get straight up scorn from others. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think those are all fair and valid observations. As far as I understand it, this particular source does not contradict any of those points, and I agree that any edit to the page (if any) should be worded accurately with respect to what you said, and not go beyond what the facts are. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article, I see it mentioned that goons will sometimes get together and have fun - as they define it - in online games. They dominate EVE and do awesome things with World of Warcraft; they sometimes grief and do hilarious dancing penis stunts in Second Life. None of this seems big enough for mention in this, except perhaps to mention the dominance of Goonswarm in EVE, which is actually sourcable without resorting to a two-year-old article in Wired. The number of goons involved in any of these activities is miniscule compared to the populace, and has little impact outside of the forums (apart from EVE, Mal'Ganis, and people offended by dancing penises), so it seems vastly outweighed to highlight the otherwise non-notable activities of <.1% of the forum population. Someone claiming they were griefed out of "hundreds of dollars" of virtual property would never have warranted mention, I don't think, unless goons were involved. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit, looking through the article, at present, it seems to focus only on things that involve the forums as a whole, or Rich Kyanka in specific. The spamlisting, the Katrina kerfluffle, the Uwe Boll fight. The only things mentioned that really involved *members of the forums themselves* were the shooting deaths. Finally, there can absolutely be no discussion of "griefing" unless there is already a section on goon membership in online games. Make that first, then perhaps you can slide in a single sentence on how goons enjoy their luls. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me a "Goons in Games" seems more like something that would fit in a Something Awful Wiki. Unfotunately, there isn't one. This article does need a lot of work. Maybe a "Site History" section. We obviously should keep the griefing out because it isn't notable except to people that have a personal hate towards Something Awful (Tryptofish) and people that get offended by gigantic dancing dicks. Of course, it's Second Life so the general populance should see things that are worst than that in a daily basis.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats where you are wrong, there actually is a "Something Awful Wiki" of sorts! See http://forums.somethingawful.com/dictionary.php

Maybe Typofish could contribute his knowledge about goon-griefing there?