Talk:Something Awful

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject Comedy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former good article nominee Something Awful was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 21, 2004 Peer review Reviewed
June 28, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept
May 17, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Comedy blog[edit]

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

Cite the source in the article then.--Drat (Talk) 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not really relevant since it's more than just a "blog"- it's got some bloglike entries, but it's also known for user-generated content and for its forums.-Wafulz 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
But you're making that determination on your own, which can be considered original research. I edited the page again, and put the source this time. If the way I cited was incorrect, please fix it, but do not revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the citation, since it looked hideous that way in the article's first sentence. I do have serious reservations about using a music blog as an authority to determine the nature of a website. If a couple of other sources can be provided which refer to SA as a website, it should probably be reverted back with citations for both. Cumulus Clouds 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually it isn't original research. Within our other citations, we have SA described as a weblog, online community, comedy website, a humour site, etc. "Website" adequately covers all of this.-Wafulz 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly object to having my name used in that edit summary to justify your position. I've already stated that I believe SA meets the definition of a website, and I was merely fixing a citation, and I did not mean for this to give any credibility to the argument that SA is a blog. I mentioned earlier that I have serious reservations about using a music blog (the cited source in the blog quote) to determine the definition of a website on Wikipedia. I agree with Wafulz' logic that it doesn't meet the burdens of the definition of a blog, and is referred to more often as a website. It's my personal opinion that changing that sentence to read "comedy blog" from "website" is an attempt to marginalize the authors of that site and their material.Cumulus Clouds 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the mangosteen fiasco? there is nothing about it in this page. I think it should be mentioned and explained in detail. After all this is a comedy related entry and the mangosteen fiasco was the funniest thing something awful generated. Mangosteen anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"cameo placement"[edit]

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

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

"video game easter eggs"[edit]

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

My rewrite[edit]

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

  • Merge "conflicts" into other sections. This is mainly for style reasons- it fits better to have historical events in the history section and forum-related events in the forum sections.
  • I rewrote the intro because it was a bit awkward.
  • Moved the EW prank as a subsection of "forums". I hope it's self-explanatory.-Wafulz 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Who cares if it has secondary documentation? That reference is a government source and I don't how you could get anything with greater verifiability than that. The fact that the media didn't comment on it isn't surprising and there isn't a precedent for removing material based on a lack of coverage alone. Lowtax's comments on it were presented to maintain NPOV, so I guess I don't understand why you think that section was POV. Cumulus Clouds 02:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's the notability of the event really- every other part of the article was included because some secondary source discussed it. I've always found that section really weird because it's a fairly minor court case. Without some sort of secondary documentation, I can't see this type of material being included in any other corporation's article.-Wafulz 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment unrelated to taxes: I'm not sure how organize the information in terms of the "forums" and "history" section. As you can see, the SPEWS/Katrina/Shooting stuff is under "history" right now, but they're clearly forum related.