Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 at wikinews

please add this to the ever growing list of sources that refer to in the present tense:

that list now includes, among others,: (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Present tense is not an issue at the moment. Besides, as I stated above, Encyclopedia Dramatica is the name chose for itself, so it's impossible to differentiate between what meaning the media has for the name unless they specifically explain it. Also, Wikinews is not a reliable source. SilverserenC 06:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm seriously lolling IRL. Why are you even still arguing with people about this?

Correction — Jun 18, 2012 the Critics United page on Encyclopedia Dramatica was created on June 6, after the purge.

— Wikinews
Which version of Encyclopedia Dramatica was around on June 6th, 2012? I'll give you a hint. It's domain suffix starts with s and ends with e. The article details events from August 2012 to September 2012. Yeah so it is not Totally Impossible to differentiate at which point in ED history they are talking about. I'm going to give you a tip as I see this kind of editing a lot; We know you are posting out of pure, excruciating anal devastation, so it could be in your own best interest to think for a few more seconds before you press the "Save Page" button next time. Reading the article probably couldn't hurt as well. Best of luck to you bro. --Zaiger (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh Internet

At this point in time, Oh Internet is definitely notable enough for a page of its own. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources out there that cover ohinternet as a separate entity, then by all means. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Why aren't links to allowed in this article?

I tried to add a link to in this article's infobox, but then I was presented with a spam filter notice. Will ever be "whitelisted" for this article, or will it remain blocked forever? Jarble (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The block is bencyclopediadramatica\.(ch|se)\b # listing here until decision is made on meta at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. If memory serves, it was OK to link to the main page of in this article only. Other pages and articles were blocked to prevent spamming and trolling.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears that links to are still not whitelisted for this article - I made another attempt to add a link to in the infobox, and I was presented with the same spam filter notice. Jarble (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The domain was also blacklisted and not whitelisted for the article in the past. This was decided, I can guess from looking at past discussions, because ED is considered a spam and attack site, which we don't link to at all. But it's not like the URL isn't represented in the article, it's spelled out directly there, just not explicitly linked. Readers are free to copy and paste the URL name if they so desire. SilverserenC 00:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a relic of the BADSITES wars of years past; see this essay. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If a kind anon may offer a suggestion; use one of the many links that redirect to ED. Try linking to, one such redirect page. It sounds to me like whitelisting a link is a long drawn-out process and is a remnant of some long-gone policy... so this may be a nice workaround... although to me, Wikipedia has never screamed "efficient." (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Redirect link removed. Purposefully using a redirect or an url shortener to get around a block is courting disaster. Follow the policy and request a blacklist removal if that is your desire, and see how it progresses. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Having a working if not perfect link in the sidebar

