Talk:Epik (domain registrar)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This page about Epik contains unbalanced, past facts which can't be verified. Allegations on the content that was previously hosted. Removal of the page/misleading content asked, or we can precise the past of the company (and explicitely say it was in the past, History section?) and add their answer to the claims made. However, Wikiedia is not a place for such debates, and the deletion of the page might be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If you feel the article should be deleted you will need to nominate it for deletion using WP:AFD. The best solution is to update the article using reliable sources to show the updates are accurate. ~ GB fan 11:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Please be specific about what is unverifiable, or what is no longer true and needs to be changed to past tense. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change the lead paragraph for Epik[edit]

There is consensus that the proposed change should not be implemented - editors generally feel that the controversies are significant and reflect the body of the article. starship.paint (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As many in the domaining industry know -- the lead-in paragraph for the Wikipedia article does not accurately represent the company's corporate philosophy and also minimalizes the actual services that the registrar offers. The current Wikipedia Article for this subject does not contain objective detailed information about the actual product or services that Epik provides and instead provides subjective viewpoints on the lead at the header.

Many who are directly involved in the industry and who have had experience with using Epik as a registrar can attest that the company provides many services and tools that are useful to the industry and placing a description of these services in full on the header for this would be better suited for the article.

To keep the stances in a neutral viewpoint -- in an effort to provide neutrality to the article there should be a subsection labeled "Controversies" which details the stances that are currently portrayed in the article should be added.

"Due to the nature of the registrar's corporate philosophy in providing a less restrictive platform for free speech on the internet -- this has cultivated a number of controversies." is a highly more appropriate edit for this article. Is a more appropriate line to place in the lead.

This aims to be less inflammatory than the current article's projections while providing a completely neutral standpoint that is facts-based and not reactionary.

          • If you support this change to the lead paragraph -- please leave your comments down below.

Thank you.NameShiba (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NameShiba (talkcontribs) 21:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC) NameShiba (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

  • Oppose change (edited to insert an unambiguous stance on the question, in case it wasn't clear from my statement) As best I can tell by examining the references in the article, the links you provided, and a search of my own, the "controversies" are the only thing that make Epik notable (notable in the Wikipedia sense). Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations- This means you will need to show that the reliable sources the article currently cites are somehow less reliable, or less accurate, than the press releases and first-hand comments you've provided here. Since Wikipedia strongly favors reliable, independent sources to primary sources, and doesn't allow original research at all, this is unlikely. Neutral doesn't mean bland. When Wikipedia says neutral point of view, we mean the article should neutrally summarizes reliable sources. If those sources are in some way unflattering, the article will still reflect those sources, so the article may also be unflattering. To make an article more flattering by suppressing some sources would be a form of censorship. We would be concealing part of the picture to accommodate public relations. As an advocate for a "free speech" platform, it should be obvious why censorship is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you Grayfell and Schazjmd for the input! I do feel that what I listed above is not an effort to conceal or hide previously posted and referenced content but categorizes them appropriately with a better lead-in for the article while containing the controversial and subjective input below in the article. NameShiba (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change. To repeat some of the advice I gave you in our conversation last night: The lead as it stands now is an accurate summary of the article. It should not be made more vague by referring only to "controversies", and "the CEO doesn't like it" is not alone a good reason to change it. You may wish to read Wikipedia's policy on neutrality—it is a common misconception that Wikipedia requires articles to be "neutral" in the sense that they cannot contain anything critical about the subject. That is not the case—Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires that we "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In some cases, such as with this article, the significant views that have been published by reliable sources are primarily critical of the subject, and that does not make the article non-neutral. You may also wish to read MOS:LEAD, which states that the "lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". When so much of the coverage of Epik has been about its ties to far-right organizations, that needs to be mentioned in the lead. The majority of the far-right related coverage is in its own section, as you are proposing, but in accordance with the guidance at MOS:LEAD, it is summarized in the lead. I understand that the CEO of this company is not pleased that mentions of the far right, etc. are showing up in search results/Google knowledge panels, but him wishing to whitewash the portion of the article that shows up there is, again, not a valid reason to change the lead in the way you are suggesting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    I do appreciate you providing those additional sources, though—I will look at them and, if they're usable, try to work some info from them into the article later this evening. As I've mentioned already, the domain registrar world is such a niche area that it is a bit hard to gauge which domain-specific sources are reliable/independent, which are just some blogger, and which are press releases. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    To provide context for the other editors weighing in here, there was quite a long discussion in an off-wiki venue to do with this page:, which all started with the edit war yesterday involving the editor named User:Intelliname. I was contacted on Twitter by a few people in that discussion, and have advised anyone who's interested in how to suggest changes on this talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for your input @GorillaWarfare. There are more articles available online from other reputable sources that I can provide later referencing other services that Epik does provide. I also do not believe I had mentioned in our conversations last night that my reasoning behind the change was not simply because of the CEO disapproval. However it was coming from an area that the service does provide a lot of industry services in the domain niche. Not limited to domain loans, aftermarket, and website hosting/creation.NameShiba (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    @NameShiba: I'm not sure I follow how that logic supports removing information from the lead about Epik's service to far-right organizations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Change @GorillaWarfare -- I believe Epik is as well known enough Registrar in the domain industry that it can stand on its own services as a Wikipedia article without the controversies to the alt-right being added subjectively in the header. I do feel like it is noteworthy for Wikipedia. I still stand by the objective revision written above for the proposal and would love to hear more input from industry professionals both on Wikipedia and the Domain industry to weigh in on this subject. Cheers.NameShiba (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
We are mainly concerned with WP:RS, which is certainly not exclusively based on industry professionals. We are also not interested in verifying whether or not editors are industry professionals. More importantly, we are not interested in downplaying "controversies" based on the concerns of a small number of such professionals. Based on sources, Epik is not notable because they provide good services to the far right. They are notable because they provide services to the far right. The quality of those services, or how potentially useful those services might be to other groups, is only as significant as sources say it is. Like it or not, Wikipedia has a mainstream bias because we build articles out of mainstream sources. Niche sources, which are often just industry churnalism, are not particularly useful here. If you have better sources, you should propose them sooner, not later. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I support the proposal to change the lead paragraph for Epik. It seems a deliberate attempt to defame epik and it's owner through paid means. Epik is a neutral registrar and it do not differentiate among human beings. Please always remember one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. How can someone else's action be the decision of epik. Epik owners are empathetic people and I have never seen them do any injustice to anyone since last 8 years. Epik is not only a registrar ,it offers many other services as well for the benefit of internet. Do you think if someone is so bad as mentioned deliberately in this Wikipedia article then how come they are able to get love of people all over the world and grow so fast. I stand with Epik and the people who have written this biased article must be named and shamed and must be ask to attest on court of law . Following are the services offered by Epik --