-Wafulz 03:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I imagine that if Wal-Mart or McDonald's were found in areers on their tax payments, that the subsequent court case would be commented on, provided only that it could be sourced. Lowtax's celebrity, however minor, should also be considered, since he is the sole proprietor of Something Awful, LLC and any legal actions taken against the company are directly connected to him. Since virtually every detail of Britney Spear's "personal struggles" are detailed in her entry, I don't see why we wouldn't use the same level of scrutiny on SA's article, given that Kyanka's article was merged. Since when did Wikipedia prefer less information over too much? Cumulus Clouds 03:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The difference between Wal-Mart's, McDonald's and Spears' articles are that all of their issues have been noted in secondary media (users aren't trawling through Spears' legal files to find out about her taxes). All that we have on it is a two sentence section saying "Kyanka did not pay taxes. He then paid them." It almost feels like someone is trying to dig up dirt on Kyanka.-Wafulz 03:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I disagree with that reasoning, but I won't reinsert the material or revert the edits. Cumulus Clouds 03:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not too hell-bent on the issue, but I think searching through court records that other sources haven't picked up on is unethical, especially for something of this nature.-Wafulz 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Your opinion on the ethics of where a source came from is immaterial (as mine is). If you're going to argue that the event is nonnotable because it wasn't picked up by a secondary source, do so, if you're going to argue that the primary source is inappropriate, do that. You can't argue, however, that the primary source is inappropriate because it wasn't used by a secondary source.
Notability concerns over this topic have been addressed in the past, with the result being the retention of that section. You yourself have previously conceded to the logic that this event should remain in an article about Something Awful because it is relevant to the material presented in this article, namely the history of that site and the actions of its operators.
I actually never "conceded" to it. I just didn't feel like putting that big of an effort into it. If we're going to re-reference that discussion we had April, you did mention that there was too little information to verify anything or keep it neutral.-Wafulz 13:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't easily claim that a topic is nonnotable because of its lack of coverage, as there has been a relative paucity of news stories about Something Awful in the past 6 years (despite the number of users who traffic that site). It wouldn't make sense, therefore, to eliminate pieces of the article that were judged under this criteria, because it would create an unreasonable burden on the information currently present within it (and any future information that is to be added).
I use the external coverage criteria mainly to keep cruft out.-Wafulz
In addition, if you gauged the notability of the information in this article based solely on citations by secondary sources, you would lose most of the article. One could argue that the information about West's double homicide story is irrelevant because it is only cited in one (poor) source and, even then, is only tangentially related to the website itself. I would argue that the information presented by SA's default is more relevant than a section about an article about a thread where a guy said he knew some guy who killed some people. Cumulus Clouds 05:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
And one last thing, to clarify: I no longer support the inclusion of the section about Something Awful's tax default. My only concern is that it is somewhat dangerous for us to conclude, unilaterally, that a source should be removed simply because we disagree with how it was found or whether it might makes the subject of an article uncomfortable. The source was valid, where it came from wasn't important, and (while it was there) it was used appropriately to cite a relevant topic within the article. Cumulus Clouds 05:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well we'll have to just disagree on this, I guess, although I don't entirely care if people are uncomfortable with material (unless there are WP:BLP concerns).-Wafulz 13:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of references to archived Something Awful posts by Lowtax?[edit]