OK, I admit, I haven't kept up with the WP:BADSITES / WP:LINKLOVE battles, but I distinctly remember my side, the pro-link side, won. Has the war continued on without me? -- Kendrick7talk 00:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, ED is still blacklisted, with the exception of the about page that is used as a reference. More importantly, however, your edits removed the link to the original ED homepage, as well as information about it. That is important information that should be kept either way. In addition, you declared the about page of ED as the official homepage, which is simply incorrect. --Conti| 00:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I neither know, nor care, about the ongoing political machinations that prevent a proper link to the site being whitelisted for this page. Nevertheless, I believe a working link to the site of some provenance should be in the sidebar. -- Kendrick7talk 02:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You're free not to care about the blacklisting, but that's not going to undo it. If you want a working link to ED's homepage, convince the community to take the site off the blacklist. Working around the blacklist is not the way to go. --Conti| 17:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Eh, again, my side won. If it's not possible to whitelist the correct link for this article, that's your problem. -- Kendrick7talk 02:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The use of web proxies or redirects is against the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia:External_links#Redirection_sites. For ED, this is being done to circumvent the block described in the section above. The proper course of action would be to argue that the block should be lifted, not to circumvent the block.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:LINKLOVE is quite clear on the matter, and this link isn't being used for the purposes of spam. Per WP:BURO there's no reason not to present this article correctly per the relevant policy. -- Kendrick7talk 02:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Basically, this is an attempt to link to the site even though it is on the blacklist. The problem in the past has been personal attacks and privacy violations, not spam. Some of the pages also contain shock site material which would normally be blocked per WP:EL. The problem is not so much a link to the main page, but allowing a link to any page on the site, which could contain anything. This is why the block still stands.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Refusing to link to this site on an article about this site violates the WP:LINKLOVE guideline, which, if you crawl back through the discussion, was created with this article rather specifically in mind-- Kendrick7talk 12:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. Attempting to import various feuds from ED to this article is one of the reasons why WP:LINKLOVE was created. Personally, I would not object to a link to the main page of ED as long as there was a promise not to do this, or to show grossly NSFW material, or to use browser crashing scripts.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Would people please discuss this issue instead of edit warring about it? The ED about page has been whitelisted only to be used as a reference, see here. It's been a while, though, and it's definitely possible that the consensus on the issue has changed. Regardless, we do need a consensus to change and whitelist ED's homepage, if we want to. We achieve consensus by talking about this, not by linking unrelated whitelisted pages or URL redirects. --Conti| 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The web address field is just that; a field for the current web address. Since for extenuating circumstances we can't link to the main ED page, the about sub-page was white-listed as a compromise, IIRC. Your version is partially incorrect on one aspect (the current site is not a mirror), and too wordy (whatever former URL may have been used can be noted in the body of the article) on the other. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Just have a look at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist: "About page only, used in a reference". The page was white-listed so it could be used as a reference, not so it could be used as an external link to the homepage. Otherwise, we might as well whitelist the ED homepage (which I personally have no opinion on) instead of linking to a random sub-page of ED.
As for the other point, it is very important to point out that the current ED did start out as a mirror. We've had that discussion before, and the general consensus was to use both URLs as a homepage, the original one and the current one. Again, consensus can change, but it doesn't change by edit warring. --Conti| 19:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
That is not incorrect at all, as my reading of RFC: whitelisting the "About" page does not indicate that the about page whitelist was limited to footnote usage, only that that was what it was being used for at the time. Whitelisting is done on a per-article basis, not a per-location-in-article basis. As for the other "point", it isn't a point at all, it is a vestige of Silver Seren's and other's past whinges in trying to preserve the "defunct" status of Encyclopedia Dramatica. That is unequivocally no longer the case, doubly so as the "Oh Internet!" site is no for all intents and purposes an abandoned website. We don't list a series of past and present URLs in an infobox, anymore than Firefox would have to list their once-necessary URL, as at its inception, someone else owned and used til they were bought out. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The situation is not comparable to Firefox changing its URL from to something else, and you know it. The history of the site is far more complex than that. --Conti| 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
And that "complexity" can be discussed in the body of the article, not in an infobox's website line. Take note that at Template:Infobox website#Parameters, the parameter explanation is simply "The most used URL of the website", not "the current one and also the former one". Tarc (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not correct that the link was "whitelisted only to be used as a reference". What I said was "It has been used as a reference for months with no problems". The whitelisting restriction was "for use on this article only" (emphasis on the original). The RfC is spread over here, here and here, and it never says anything about using the link only as a reference.

Conti, you are misunderstanding the whitelisting. This is causing drama where there should be none. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Makes me wonder why that link was never used as an external link, then, if, apparently, it was perfectly fine to use it as an external link for all these years. --Conti| 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It's because the infobox already had an external link to ED's main page example of March 2011. Both the main page and the About page were whitelisted at that point. In April 2011 Sherrod redirected .com to Oh, Internet!, and people started inserting and .ch, and later .se. I think that the .com link was inactivated because it no longer brought people to the original page, and it must have been removed from the whitelist as useless.
Nobody thought of using the about page in the infobox back in 2009. Why do so when we already had the main page link?
Now only the About page is whitelisted. And I am not going to ask for a whitelisting of the main page, when we can simply link the About page, and point people to a page with info (hum, and have an elegant way of avoiding a link to their main page). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