List of services apparently offered by Epik
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Privacy solutions, e.g. VPN (live)

- Secure Cloud storage (live)

- Resilient OpenStack Hosting (Dec 2019)

- CDN and DDoS Mitigation (live)

- Free SSL certificates (Jan 2020)

- Domain Insurance (Jan 2020)

- DomainGraduate: Online training course (relaunching Nov 2019)

- Tools for online expiry stream discovery (live)

- Epik Registrar: Our flagship product! (live)

- Epik Escrow: Our fast-growing service for domain transaction processing (live)

- Epik Marketplace: Domain name marketplace (live)

- Online event booking (beta)

- Online broker network (Jan 2020)

- Cloud Wallet (live - relaunching Jan 2020)

- Sibyl Systems: Resilient cloud hosting (live)

- Decentralized smart search engine (Jan 2020)

- Online trust score (beta)

- Us.Tv: Online video publishing (live)

- Online video privacy (live)

- Universal WHOIS/RDAP/Blockchain name search (Q4 2019)

I request honest leadership of Wikipedia to stop this paid witch hunting against Epik.

01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Barybadrinath (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Barybadrinath (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Barybadrinath: Please provide evidence to support your completely-unfounded accusation that editors to this page are being paid to defame Epik, or retract it. Please also do not make legal threats against Wikipedia editors. It appears you have not read the notice at the top of this section, which explains that this discussion is not a vote, but rather a determination of consensus based on Wikipedia policy. You have not made any policy-based arguments for why mentions of Epik providing services to far-right organizations should be removed from the lead, nor have you provided any reliable, independent sources for the list of services you wish to see added to the article (which appears to have been copied and pasted from the website itself).
I completely believe you when you say the people who work at Epik are lovely people, and that they are adored by their customers. I have no reason not to. But it is also true that Epik has provided services to far-right organizations and other groups, as is described in the article. One of those assertions (that they have provided such services to far-right orgs) is covered in detail in reliable, independent sources, and so it is in the article. If you have reliable independent sources describing how lovely the people of Epik are, feel free to provide them and those can be added also. But just because you like them personally does not mean that we will remove sourced content that accurately reflects how the company is described in reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@gorillawarfare - who gives you authority to decide which organization is far right and which one is far left. The one which do not support your propaganda is termed as far right. You guys are properly handled only by trump which names and shames you openly in his Facebook timeline. Please go and check how Facebook has extended services of extensive social media tools to epik to support their cause. Are you more intellectual than Facebook in these types of matters. Did epik ask any one to go and shoot. Do you not find different wing pages on Facebook. Do you have guts to write about same kind of content about Facebook as well. Do you have guts to expose the dirty nexus between Cambridge analytica and Facebook when millions of people's details were leaked. Just because you have a pen and a paper to write ,it does not mean that you will try to defame epik. Just because as per you epik offered a paid service to any website which was not legal as per your views ,why don't you weigh on the thousands of other websites which epik hosts on their servers. Barybadrinath (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Look at the references cited in the page about Epik. They are the ones who describe some of Epik's customers as far-right, it is not a judgment call I personally am making. If you have concerns about the Facebook article, the place to raise them is Talk:Facebook rather than derailing this conversation, but I will point out that there is not only an entire Criticisms and controversies section on the Facebook article, but also an entirely separate Criticism of Facebook article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

One service provided by epik i.e domaingraduate has helped thousands of poor people like myself to learn about domaining and lead a decent life. Barybadrinath (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to hear you have found them useful! But Wikipedia is encyclopedia, we do not publish happy customer testimonials. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Long rant #1, including personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@GorillaWarfare We do not publish happy customer testimonials here? Are you really having fun with the hardships of others? Every thread related to Epik represents a level of smug arrogance that is unprecedented. Where are all of the other Wikipedia assistants who should be protecting their own platform here? It has some great people. Where are you? I cannot fathom the degree of separations it would take to become a silent bystander in the face of such blatant abuse.

The bias here is absolutely unreal. You can count on it being exposed. In fact, I would say that you are opening a legal hole up for Wikipedia its nonprofit foundation that just goes beyond any rational level of sense. This degree and level of mishandling is exactly what leads to new precedents being set. My thinking is that you may already know this, because no other possible explanation in light of the manipulation of facts, or the degree by which you are acting as a petty gatekeeper, makes sense.