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

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

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

Well WP:EL recommends not linking to pay sites, but it doesn't really have anything against citing them, as far as I can tell. Aren't the archives free now anyway?-Wafulz 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Some months ago Lowtax claimed that he was opening the archives to anyone with a normal (non-archives) Something Awful account, but he reneged on that promise a little while (a few weeks?) later. --Jacj 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see the goldmine while logged out, though I think the goldmined threads have always been free.-Wafulz 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That's my understanding too. --Jacj 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to the main point: I don't think there's anything wrong with pay-sources if they're in citations. I imagine it's similar to linking to any other online article, or even a printed source.-Wafulz 03:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks. --Jacj 04:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The official forums history project, the newly coined "Awfulpedia," mentions now that the file-forums did exist in its "important events" section for 2005:

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

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

The section should be editted to remove the ambiguity that looks like disgruntled SA users trying to justify something the website doesn't want to talk about exists, since now even the official history for the site admits they once existed.--Jadams2484 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't think that people sharing files on an internet forum is all that notable. Dedicated sites that make news for being sued or rebuffing the MPAA or RIAA can claim that, but I think we can all agree that file sharing on run of the mill forums isn't worth mentioning. --William Graham talk 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We're not denying its existence- we're just pointing out that the FAQ denies its existence, which is probably tongue-in-cheek since the SAclopedia has had information on them since 2004.-Wafulz 14:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If this is the basis for your addition that the denial is tongue in cheek, then it is mere speculation and is thus inappropriate for inclusion in this article. It does not meet encyclopedic standards. Perhaps you could locate some other article or source that more clearly illustrates your point? Addisonstrack (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You admitted that you don't know how to organize it, then reorganized it anyway to downplay the file forums which is where a large portion of the userbase came from, removing any semblance of organization the article had. You then made small edits to your revised version which were not issues in the previous version that I reverted it to and claimed the revert was taking out important editing. The article was more readable and coherent before you messed with it. Conflict is a part of what makes SA notable, and was relevant to the article. It should also be noted that the article still doesn't mention things in chronological order so even were that the reason you did it wrong. Moving supported facts around so they are less visible is not "compromising" by allowing them to stay. They should be allowed to stay because they are supported and an important piece of information regarding the topic. My bias doesn't show as I was using a reasonable organization scheme. Yours does as you are messing with it simply because you want to bury facts. As an administrator you should be more responsible.Fandow 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sass is not anti-SA, it was created by SA members as a place where the administration could be questioned without fear of retribution. Many of the administrators read it as well and if the conflict section returns it would be a good thing to mention. Fandow 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
While SASS may have at one time been a place where SA members could criticize the administration, it is clear that it is now primarily an anti-SA site, consisting mostly of people who have never been SA members or refuse to join SA 05:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? --Jacj 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This is segwaying from the issue at hand, but I read the forums and applied the duck test.-Wafulz 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As did I, and I'm really not seeing anything that backs up Anonymous' claim that most of SASS' 4600+ users are non-SA users. --Jacj 20:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were disputing something else. Nevermind.-Wafulz 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Content within the "history" and "forums" sections is chronological, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The article had a bloated "conflicts" section which was basically a bunch of loosely connected events. I tried to make it more cohesive by merging that content into relevant sections. There is overlap between "history" and "forums", and I came to the talk page to gather more input- that's what I meant by not knowing how to best organize it.-Wafulz 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"SPEWS" and "shooting deaths" belong in the forum section, not history. --Beyonce fiance 06:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Really, he forums section belongs as its own article again. 13:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

No Torrent Tracker[edit]

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

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

Blue Ball Machine[edit]

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

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

Young, white male website[edit]

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

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

Terrible secret of space redirect[edit]

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

It's probably related, or a product of the website. It doesn't have to be mentioned- it just has to be a likely search term.-Wafulz 00:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This is likely due to a thread from "Let's Play" forum (a subforum of Games) called "The Terrible Secret of Animal Crossing." The archived version, if anyone really cares: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It is a reference to this ICQ prank: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

There are new articles about goon presense in various MMORPGs, and in particular there are a couple of articles about their involvement in EVE-O. Could warrant mention. (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Show us the sources and we'll see what we can do. The more sources and the more reliable they are, the better.--Drat (Talk) 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

Elimination of redirects[edit]

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

I am absolutely in agreement with you. Both The Wyoming Incident and 333-333-333 direct here, but give absolutely no inkling as to what they refer. Vote to eliminate redirects OR information about what these mean. Bill shannon (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


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

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

Requesting more information on the writers[edit]

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

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

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

100,000 users?[edit]

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

I don't think stating the number of registered users they have is out of line. As with all forums, a number of accounts are banned and inactive; but if we start excluding such groups it's hard to know where to stop. How do we determine, for example, who is inactive? - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 11:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
My main point is that SA's user count is misleading compared to most other forums in that its user count doesn't decrease when an account is banned and also increases when somebody re-registers a banned account. So 114,000 doesn't really tell you anything about anything.-- (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed "users" to "accounts", if that helps any.-Wafulz (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds awkward. By noting the 114,000 accounts you're attempting to convey how large the forum is, correct? Why don't you cite the forums position at instead? Then the number of accounts won't have to be continuously updated and you can provide a more accurate picture of SA's size compared to other American forums.-- (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know Bigboards' methodology so I can't comment on it, but if someone is unfamiliar with message boards, being told an approximate number of users/accounts is clearer than being told its position relative to other forums.-Wafulz (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Doom House Link[edit]

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

Website Alliances[edit]

GOONS has had a few alliances including Cyber Nations, would it be kosher to go into those into more detail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Goons? No, I don't think that will be necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC) The fact of the goons alliances across the web in times of need and times not so much of need is obvious, even if not on this page.The fact that SAs goon squad is still present at all these days is due to the ablightly to merge with other popular internet groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimakesmart (talkcontribs) 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