From a regular on the blacklists/whitelist/spam/external-link-abuse front:

When a notable site gets blacklisted because of massive abuse (which includes spam), also linking on the wikipage (which likely exists, because the site is notable) is disabled. For such purposes, generally (though not always, vide infra) whitelisting is a possibility. The following scenario's exist:

  1. The landing page is known, e.g. the 'index.htm' or 'main_page' or something - that can be whitelisted with ease. But if this landing page contains 'inappropriate' information (explicit, copyright violations, etc. etc.), it is better to find a more innocent page (this is also true when there is sometimes inappropriate info on the mainpage). The people active on the whitelist generally suggest to use something like an 'about'-page
  2. The landing page is unknown, it is just ''. That is difficult, if not impossible to whitelist (it is technically possible, but it would just be abused just as it was before). In those cases, as in point 1, we suggest to find an innocent page on the site to link to (generally: the about page ..).
  3. The site only exists of a landing page and that is all (shock sites, rick-roll, NSFW, etc.). Generally these are the cases that are not whitelisted whatsoever. The site itself was abused (one could think of a shock-site, which was continuously added to replace the official link of high-school by its students 'for fun' - the only other way would be to write an editfilter, which would hit only seldom but still be a drain on resources, or maybe to invoke XLinkBot in one of its harshest ways, which has then also an effect on the page where the link should be).

Note, that the main-page of a site must be unsuitable for further linking (e.g. if '' is the official page, but '' works, then careless whitelisting of the index.php would just open the floodgates again.

For such whitelist requests - the official link of a notable site - the general suggestion of the whitelist-team will be to whitelist the about-page, though they will take the 'index.htm'/'main_page' into account if that is reasonably possible.

The use of redirect sites for that purpose will not work. I, and others, blacklist redirect sites preemptively globally, and others are blacklisted on-sight (we have automatic detection in place which catches many of these cases as well). Abusive use of a redirect site (which was not why it was used here on ED) can even result in an immediate block without warning - one obviously knows that official site is blocked, so avoiding that is practically always in bad faith, considering that the official site did not get blacklisted for fun. Redirect sites are, with only very rare, specialised exceptions, NOT (NEVER) to be used.

The point of the official link on a subject's page is to identify the subject through a representative page. Basically, it is just a service for the reader, it is a WP:IAR already built into WP:EL/WP:NOTYELLOW, but there is nowhere a we-absolutely-without-exception-must-link-to-the-official-main-page-on-their-site-for-a-subject (there are, as explained above, cases where we have to WP:IAR on the WP:IAR built into WP:EL/WP:NOTYELLOW ..). That does not have to be the real mainpage, but that same is, and often better anyway, given by the about page of a site (we are writing an encyclopedia, not an internet directory).