Clearly a small group of people with an agenda are treating this entire fiasco like their own personal project, with zero interest in truth or real discovery. Even your answers are mostly petty, and almost always used for misdirection to guide discussion points from the core issue. It is also the same bad actors every time! Guarding this data like their very jobs depend on it. This goes beyond just an unhealthy obsession with one company. They have selectively and intentionally portrayed Epik through the corrupt lens of their own political intolerance. Whether right or wrong. They already know that most of the articles they collected and used for reference material were written over a handful of days, all by individuals connected to the founders of Media Matters and other content creation groups, as well as the lobbyist and legal influence directions from Michael Edison Hayden earlier in the year. This is a decentralization issue being fought in the open, with those who would crush competitors to maintain their hookers, yachts, orgy islands and special benefits to keep them intact. The real citations that need to come out, are the ones connecting the dots on the respective threads that @GorillaWarfare and others tailored and crafted together to create this attack sequence.

One only needs to see her direct level of participation, as well as the completely unhealthy and manic level of obsession she has in protecting this article, to see that she is not administratively fit to serve in any duty calling for such. I will say it again, because the administrators seem to pick out the singular lines and focus on them believing they are involved in a debate they are in control of. “One only needs to see her direct level of participation, as well as the completely unhealthy and manic level of obsession she has in protecting this article, to see that she is not administratively fit to serve in any duty calling for such.” This is real truth.

She is compromised beyond every sense of the word and definition. This is one of the most singular unreasonable situations and examples of abuse I have witnessed for Wikipedia, and I have never seen a degree of personal ownership and outright vindictiveness that he/she displays. Even last night, I witnessed as it (@GorillaWarfare) literally took to Twitter, as a representative for Wikipedia, and literally taunted the CEO of a company through social media, that is responsible for maintaining the integrity and well-being of the content and business connectivity for tens of thousands of enterprises. It then belittled other individuals and organizations that have served one another faithfully for decades, labeling them as small and insignificant, inferring that @GorillaWarfare was the final and absolute say regarding what degree of authority they would have with respects to her published work. The Gorilla then literally set out to issue timed taunts, like it/she/he was gaining some sick and perverted pleasure from the suffering of others. With no care of the lives or impact it was leaving in its trail.

This is the story of Wikipedia's handling of Epik Holdings, Inc. This is unquestionably the story that is being told now in real time. You administrators are helping to cast light and truth, even if it was not your intent. Others have asked you to help, to show compassion, and to be reasonable. You hide conveniently beyond other articles, opinion columns, and hit pieces, and quote them as historical works demanding the steepest levels of preservation. Your ruse and mirrors are coming down. I promise.

You are no hero @GorillaWarfare. There is no honor in what you are doing. For whatever master you think you are serving, they will ultimately be exposed and fall. The childlike trails you leave are being exposed. The protection eroding. GoDaddy has 19 million customers. No one differentiates who they serve on their political orientation. They feed and unintentionally support horrific activities. The same goes with the other 200 active registrars that between them cover literally hundreds of millions of domain names under management. Twitter has created recent trends from scratch just this last week ranging from #AssassinationDay to #DeathtoAmerica. They harbor some of the most hateful angry individuals this world has ever seen. Same as Facebook. 2.4 billion followers, and if there are critical pages, they are normally separated and not utilized to intentionally harm and marginalize them. No small group of self-declared freedom fighters – designating themselves literally as “queers” and “feminists” - are holding their Wikipedia page hostage. Or deleting ten months’ worth of intelligent updates as they ignore every report of the degree by which context and reporting was clearly done out of political bias. That which you would find yourself selling your souls over is truly not worthy.

You have also conflated and wickedly let the interpretation and cesspool of editorial opinion become the basis for your articulations of choice that you now want to permanently mark as fact. Elevating hack jobs and attack pieces by known correspondents that serve calls to destroy others.

Wikipedia was supposed to be a global community of people creating and archiving our growth and journey together. You have perverted and stained the very essence of it, by succumbing to a level of confirmation bias so bad that it leaves most viewers with the impression that it must be paid for. Hence the constant comments you have endured that are reflective of the ludicrous nature you have adopted, as you wield your overpowered paintbrush. Oh how clever you must count yourself as. Likewise Google and Gmail. No one paints them as harbourer’s of extreme right racists, or facilitators of fraud, because of the billions of emails they issue without any regard to race, creed or color - a percentage of them will always be bad people with the intent to harm others. What would it even take for you in your outright arrogance to declare that “Epik has done nothing significant” outside of their support of right wing groups, Nazis, and extremists. How dare you. How dare you all. How do you think their families reacted when YOUR colleagues posted pictures of them, with the message they needed to be harassed and harmed at all costs?

This is an abuse of power what you are doing, and one that again relies upon your selective choosing of the narrative you intended to create and help nurture. The result of it has cost Epik Holdings Inc. millions of dollars in revenue. It has marginalized customers. It has reduced staff wages. A staff that I may add in almost its ENTIRETY consists of individuals who are not even white. Since you are so clearly caught up in race politics and the galvanization of respective voting blocks as a tool for your own masters to move around. How dare all of you embrace such smallness. Again - you have attracted the eye of change that will bring it righteously and fairly upon all that need to be exposed on a legal basis. Count on it. Think about it tonight when you are sleeping. You are harming people for sport, taunting them for fun, and leveraging editorial pieces from known paid radical political operators and calling it your job. Through a community-based encyclopedia no less. One that Google and others have chosen to make prominent in their results, with Eric and others calculating shrewdly what effect and impact it could take when they needed to call upon its contextual capabilities. Bet your dollar all will be exposed. It is disgusting.