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

If you got reliable sources, then there may be a place for mention. If you've got nothing but forum posts, random blogs, and anecdotal evidence then no.--Drat (Talk) 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This Wired article should do the job, at least for the griefing matter. As for all the rest, there are plenty of instances in the forums, especially in the Comedy Gold section. AllFactsPlease (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
That article looks to be a good source of info. Of course, the more sources you can find, the better. However, forum posts are not reliable sources.--Drat (Talk) 05:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

added new sectin?[edit]

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

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

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

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

Reorganizing the article (again)[edit]

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

Tryptofish's Edits[edit]

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

An example: "His suicide was mocked in the Something Awful forums." Why would an unbiased person possibly add this to the article? It's unnecessarily hostile to the users of the forum, and certainly not accurate. Gustave Pennington (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Gustave, your comments here are a violation of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN. It is only natural that my attention has been drawn to this page, and my edits have improved the page. The edit that you specifically quote was a replacement for a recent edit by another editor that was unsourced, and my edit is correctly sourced and factually accurate. (I note that other editors have decided to delete that entire paragraph, which was started by another editor, not me, and I accept that decision. I also note that the numerous other edits I made appear to be accepted as constructive.) You have previously made it very clear that you have a vendetta against me. Please do not threaten me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I think it's fair to say that based on comments you have made deriding as a "hate site" [such as you did here here]. for instance, that you are probably too involved to be able to edit this article according to WP:NPOV. Attempts to do so could be construed as pushing an agenda. It's probably for the best in this case if you step down from this one and concentrate on articles you could really improve, rather than swatting a potential hornet's nest. Your opinion on SA is well known and hardly neutral in this instance, given the recent activity on your talkpage. IgorsBrain (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Igors, I appreciate that you are saying that in the spirit of constructive advice, thank you. But the fact is, that if you look at this page now, after I have edited it, then other editors made further edits which I am not contesting, the page has been improved. I did not create this hornet's nest. And the editors (not IgorsBrain, to be clear!) who seem to devote all their edits to commenting about me on article talk pages might, themselves, want to instead concentrate on really improving articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Another thing. This issue of "bias" cuts both ways. A number of editors who are involved with this page have stated on-Wiki that they are members of SA. If anyone wants to scrutinize my edits for POV, then their edits are just as much fair play. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
No, hornets make hornet's nests, but that doesn't mean swatting them is still a good idea. ;) I appreciate that you are here constructively but given that the issue surrounding the crucifixion pages is still rather raw it might be an idea for both sides of the argument to take a step back from the discussion for a while, have a bit of a breather, and concentrate in other areas of wikipedia that need improvement - at least for the time being. I don't think anyone can fault you for removing unsourced material and correcting grammar and so on, but the inclusion of material that isn't particularly accurate or relevant, such as the bit about the forum member committing suicide and being "mocked" for it (which doesn't seem to me to be the defining element of that thread - plenty of people also gave commiserations and discussed what could have driven someone to such an act) is unnecessary. I note, however, that you have not contested any reversion and appreciate that you were only trying to expand the article, but with a website that has as many users as SA one might as well apply the same standards as one would to a commenter on a news article. The views of the forum do not represent the views of the site etc. etc. If you disagree with me and feel it does warrant inclusion then I would be more than happy to discuss that on here, but given recent events I think sitting out for a while and concentrating in other areas would be a good thing for all of us, myself included (because I do visit frequently so cannot hold myself to impartial standards either). I completely agree that the issue of bias cuts both ways here. I think it would therefore be a fine thing to stick to articles we can be 100% sure of impartiality over, at least until the situation has become less provocative to those concerned. I want to make it clear that I feel this applies to everyone involved, not just Tryptofish and myself. :) IgorsBrain (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that's very fair, thank you for that. Just to be clear, it was NOT me who added the material about the person who committed suicide. I saw it added by someone else, and tried to replace an unsourced statement with a sourced one. That's it. Other editors then decided to delete the paragraph completely (in fact, one editor expanded what I had written slightly, then another decided to delete it) and, no, I am not interested in contesting that point. But let me underline this point: the bias issue cuts both ways, and editors who are SA members need to be careful about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
In regard to that, I note these two edits: [1], and [2]. In both cases, they are reasonable instances of the kinds of editorial judgments we make all the time, and I'm not contesting them, but I note that both were made by editors who have self-described on site as being SA members. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
"Look at these edits! Not that I'm contesting them, but... look at them"? I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I can remove a bad passage from United States, being an American doesn't change the fact that it was a bad passage, and I very much doubt I would have my nationality brought up on the talk page after removing said bad passage. So please explain why you highlighted my edit. --Golbez (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Please look calmly at the discussion above. Per IgorsBrain, "I want to make it clear that I feel this applies to everyone involved, not just Tryptofish and myself." It's a matter of opinion whether the passage here was "bad", or simply something where editors honestly disagree about whether it helps the page or not. In this case, there are POV issues, about which editors can honestly disagree. Seeing that other editors disagreed with me, I'm not contesting the reversions. In your hypothetical, I could imagine situations in which editors from outside the US would have POV concerns about material. So I'm not saying you were wrong, but I am saying that, if, per the heading of this talk section, my edits are going to be highlighted, then the edits of editors who self-describe as SA members should be highlighted too. Now having said that, I want to add that you, personally, have been very helpful both here and at SA in speaking thoughtfully about what is and is not the right way to do things at Wikipedia, and I am grateful to you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition[edit]