Here, there is the about-page whitelisted, which is very suitable for this. I am not too familiar with ED, is it so that the mainpage sometimes contains information that .. we better not link to directly? If that is the case, I would just stay with the about page. If not, then please ask for a whitelisting on the mainpage itself, and use that one from then (and for now, use the about, which is perfectly representative anyway). If there is a wish to also whitelist the old official links, then please go forward in whitelisting those as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The "about" page is a weird compromise. A requirement for lifting the block on the main page of ED would be an understanding that it would not be used for lulz, ie no personal attacks, shock images etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The main page does often contain shock content and illegal stuff. I think linking to the about page is probably a fair compromise. --Ashenai (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
@ianmacm (talk · contribs) .. the way I see it, for many sites it is either nothing, or a neutral, informative page that can be whitelisted and linked. About-pages are generally neutral, don't contain 'bad' things (shock-images, explicit material, etc.), and they still provide the service to the reader that they can reach the site, see things for themselves and get first-hand information about a site (.. product, service, whatever). It is what is generally done in stead of plain refusing to whitelist anything. Do note that it is not always the 'fault' of the (owners of the) site that it got blacklisted (for rickrolling, porn-sites and similar it is often the non-spam (or Joe-jobbing) uncontrollable abuse. For notable redirect sites a similar problem exists - generally it is abuse of the site, not 'by' the site). I would consider it a bit unfair that we can't link anything on a site, when a, in itself respectable and notable, site got blacklisted outside without them being at 'fault'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In this case it was very much their fault, however. ED is a troll site, and if I remember correctly, the last time their homepage got removed from the blacklist, they put up some Wikipedian's article as their "article of the day", including pictures and outing information. I'm still not quite sure I agree with the general idea of linking to the about page, as I do not really see a difference to linking straight to the main page (which may or may not contain content we don't want to link to at any given day). --Conti| 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a fair compromise. Even the argument that there is "content we don't want to link" to strongly evokes WP:NOTCENSORED, which is a rather bedrock principle of our project. If Wikipedia isn't censored, why should the content we link to need to be? But, hey, I'm willing to make a small exception here! -- Kendrick7talk 00:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED does not mean what you seem to think. It relates to including encyclopedic information in articles. The only reason to link to ED is so a reader does not have to click twice—a silly reason. ED is a troll and shock site, and it is blacklisted for a good reason, and there is no reason other than ILIKEIT to include a link to a page that is certain to change and to include trolling and shock content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Stormfront is a notorious forum for white supremacists, skinheads, racists, and antismites, yet stormfront is linked there. Why is that? Tarc (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Working links for notable websites on their own articles are encyclopedic information, Johnuniq, per WP:LINKLOVE. -- Kendrick7talk 02:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Kendrick7, not having a working link to the article does not mean that it is censored. There are cases which are just simply not possible. Also, it is a service to the editor, there is nowhere a must in those cases, yes, they are encyclopedic information on their own articles, but. There can be reasons not to add encyclopedic information, and no-one will argue that you are wrong not to add encyclopedic information. Common sense must prevail.
Tarc, was not abused (as far as I know or can obviously see, to a level that warrants blacklisting). As with linking to outing information, I am not sure if it is against Wikipedia policy to link to supremacists, skinheads, racists and antisemitism (WP:ELNEVER only excludes redirects and linking directly to copyright violations (sites that carry material in violation of copyright can be linked to as long as the page linked to does not carry a copyright violation itself). For that, I don't think that there would be policy grounds not to actually allow whitelisting of the specific mainpage of EncyclopediaDramatica .. though I could argue for all of these, to err on the save side, and use the about page, maybe also for stormfront .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
there is nowhere a guideline or policy on Wikipedia that says that something MUST be included because it is encyclopedic information
Gee, I am shocked to learn that is actually true, given that WP:ENC has been, within the past year or so, downgraded to a mere WP:Essay. If Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, what in the heck are we doing here, exactly? -- Kendrick7talk 04:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for ranting. I've tried to sort it out. It's ironic when you don't watch pages fundamental to the project because you assume everyone else is watching them, but of course, everyone else isn't watching based on the same logic.... -- Kendrick7talk 04:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Kendrick7, certain information can not be included, even if it is very encyclopedic. It is of course our goal to include as much as possible, but sometimes we run into limits. A link to a website is of course encyclopedic, but if that site contains malware, we do not link to protect the reader. We provide encyclopedic information, and it is our goal to be as complete as possible, but there is not a 'must'. Sometimes things are not included because it would give us legal problems (hey, it would be great to have a high-resolution picture of notable pieces of art, but they are non-free, providing a high resolution image of it would violate copyright, I could even go as extreme as saying that showing example images of child pornography would be encyclopedic information ..), sometimes the area is more grey (is linking to an external webpage (which is outing an editor) without a purpose of outing a form of outing? Or should we just stay on the save side and provide a proper workaround). IMHO, WP:IAR works both ways - sometimes one has to IAR on improving because of damage one could inflict. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of link*dot*com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About was removed rather than have Cyberbot II going round in circles tagging it. The alternative is to request for it to be whitelisted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Down Again