A few points for you:

1. Eventually you become a footnote in the new Wikipedia page for Epik, whereby their courage to stand up for what is right exposes individuals with agendas that are soon to be exposed. Will you still then take to Twitter and call out other leaders in Epik's industry, and tell them that they are too "small" to be taken seriously in your world of perceived control? Disgusting and it will be exposed. The degree of empowerment that you have been given clearly indicates a mandate beyond what would normally be seen in government or private sectors. Outing won’t even be the word for it.

2. Rob Monster once said David Duke seemed to not be an idiot, under the context that he could be reached by people with love in their heart, and maybe that instead of CNN grandstanding his name to harm Trump, he could be instead made to renounce racism and lead people who had followed him to a better path. But Zucker himself gave the marching order that Duke needed to be elevated, so that he could be used as a counter position and media tool to harm the President. But you already know this. You saw the videos, and told others they were funny. Funny you said.

If you were a good reporter and article creator, maybe your headline should have been that CNN was responsible in giving David Duke an 80,000% media boost, when most people in this country had never heard of him. That the liberal left media outlets did more to damage this country in a single week out of their hatred for Trump, to the degree that they were prepared to compromise everything. Why? So individuals socially engineering mass immigration protocols to convert pathways for thirty million new votes could still try and get the supreme court seats they were banking on. So you helped conflate everything you could, knowing ultimately it just separated and polarized us more and more. Wikipedia, and the specific managers and administrative tool related to this attack on Epik, are part of this. You help to tear apart the country, because you have been sold a lie. Rob Monster and others are just convenient collateral in your sociopathic march.

Ultimately though, a couple writers just dropped the context of the comment about David Duke completely, and just made it look like an executive at Epik endorsed him. Disgusting and it will be exposed. As you all will be for your respective alliances. Your days of hiding behind codes and vernacular believing it gives you a false sense of protection are coming to an end. Mark these words. You will be exposed. Wikipedia does not set a legal precedent with respects to truth. This false code of signets and ancient codex references is not going to buy you a pass or protection from liberty herself.

3. Rob Monster never endorsed 8chan, gab, or any other groups or organizations right, left or otherwise spewing hate. He recognized the opportunity to purchase technology that could be integrated into his existing framework. He recognized that GoDaddy and others were grandstanding for positive press to support a narrative that was being constructed. He stood up for individuals on a general basis, reminding us gently that we should always be mindful of where we draw the line on free speech. Then he defined that line to further become a champion of responsible speech. He has no tolerance for hate, for racism, for ill comments based on religion, race, skin color, or belief systems. In fact - he has built one of the most impressive companies to fight inequality there is. There is not one of you sitting in judgement of this man and company worthy of joining him at this table. You will be exposed.

If it is down to Wikipedia or Epik, I know who I am putting my money on. You are already exposed and just don't know it. All these threads are serving to do is to illustrate to a fine legal point the bias you carry so that your masters can be identified. It draws you out one by one. One by one. So keep making your petty comments. Your taunts in good jest. These are lives you are harming. These are businesses you are ruining. These are families you are impacting. This perverted sense of justice you carry is twisted, ugly, and should have no place in this country and our home whatsoever. You should be very happy you are not yourself being judged by the same standards you have drawn against Epik. You have cited 15 sources as your means to destroy him. I could cite ten million with total and complete contempt for you. Would you like to see what feels like? When your life is ripped apart and a thousand paid operatives in media work to destroy your lives intentionally? While a handful of Wikipedia admins laugh and get joy from their control of it?

If you want something to report, go and explain to the world why all of these racist accounts exposed here are still active:

This compounds from here, until eventually real heroes march into Wikipedia with warrants.

Do the right thing while you can! No one is asking you to whitewash anything. Soon your concept of conspiracy is going to become very very real. Take my advice.

XXX — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

We agree on one point: Where are all of the other Wikipedia assistants who should be protecting their own platform here? I have gone ahead and made a post here asking for additional input on this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Various threats
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You do what you like. The days of this group ruining lives is over. Please underestimate it. At this point a $200 million dollar lawsuit will be the least of Wikipedia's worries as it relates to public exposure. Beyond that, your concept of codes, signatures, secret handshakes, and rules DO NOT OUTWEIGH THE HAND OF LIBERTY, LAW AND JUSTICE. You have taken your last rights from others here. Wikipedia is not a sovereignty within itself. I am preparing requests of my own to have my colleagues come and aid. By Tuesday, Wikipedia's foundation will find millions of dollars in support cut off, and beyond that the scales of justice will have their legal say. Nice job Molly.

You are the one who breaks Wikipedia. Better buy another cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Long rant #2, including personal attacks and legal threats
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is the level of contempt that Wikipedia admin have for anyone who questions their authority. They literally are rolling their eyes in disgust of even having to read information that highlights they have inappropriately tagged individuals as racists.

"@EEng: Can I get an illustration appropriate for seeing the wall of text, rolling my eyes, and doing a u-turn out of the nonsense? Natureium (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)"

Destroying a family is simply an inconvenient "rolling of the eyes" for them. Can you imagine how they will handle the report when they eventually come for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 04:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Legal Note for Independent Review:

I am notating this log as of 9:52PM PT / 4/17/2020 - Post ten months of attempted communications and respectful attempts to work within the boundaries and systems that Wikipedia have laid out, all methods have to date failed. Their members and administrative staff have engaged in outright dismissal and disregard for any input or notations that would highlight their representation being based off editorial bias and paid correspondent columns. Administrative members have repeatedly refused to address or deal with incorrect notations that they have fiercely and illogically protected. Across more than two dozen legitimate update attempts by peer members, all efforts for positive change from the general public outside of their localized handling have been completely and totally rejected.