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

  • I don't see how that would improve the page at all. Xenomrph (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
By adding to the page additional information about the societal influence of the site. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
You mean by adding it you can make the SA userbase seem more antisocial/negative than it really is. (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I mean what I said. As was pointed out above, WP:NPOV cuts both ways, and editors who are members of SA do not own this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This reads to me as an attempt at WP:Gaming 'Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction.', as well as admitting to . This also reeks of WP:COI as Tryptofish began making changes wholesale without pointing out his recent brush with members of the SA forum. I came into the CiA debate through a friend linking the SA page to me (he is a member, I am not) but refrained from making any changes: I simply voiced my opinion in the talk pages. I question the motivations of this sudden interest in Something Awful, as the above editor has never shown an interest in this page (or anything relating to it) prior to the aforementioned brouhaha. His statement about 'NPOV cuts both ways' seems like he is trying to make edits on here to prove a point and seem to be borne out of either a vendetta against SA or retaliation for the behavior of some of the more disruptive and uncivil individuals who clambered over here.
I have no vested interest in this article either way, have had civil discourse with Tryptofish before, but am disclosing that I became aware of this by way of SA. I would suggest that if there are changes to be made to this page, that they are instead put forth on the Talk Page for consideration and that any interested parties refrain from shopping for opinions, mischaracterizing other editors based on affiliation, or excessive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I would also point out that there are some users on here who are from Something Awful and are interested in either 'foiling' Tryptofish or are being protective of the article and should also take their edits with a grain of salt. AwesomeInTheory (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Which "wholesale changes"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You really aren't fooling anybody and it's painfully obvious that you wouldn't have done anything to this page had that whole mess with the crucifixion article not happened. (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
But that addition wouldn't actually contribute to or improve the content of the page, especially since it's arguably negative and biased. Have SA members engaged in griefing in video games? Yes. Is it the focus of the forum? No. Is it even prevalent or widespread? No. There's only one sub-section of the forums that even relates to video games, and the topic of griefing is exceedingly infrequent and is often frowned upon. Adding comments about griefing would be pretty obviously biased, and unnecessary. Merely adding content doesn't make a page better - part of being an editor is also knowing what *not* to add. Xenomrph (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
My reading of the source was that it was not focusing narrowly on the video game meaning of the term, but rather on the broader meaning, and that, according to the source, SA was very central to the phenomenon. Are there other sources that argue the contrary? If SA has something advising against griefing, that would certainly be very appropriate to include as a rebuttal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If you think SA is "central to the phenomenon" of griefing then include a reference on the page on greifing. Greifing is certainly not central to SA and the article does not claim it is. (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
SA doesn't engage in "forum invasions", and in fact engaging in such behavior (or even trying to organize it) is generally seen as a bannable offense. SA is a comedy forum - even the "general discussion" area mostly consists of people posting links to funny/stupid things from the internet so that readers can point and laugh, not go off and rile up targets and grief/troll/bait them. Does that happen sometimes? Yes. But once again, it is not the focus of the site nor is it widespread, or even common. Mentioning it on the SA article could at best be seen as negative propaganda, even if it's being cited from a article - just because Wired said it does not actually make it so. There isn't a hard-and-fast rule in the SA rules about griefing because it's so uncommon on the forums that it doesn't warrant one. Xenomrph (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the source: "This particular culture's roots can be traced to a semi-mythic place of origin: the members-only message forums of Something Awful". As far as I know, Wired is an RS. And, as I said, it would be very appropriate to include as well a reliable source countering what Wired said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If you read the article you linked to, it says exactly what I've been saying: "Not all the message boards celebrate the griefers in their midst: Kyanka finds griefing lame, as do many Goons and /b/tards." At best the article makes it clear that while the concept of "griefing" may have originated with SA to an extent, that it is not the focus of the site. Again, what's the point in including it in the SA article if that's not what the site is about? At best I guess you could include it in the article about griefing, that would make the most sense. Xenomrph (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
You make a very good observation: that the article should (if used) be cited to document both sides of the issue—that the phenomenon is thought to have originated at SA, and that SA officially condemns it. As for which page to include it on, I would think both are possible, but it makes sense here in that SA is credited as the origin. There is no reason to say that it's what SA is about, or that the majority of its members support it, but it still seems to have been a notable example of SA's influence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
But that's my point, why bother even including it on SA's page if it isn't (and never was) the focus of the site's existence? Just because it was a minor byproduct at one point in its history doesn't mean it's worth including on the page itself. Including it on the griefing page under "history" (I guess, I haven't looked at the griefing page to see what it actually says), sure, that makes plenty of sense and one could cite the Wired article as the source I guess. But including it on the SA page seems unnecessary and potentially prejudicial. Readers could easily misinterpret it as justification for condemning SA out of hand as being a breeding ground for trolls and griefers, when that plainly isn't the case. However this is all pie-in-the-sky theorycrafting since you said you weren't going to make the edit anyway, and it doesn't look like anyone else is going to either. Maybe we should visit the issue if it actually happens, instead of talking about hypotheticals? Xenomrph (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Typofish, I have something you might like. No, it's not anime,it's something called a "WP:SPADE. Specially this part:

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

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

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

But that's not what anyone was saying. The source does not claim that SA encourages or endorses the practice. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Not everything is a valid source just because it says something. SA has been behind many popular internet phenomenons in the past 9 years, it's not a valid point though of something a collection of some members get together in their own free time to do. SA itself and the forums as a whole don't actively participate in this and often denounce it, a group of dedicated and connected people working by themselves don't represent SA, they just have a common connection of being part of the same forum. Which as stated also many members who generally stay in one sub section of the forum often don't really interact with other parts, while some parts often just get straight up scorn from others. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think those are all fair and valid observations. As far as I understand it, this particular source does not contradict any of those points, and I agree that any edit to the page (if any) should be worded accurately with respect to what you said, and not go beyond what the facts are. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