ED is down once again, due to issues unknown. Should this be mentioned or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Great Leon (talkcontribs) 22:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No. --Ashenai (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Down two hours so far ... - Alison 00:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It's back, panic's over (for now).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Date is September 17th, 2013. The website won't even appear on the search results. Guess it's gone forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It is down due to technical difficulties since September 13, 2013. It will be back up soon. --63432anonymous (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It is now back up on September 18th, 2013. --63432anonymous (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It is now at and the .se link does not work as there is no redirect. This leads to an error in the lead section, as this is the third domain used by the reborn ED.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Any source explaining why they changed ".se" to ".es"? (meanwhile, we can add a short note on the lead and on the infobox) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it down right now? has a comment saying " is down. The domain has been suspended by the registrar." The site *may* have been thrown off the .se domain for some reason, but without further comment from the ED folk, it is hard to say.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
unfortunately, the "ED folk" have been systematically banned from wikipedia for flimsy reasons. It is interesting that has been down for several days without anyone noticing. (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OhInternet Redirect

Either the redirect from Ohinternet to ED needs to be removed, or this article needs to be revised to show OhI as the "successor" to ED and that its no longer up.AfwoPuffz (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The service status at isitdownrightnow shows that it has been down for more than a week. Whether this is a final goodbye from the site is harder to say, but the article may need to be updated if does not come back fairly soon.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
in the second section up, ip stated it was down since october 16. EDiots have presumed OhI would not return since about 2 days after it went down, but worthy of note is that Sherrod's domain now points to instead of ohinternet. (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Although it is hard to prove that is gone forever, this is now a reasonable assumption. The article should mention this, otherwise it is incomplete. The problem is sourcing. Apart from the ED folk, nobody seems to care that is gone.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh Internet seems to be gone

Oh Internet has been down since September of 2013. I assume that after five months of downtime the site will not be coming back, however the site's absence has not been reported on by any publications, nor have the owners of the site released any information regarding this. Is it appropriate to add this information into the site's section without any source? felt_friend 11:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As stated in the section above, it now seems unlikely that Oh Internet will return, but there is no sourcing saying this. Even so, the article should now consider saying that OI is offline and has been for several months.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a short line to the end of the section about this, feel free to change and/or remove. felt_friend 17:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


i was wondering why the screencap for the living site is collapsed, while the OhInternet screenshot is fully expanded, and whether this should be changed. 2001:4C28:194:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:8DBC (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It is normal for screenshots in the infobox to be collapsed, they would be too big otherwise..--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bencyclopediadramatica\.[a-z]+?\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 23:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Links to are still blacklisted on this page