Furthermore, any actual attempts to engage through their system in an honest and open manner, are reduced and rejected to inappropriate behavior and mannerisms. In effect they are dismissing any requests for assistance in totality. Simultaneously any information provided with citations and notations of admin bias are not being rejected on the basis of the information being submitted, but due to the protocol in there submissions. However all legitimate processes for redress have been ignored, taunted, mocked in public formats, and reverted in a clear and transparent attempt to harm the organization Epik Holdings, Inc., and its founder. Reducing the legitimacy of the claims being made on the basis of assumed conflict of interest, is not the role of the administrator. It reflects the underhanded indoctrination and tiered layers of protocol and control being orientated within this medium.

Note here, the recommendation to openly ignore an independent request for lead paragraph edits, on the basis of account status. With no regard, care, and an outright open dismissal for any discovery of legitimacy or informational merit:

"Oppose change, as it is being proposed by single-purpose accounts created at the last minute, --Quisqualis (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)"

As is their typical trained policy, they are attacking the individual highlighting the degree of incorrect reporting in the article, working to dismantle the independence and authenticity of the messenger, while dismissing all claims with no regard to diligence or pursuit of truth. Even those that are tagging individuals falsely as racists, neo-nazis, and extremist supporters would appear to have no recourse for directional change or accountability.

The right is taken and reserved to utilize all of this correspondence and these notations as per the fullest extent that the law allows, as an illustrated point of reference for Wikipedia and @GorillaWarfare being utilized to harass, harm, and destroy individuals as a guided and intentional course. I am logging this to ensure that subsequent review, legal submission, and all future discovery processes leave no room for peer discernment whereby they could conclude that the Wikipedia administrators and #GorillaWarfare were operating in anything remotely resembling good faith. I would also submit this goes beyond any sense or form of negligence, due to the overwhelming notation issues reducing and restricting all change edits no matter what inbound source or reference made as discussion points. Furthermore that their actions or lack thereof reflect the strongest likelihood of policy coordination and direct guidance from Wikipedia and possibly Foundation members themselves, in an attempt to thwart, harm, and reduce Epik Holdings, Inc. and its founder to a TI status.

I am conveying this with the sincerest hope that if anyone has the discernment and sense to look back upon the numerous related threads and open correspondence related to this matter, that they can determine for themselves that a mistake has been made and work to reconcile it. Without threat or prejudice I would advise that alternatively these will be pursued in the most aggressive of manners to the highest point of legal view and public awareness possible.