To elaborate a bit, looking through the article, at present, it seems to focus only on things that involve the forums as a whole, or Rich Kyanka in specific. The spamlisting, the Katrina kerfluffle, the Uwe Boll fight. The only things mentioned that really involved *members of the forums themselves* were the shooting deaths. Finally, there can absolutely be no discussion of "griefing" unless there is already a section on goon membership in online games. Make that first, then perhaps you can slide in a single sentence on how goons enjoy their luls. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me a "Goons in Games" seems more like something that would fit in a Something Awful Wiki. Unfotunately, there isn't one. This article does need a lot of work. Maybe a "Site History" section. We obviously should keep the griefing out because it isn't notable except to people that have a personal hate towards Something Awful (Tryptofish) and people that get offended by gigantic dancing dicks. Of course, it's Second Life so the general populance should see things that are worst than that in a daily basis.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait. I see what you did there, Tryptofish. [[4]] "Griefers may lack social skills. They fail to adjust to social norms, and do not take criticism well. On Wikipedia a griefer could be a POV warrior, a vandal, a domineering administrator, someone engaging in personal attacks, or an editor who habitually lacks civility. However, not all griefers are rude, and some may be unfailingly polite, while at the same time they are making deliberate attempts to disrupt the community. They may game the rules, possibly following the letter but not the spirit, and they may repeatedly violate unwritten social standards." Well Done, you have been Griefing us all for the last month. Frankly if I'm correct, and you were doing it for fun, it was actually exactly the right response to Something Awful. Well Done. You should become a Goon and join FYAD. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