Why is it necessary to prevent this page from linking to the main site? Jarble (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been dicussed previously, eg in Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 24. The block is the result of past problems with offensive material and off-site harrassment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Can someone please add a FAQ question as to why Wikipedia consensus refers to ED as a defunct site when it is alive and active at -bleak_fire_ (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The "is" or "was" description of the site needs a consensus. I'm not entirely happy with "was", because is an accurate mirror of the old Most of the sourcing in the article refers to the "official" version which was created by Sherrod DeGrippo and ran between 2004 and 2011. The version at .es was created after DeGrippo lost interest and the idea was picked up by other people. There is very little sourcing about the "unofficial" version, but the site still exists. Oh Internet is now offline, and has been since late 2013. Ironically, this is not mentioned in the article due to a lack of reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If ED "was", then is not a mirror but a fork. And given there being only one fork in existence, it is safe to say that it's the same thing. There was always only one site regardless of TLD. AC/DC was still AC/DC when Bon Scott died, right? -bleak_fire_ (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is more akin to Angus and Malcolm Young announcing that AC/DC has been disbanded, and Brian Johnson later announcing that he'll create a new band with the same name but entirely different members. The analogy aside, there have been multiple forks of ED after it went down. I'm not sure if they're still active or not, but simply seems to be the largest. In addition, with its multiple domain name changes and regular stretches of being offline, isn't the most stable site out there. The situation is not as simple as most try to make it out to be. --Conti| 09:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
ED today is similar to a pop group which is still going with some of the original members. The .es site did have a month-long outage recently, but the old was also prone to doing this. A look around at the .es mirror/fork (whichever you prefer) shows that it has accurately retained the material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think that was consensus; just something reported I ran across and which seemed evident at the time during the outage. Although, I'm currently getting an SSL error following the sidebar link from Wikipedia for some reason, the page does seem to exist otherwise.... -- Kendrick7talk 23:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia isn't the place for site status updates. Even if you did your homework beyond assuming "hey it's down for me so it must be down," when you update based on your own experience, that's original research and recentism, neither of which are fitting for Wikipedia. If you have a reliable secondary source that talks about its status in a definitive way, go for it. --— Rhododendrites talk |  21:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently down in May 2014. According to their Twitter feed, it is something to do with the load balancing. They are also asking for funds.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Re this edit: The infobox points out that the site is currently offline, and it has been since late April, making this one of the longer outages. There is not much as ever in secondary reliable sources, and nor is it clear if and when the site will be back up again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC) (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

POV check

This article is full of contentious statements and covers events that don't have a wide consensus, because of these BLP issues the article should be reviewed for NPOV and reliable sources.Dramaticafanatica (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please give some specifics.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The official site doesnt need two sources about gay porn murder!! Cryptome page is a daniel brandt repost, what about Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources? There's a long quote at top of page about ae is wikipedias evil twin! This is bad bias!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramaticafanatica (talkcontribs) 12:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem with bias is that it can be in the eye of the beholder. The "evil twin" quote comes from ninemsn, which is a reliable news source. Comments from other users welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfair characterization from ninemsn which is entertainment not news! You didnt respond to other bias either like the gay porn murder citations for the official site addres! or the unreliable sources from brandt who IS biased about an issue that no real news covered because isnt even notable!Dramaticafanatica (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • a quick look at the history reveals recent vandalism from low contrib disposable accounts. one of them recently uploaded the current screencap of the front page, which looks like the user zoomed way out before taking the screencap, so the screencap is mostly blank blue space. also, is this sort of file allowed on commons? i thought they don't host fair use items there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The ROFLcon videos cites no longer exist.

The ROFLcon videos cited in citation #55, #56, and #57 no longer exist. They should either be replaced by different videos with the same content, or see if the videos have been copied anywhere else. (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. These videos were on YouTube but are now producing "This video is unavailable. Sorry about that." It is unclear why this has happened; it isn't the message given when a video has been removed for a TOS violation, so maybe they were deleted by the uploader. I've watched these videos in the past and they consist of Sherrod DeGrippo speaking in a hall with an audience. There are some ROFLcon videos on Vimeo [1] but not the DeGrippo ones. So we have a problem, Houston. Can anyone find the videos mentioned elsewhere on the web?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Sherrod appears in this final panel of the ROFLCon Summit, entitled "Internet Underground" [2]DeXXus (talk)
OK thanks, I haven't had time to look through these videos, I just found the links on Vimeo. This one is 54 minutes long so the citation would need to give the timing of what she says in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Evers who is he in relation to Encyclopedia Dramatica?

"Joseph Evers" redirects here but there is no mention of his name anywhere in the Wiki article. Who is he and shouldn't there be at least a mention of who he is if his name redirects here? (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There are numerous discussions of Joseph Evers in the talk page archive. He is a man of mystery, so mysterious that he probably never existed other than as a trolling prank by the folks at ED. At one stage, this image of Theo de Raadt was said to be Mr Evers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)