There is no honor in your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Monster (or whoever you are), you have been going on, to the point of redundancy, using a repetitive and vituperative tone, and have yet to make any points which mesh with the principles under which Wikipedia functions. We are upholding our end of the bargain, while you seem to be unaware as to what that bargain consists of. As a "new user", you may find helpful the Welcome message and helpful links I have posted on your Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change. The lead currently reflects the article content, and the article content reflects what reliable sources say. And that's exactly how a Wikipedia article (and its lead) should be written. (And I won't be replying to any long-winded rants posted here.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
    To respond to the proposal for change based on the claim that "the lead-in paragraph for the Wikipedia article does not accurately represent the company's corporate philosophy" - representing a company's corporate philosophy is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article lead. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change to the lead while the article body is as it is, and oppose change to the article body while the identified independent reliable sources are as they are. Of course if the balance of coverage in independent reliable sources changes then the article can change with them. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
    I would add that if this organisation thinks that it is right to provide "services to websites that host far-right, Neo-Nazi, and other extremist content as well as those that sell illegal drugs and counterfeit medications" then it should be proud of it. If it thinks that there's anything wrong with doing so then it can simply stop. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change as it does not reflect the quality RS about Epik (e.g. no blogs and non-independent trade sites like "domainnamewire" per above). I did my own google scan for quality RS on this subject and they clearly support the current lede. From Forbes (a staff writer), Far-right-linked firms Epik .... From Vice (a staff writer), As a registrar, Epik plays an important role in the online infrastructure necessary to keep far right extremists online, including those that advocate violence. There are several more; in fact in quality RS, the only thing Epik is notable for are the activities in the lede. The OP should focus attention on Epik, and get them to change their business model, rather then advocating Wikipedia adopt a distorted version of the fact-base. Britishfinance (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change "placing a description of these services in full on the header" a full product and service list in the lead? thats for Epiks own website, not this article. Curdle (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change - as Schazjmd said, the only thing Epik is known (or, as we Wikipedians say, notable) for is its controversies, and it would be a disservice to the article to change it. MiasmaEternalTALK 12:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change. We're not here to advertise, we're here to describe from reliable independent sources. Sure, hosting neo-Nazis results in net negative coverage in the media. That's not really our problem to fix, is it? Guy (help!) 23:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lord knows I am reluctant to dip my toe into this, but just wondering here: The lead currently cites the Vice article, which also includes info about the company's assertion that it offers a platform for all "lawful" speech. I mean, I know we're not here to report this (or any) company's corporate jargon, but I wonder if some carefully worded mention or clause inserted into the lead about their lawful speech stance would may be a little more NPOV-y for the sake of overall context, like "...operates under the pretense of..." or "claims to be..." or " founder asserts that...". Again, I'm not proposing a change...just wondering for the sake of discussion. Ditch 15:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think that belongs in the lead section, as we make no claim that Epik is doing anything unlawful. We already give the company's position in the first sentence of the section "Hosting of far-right and illicit content", which, per WP:MANDY, is enough, if not more than enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    A very interesting essay, albeit one with a somewhat slippery slope. Something I would love to banter about one day, far, far away from this talk-page. Ditch 16:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    Don't be afraid of dipping your toe in the water. I think it's a good thing when people make suggestions that might appear to go against many editors kneejerk reactions. In this case I think we've done a good job. We say that this company provides services to websites that host far-right, Neo-Nazi, and other extremist content as well as those that sell illegal drugs and counterfeit medications, but we don't say "and this is a Bad Thing", but leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions. As I said above, if this company thinks they are acting morally by doing this then they should be proud of it, rather than trying to hide the facts. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as the sources are verified for the lead comments: "hosting Nazi, White Supremacist and illicit drug dealing content" they should remain, but perhaps the Epik Wikipedia article should not lead off with these particular facts as in that Epik is "known" for this - perhaps a more balanced introduction to the Epik subject should lead off the article.Cryellow (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cryellow: Can you explain how the current lead is unbalanced? The sources support not only that Epik has hosted the types of content you mention, but also pretty unanimously report on Epik for that very reason. Furthermore, could you provide a suggestion for what you think would be a "more balanced introduction"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. The question is not just that this information is verified, but that it reflects the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I just mean that there must be other things Epik is known for besides "hosting Nazi, White Supremacist and illicit drug dealing content" ? Cryellow (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Cryellow: Do you have reliable sources that discuss Epik outside of the context of their services to these groups? We can't change the lead because we believe there may be other references out there—we need the references to go alongside the change. I have looked for such sources, and have not found any. The fact of the matter is that, at least as of now, the company has only received coverage in reliable sourcing because of its services to and statements about these groups. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I will take a look online see what is available. Short of that, there might be some other way to word the intro? When I have time I may propose something. I am not taking sides per se in that I am acknowledging the validity of the information posted and its sources. I am aware that Epik did get press over these issues. Cryellow (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument. But in an attempt to give the appearance of an unbiased article, compared to the Dynadot, NameCheap, and GoDaddy's articles, I would expect this article to look something like the following:
Epik is an ICANN-accredited domain registrar and web hosting company, based in Sammamish, Washington. It was founded in 2009 by Rob Monster and as of April 2020, Epik provides services for approximately 450,000 registered domains. Epik has been involved in several controversies related to censorship. Garett805 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Garett805 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Garett805: Please see my explanation below to do with comparisons to GoDaddy and Dynadot. The article on NameCheap has an even longer laundry list of issues in the template at the top of the page than Dynadot, so it's not a great article around which to model others. (By the way, while we're on the topic of referring to other articles when criticizing an article, please see WP:OTHERCONTENT).
Furthermore, there is no good reason to rephrase to "controversies" when it can be stated clearly and succinctly what those controversies are. This is something that is addressed specifically in Wikipedia guidelines at WP:LABEL: Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi GorillaWarfare, I can see your point with that. In light of this, maybe it can be modified similar to the following:
Epik is an ICANN-accredited domain registrar and web hosting company, based in Sammamish, Washington. It was founded in 2009 by Rob Monster and as of April 2020, Epik provides services for approximately 450,000 registered domains. Epik has been involved in several controversies related to the hosting of far-right content, which the company describes as protecting First Amendment rights.
The last sentence of the lead appears to be an opinion by Vice editor Ben Makuch. Should an article's lead be defined by an opinion of one editor or can this be dropped? Thanks! Garett805 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Garett805 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Garett805: No objection from me to adding where they're based to the lead, if that's what folks want. The 450,000 domains claim you're suggesting is unsourced. Adding the company's defense of their choice to provide services would seem to be discouraged per WP:MANDY, a useful guideline I discovered just recently when another editor pointed it out to me—I had apparently always erred too far towards presenting rebuttals from a company or individual on controversial claims, but per WP:WEIGHT it seems like I was wrong to do so. As for the Vice quote, it is properly attributed in-text, and while it is one person's words it is not accurate to say that it is only one person's opinion. That quote, in my opinion, well reflects the consensus among reliable sources: that Epik has a history of offering to host websites with far-right content that have been booted by other providers. Now, I will reiterate that mine is just one opinion here on Wikipedia, and so I hope others will weigh in here on your suggestion. But the opinion in this section has so far overwhelmingly supported maintaining the lead how it is—despite the handful of SPAs who have come here per the CEO's urging to have what is showing up in the Google Knowledge Panel (which does generally correspond with the lead of a Wikipedia article) whitewashed. It seemed that in 2018/19 Epik was enjoying the notoriety they earned from their decision to provide services to and vocally defend Gab and others, but the fact that they are no longer enjoying that attention does not mean that the Wikipedia article should pretend that Epik is notable for some other reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:I appreciate the feedback. Though, this isn't a single purpose account. It just happened to be the only time I saw a page that seemed to be greatly one sided on Wikipedia, but I would like to contribute in the future. I definitely didn't come here for a CEO, and in fact currently have a dispute with Rob, so my stance is almost to the contrary. I just like Wikipedia and I like fairly independent articles that are accurate. Thanks again for your replies. Garett805 (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough! Everyone's got to start somewhere. If you run into any questions around editing Wikipedia, please feel free to ask for help on my talk page anytime. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: More on the statistics and reference - It was founded in 2009 by Rob Monster and as of April 2020, Epik is the 22nd largest registrar in the United States and provides services for approximately 480,000 registered domains.[1] Garett805 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Garett805: Thanks for finding that! The 2009 founding is already mentioned in the article. I've added the 22nd largest registrar thing, though I believe that data is as of December 2019 and not this month as you said. As I noted in my edit summary I'm not adding it to the lead without additional sourcing or at least some amount of other support on this talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, as an aside, I knew GoDaddy would probably be the forerunner but I never knew it was by such an enormous margin! Shows what I know, I guess. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Great catch on the date. Here is another source that shows slightly higher numbers, but the same ranking from They show 572,510 as of December 2019, so it appears their methodology was different. [2] Very true on the GoDaddy assessment. They have always been in a class of their own in regards to competition. Garett805 (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Garett805: I've added the RegistrarOwl source; NameShiba mentioned it below also. It doesn't add anything that the DomainState source doesn't say, but can't hurt to have two sources. I've left out the specific numbers anyway, so not a problem that they conflict. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Registrar Stats: Top Domain Registrars in the United States". Trellian. Retrieved 20 April 2020.
  2. ^ "Total Domains by Registrar". Retrieved 20 April 2020.
(edit conflict)In this article we attempt to summarize reliable sources about Epik. If sources describe Dynadot, etc. in a certain way, feel free to discuss that at those articles' talk pages. As has already been mentioned, sources overwhelmingly discuss Epik in a specific context. We cannot downplay that context, or those sources, by euphemistically referring this is "controversies related to censorship". This is too vague, and too loaded. While it's helpful to see both sides, be mindful of false balance. There is almost always more than just two sides, and we do not assume that all sides must be treated equally. This is what we mean when we say "due weight". We weigh by reliable sources, not by individual perspectives. Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutral request only[edit]

Ive noticed that Godaddy and Dynadot have a certain general format and historical facts are mentioned in the history section of each of these registrars, i was wondering instead of the second half of the sentence at the article replacing it with's customer count like the other registrars. And then taking the second part of the first sentence and second sentence in the intro paragraph and adding it to the history section of ty. Wess12345 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Wess12345 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi, Wess12345, did you see the section above this one? That's what the discussion is about. Per MOS:LEAD, article leads should summarize the rest of the article, and so omitting any mention of Epik's services to far right organizations would fly in the face of that. I certainly have no objection to more information about Epik being added to the lead (if it is also added to the article body, of course) but there has been a bit of a dearth of reliable sourcing on Epik outside of its connections to the far right. If you know of any, by all means please link it here.
There have been a lot of comparisons between the Epik article and the GoDaddy/Dynadot articles in the offwiki conversations about this page. What people seem to be missing is that Wikipedia articles reflect what is written about their subjects in reliable sourcing. In the case of Epik, almost all reliable sourcing focuses on Epik's services to far-right organizations. In the case of GoDaddy, it is a much larger organization that has received considerably more media coverage, about a wide variety of topics to do with their business. In the case of Dynadot, well, there is a notice on the top of that article suggesting it may not even be notable enough for Wikipedia, and that it is suspected to have been written by someone with a conflict-of-interest. The sourcing on the Dynadot page actually seems to largely focus around their involvement with controversies as well (in their case, with Wikileaks) and I would be surprised to not see that in the article lead if it wasn't for the notices suggesting that someone affiliated with the company has used Wikipedia to try to advertise their services. I would certainly consider going to try to help out with that article, but if you've followed any of the offwiki conversations yourself (which I assume you have, as your request is very similar to some suggestions I've seen there) you can probably understand why I'm not leaping to involve myself further with articles about domainers. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I do have to mention that the goal and objective of the proposed changes above was never to *omit information provided by reliable sources*. It was to simply format the lead in a way that was similar to other registrars. Please take Dynadots and GoDaddy's Wikipedia page as an example. There is no effort here on my behalf in this thread to omit any information in regards to support or prior controversy. There is only the effort to reflect the page appropriately with what the services rendered actually are. As always, thank you everyone for your thoughtful replies.NameShiba (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@NameShiba: Unless I am mistaken, you and Wess12345 here share the goal of removing from the lead the information about Epik providing services to far right organizations. Is that correct? I am aware neither of you are suggesting it be removed from the article completely. As for adding information about what services Epik provides, as I have said repeatedly, we will need sourcing for that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Gorilla, I was scouring the net far and wide and found some interesting takes with sources. Please review.

All other articles that I could reference based on for searches in regards to additional information would not be able to be counted due to them being press releases /PRNewsWire/ which has included topics such as bitcoin associations and domain industry conferences. Thank you once again. NameShiba (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@NameShiba: Thanks so much for searching for and providing sources! Seriously, I really appreciate you doing that. I am pretty sure that the domainnamewire/domaininvesting/thedomains sources won't be usable—see Britishfinance's comments above about non-independent trade sites. They also seem more like blogs to me than what we normally accept as reliable sources—in fact the site says "Elliot's Blog" right at the top... It's also mostly just a copy of an email the author received. The two posts appear to be based off a forum post by Rob Monster, and an in-person conversation between the author and Mr. Monster. The post also appears to be directly sourced from a forum post by Monster. However I would love to get more input on the viability of these sources from other editors here, because I could be wrong.
GeekWire should be usable as an independent source, though—I know it's pretty widely used on Wikipedia and appears to be considered reliable per (an old) RSN discussion. I'm not sure there's a whole lot in that article that can or should be added to this one, though—this article already says that Epik reversed course on their decision to host 8chan. The other information in that piece is primarily background on 8chan that already exists in this article, and then excerpts from an Epik press release and comments from Mr. Monster as well as a Voxility spokesperson.
As for the press releases, yes, you are correct that those can't be used. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gorilla -- there is something that deeply troubles me about the post above.

  • GoDaddy a major competitor has not just one, two, or three sources that are on the not accepted list for this page. They have 6 sources from either direct press releases from GD or the sources argued above.
  • 32. "Entrepreneurs Can Now Easily Sell Everywhere with the Launch of GoDaddy Marketplaces". Retrieved 10 April2019.
  • 35. "GoDaddy goes vertical with Neustar registry acquisition". Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News. 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
  • 36. "Go Daddy Marches Toward $1 Billion| Domain Name News & Views". Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Views. 2010-08-17. Retrieved 2016-11-21.
  • 102. "Domain Name Wire. "GoDaddy Deletes Domain Name for Inaccurate Email Address." February 27, 2007".
  • 103. "Domain Name Wire. "GoDaddy Responds to Deletion Over Invalid Email Address." February 28, 2007".
  • 104. "Domain Name Wire. "Has GoDaddy Done a 180 on Invalid Whois?" November 2, 2007". Retrieved 2009-04-20.

I feel in effort to be impartial over the source material -- that other registrars using their own press releases and unverifiable sources which you have mentioned could be seen as a contradiction to keeping the source material neutral and non biased. NameShiba (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@NameShiba: I fully agree, those sources absolutely ought to be removed from the GoDaddy article. But just because poor sources are used in another article does not mean poor quality sources can be added to this one—it means they ought to be removed from that one. Hopefully someone does so shortly, but it's not going to be me—as I've already written to another poster here I think I've learned my lesson about getting involved with articles to do with the domain industry for the time being... Until I finish having to deal with this fiasco I wont be jumping into more. I have added a tag, though, to alert others to the issue. If you have more concerns about the GoDaddy article, the best place to address them is at Talk:GoDaddy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion. An appropriate replacement for the lead-in is the factual quantitative numbers by the registry. Which is how many registrations the registrar currently has and number of employees that are currently employed by the company. see @Godaddy [6] [7] [8] the way that GoDaddy's lead-in is the equivalent to what I am asking and pleading on behalf of neutrality in this post. See at GoDaddy [9] [10] the mentioned articles and sources in the lead is the level of fairness in respect to this registrar that I am asking without whitewashing any of the truth behind the facts based articles presented. This is for pure neutrality of the lead-in while the facts are what they are. Nobody can revise. If the main competitor's lead reads as such despite their censorship controversies -- why does Epik not receive a similar lead-in? Thank you as always. NameShiba (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC) I have an appropriate and factual based source for the quantitative aspects of the company's number of domain registrations that I will link below. NameShiba (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@NameShiba: No objection to those numbers being added to the article if you can find good sources for them. Not sure they should go in the lead, but if other editors think they ought to I also won't stand in the way. But I remain firmly of the opinion that Epik being known for providing services to far right organizations should remain in the lead—literally all of the coverage of Epik describes them in the context of their services to Gab, 8chan, etc. That is not the case for GoDaddy—although they have had more than their share of controversies (I am old enough to remember the SuperBowl ad), they are not singularly notable for them. I will again remind you that Wikipedia articles are created based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and arguments need to be based in those. Arguing that we ought to be emulating one article chosen from the millions of articles on Wikipedia is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia discussions (WP:OTHERCONTENT). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, updating with the source.

  • Registrar Owl keeps records across all registrars to determine registrar ranking and popularity and total number of domains being hosted under the registrar.
  • According to Registrar Owl -- Epik has 499,626 domains registered. Cheers! And thank you for taking the time out to reply. NameShiba (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't object to including number of registered domains in the article. I think the insistence on comparing Epik to GoDaddy is odd, as Epik is not on the scale of GoDaddy per registrarowl. It would be more appropriate to compare the Epik article with articles on similarly ranked registrars, such as DNC Holdings,, AmazonRegistrar, OnlineNIC, Launchpad. But Wikipedia doesn't have articles on those, because they're not notable. Epik would not be notable enough for an article either, except for its involvement in controversies. I cannot find a single reputable independent source that mentions Epik without also associating it to Gab and similar organizations. Epik is in the encyclopedia because of its associations, it has no other claim to notability. Schazjmd (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Just noting here (this conversation got split a little bit): I added that Epik is the 22nd largest registrar in the US, but omitted the specific number of domains because the two sources conflict. I suspect they're just measuring differently, but since they agree on ranking and not on the specific numbers I've included the former but not the latter. As for your comments on the Epik/GoDaddy comparison, I agree completely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

AFD deletion submission

  • Hi there, I have nominated this article for AFD.
  • Please feel free to review. Thank you! NameShiba (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make an edit on the first paragraph at least? A lot of companies have a bad history, but it shouldn't be the first thing showing up on Wiki See Tucows page for example 2A02:A03F:BC7D:B700:E55B:A4BB:10B6:8BE0 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read this section that you've posted your question in, as it begins with someone asking the same question you just have. Right now consensus appears to be against making a change to the lead, as Epik's decision to provide service to far-right organizations is its primary (if not sole) source of notability. If you have a specific suggestion for a change, feel free to suggest it here, but I'd recommend reading the rest of the conversation first so we don't end up repeating ourselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)