There seems to be a disagreement about the role of the SomethingAwful website in 4chans creation. My own investigations can only find references to 'moot' the creator of 4chan being a member of SomethingAwful at one stage. In fact the 4chan page mentions this only in passing as well. If we cannot find reasonable evidence that there is some kind of significance to this linkage, I propose that this sentence be removed. Fancy steve (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing it here. Actually, my reasoning is also based on the same passage from the 4chan page. It discusses it in the context of the origins of 4chan, and does seem to indicate that the founding of 4chan grew out of this person's activities at the SA forums. That seems, to me, to indicate a relationship between the two sites, in an interesting way. 4chan appears to be highly notable, and a role of SA in its origins seems to be worth reporting. In no way does it imply that everyone at SA likes or agrees with 4chan. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: The source cited at the 4chan page, [5], does appear to claim explicitly that "it all started" at the SA forums. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The quote is "It started back in 2003 (a long time ago in Internet terms), on A poster to the comedy website named "moot" started an anime-based photo-sharing site called Much to their chagrin, most of what people posted were cute pictures of their pets, particularly cats.". Again, this seems to indicate that a single SomethingAwful poster started the 4chan site. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the opening paragraph of this page that describes the SomethingAwful site in general. Maybe a better option would be to amend the 4chan page and expand on the importance of SomethingAwful in its creation. Fancy steve (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't me who added it here to begin with, but having it at the other page isn't mutually exclusive with having it here, and the other page does already cover it. The quote does seem to me to establish a source stating that SA --> 4chan. (You are right, I misquoted the "all".) The fact that it was a single user, as opposed to some sort of site-wide collaboration (?), does not change that, but perhaps it does indicate that the sentence should move out of the lead. How about moving it down to the forum section? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've moved it down. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I still disagree and I believe the sentence should be removed entirely. I can see how possibly the 4chan page would benefit from further elaboration (if it can be substantiated) of the link between SomethingAwful and 4chan being created. I don't see how the reverse is true at all, as the creator 'moot' is only one of thousands of accounts. There seem to be discussions of this kind of point above on this talk page relating to previous edits, where in effect it could be shown that out of 130,000 users that pretty much everything notable on the Internet could be attributed in some way to SomethingAwful. Fancy steve (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
At the very least until we reach agreement the wording of the sentence should relate to the fact being referenced. 'Launching point' could be taken to mean more than what is being stated by the reference, which in my opinion is a vague reference at best. Cheers Fancy steve (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Point taken, about that last point. I've re-worded the sentence. Not that you were really claiming this, but the sentence obviously does not attribute everything on the Internet to it, only one specific site, which is related in subject matter, and the attribution is sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, its more of a slippery slope thing. The forum list and membership numbers at SomethingAwful seem very comprehensive so I'm sure with some digging there could be hundreds of similar linkages made between both savoury and unsavoury content. I'm not sure what a good resolution is, whether to expand on as many as can be found or to keep only but the most important (how to determine this :) Maybe there will be other comments here that can assist in resolution. Fancy steve (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's fair. I certainly wouldn't argue for anything that wasn't sourced or wasn't related to a site/phenomenon that is logically related to the subject of the page. I think these things have to be decided case by case, rather than by broad strokes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I note that you now say that you do not agree to leave it on the page. Has something changed? All I'm aware of is the IP editor raising NPOV, and it seems to me that the NPOV concern is answered. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I never felt that the edit should stay so yes I disagree that consensus was reached as per your edit summary. I was happy to wait for other feedback rather than edit war the sentence, however it seems from recent edits that others feel that it should also not remain. I would prefer that it was discussed here rather than reverted back and forth however. Cheers Fancy steve (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree entirely about not reverting back and forth. So, hearing your views here, I agree that we should wait for discussion, and that's why I came to talk. My thinking is that the other editor (the IP) did not yet really make a case on the merits, so reverting that was appropriate, especially per WP:VOTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert in matters NPOV but from briefly reading the policy I would think it falls under undue weight, given that we are not elaborating on any other specific forum members. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This seems to gel with what I mentioned above. What do you think? Fancy steve (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's one of those things where the answer is not clear-cut. If, for example, it is typical of forum members to not be involved with any other websites and to condemn what 4chan does, making the 4chan founder some sort of "deviant" from what forum members typically do, then it would be UNDUE. (But my impression is that it would be a great exaggeration to describe it that way.) Given that 4chan is a featured article, it would certainly seem that 4chan's creation is notable and encyclopedic, and that article reports the relationship to the SA forums. It follows, then, that reciprocal mention here (albeit very brief and clearly written to make clear that it was a single member) is a notable fact to report. I understand the rationale that it would be, as you said, a slippery slope to go into lengthy detail about everything ever done by forum members, but it seems to me to be reasonable to report a small number of notable things they have done, which most articles about organizations do (example: Tea Party protests#"Teabagging" controversy, which goes far, far beyond anything we contemplate here), and this seems to be notable. Another part of NPOV that is very applicable here is that pages need to present balanced accounts of what the subjects of the page do, not just make a sanitized presentation of the good things or a one-sided attack against supposedly bad things. Thus, for example, Microsoft has a criticism section without being written entirely as an attack page, and people who work for the company have been prevented from suppressing the criticism section of the article. Now the Microsoft example is one of actual criticism, whereas the sentence we are discussing here is not criticism at all. If I understand correctly, though, the concern at this page is that, if many examples of individual actions of forum members were to be included, then many of those actions might "look bad" to some readers, and create a misleading POV on the page. But I don't think it follows from that, that we should preemptively block any mention of even a notable fact like this one, out of the prediction that future edits might create a POV. Objectively, this particular edit is quite neutral in what it says or even implies about SA. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still do not agree. I don't know what typical behaviour of forum members is, the best that I can find is by looking at the forums list themselves. These seem to include almost every topic under the sun, from politics to computers to a whole bunch that I don't quite understand. From this brief look there doesnt appear to be any relationship to 4chan that I can see either expressed or implied. Maybe I am not looking in the right place? Is there some other evidence that we can quote? Without this I still dont see how this linkage is justified amongst any number of possible others. Fancy steve (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In a way, that's my point. One would need objective data that the 4chan thing is somehow an aberration from what the forum members do, to argue that it is UNDUE. Without that, arguing on the basis of looking at the forums list is WP:OR, particularly if it is arguing that the source cited is wrong. Otherwise, both are notable websites about finding humor in other things on the web, and there is sourcing saying the founding happened in this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is WP:OR if I am using it as a reference, which I am not. I was simply searching for a point of reference that we can agree on and expressing that I was unable to find one. Please provide one if you have it. The sourcing again simply says that the creator was a poster to SomethingAwful, albeit in an incredibly passing mention. Can you convince me with something that explains why this particular forum member is of more significance than any other, as I have said all along? Maybe a more constructive discussion would be to find some instances of other linkages (not 4chan) that meet your same criteria, for comparison purposes. Thanks! Fancy steve (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, point well-taken about the way you were using it for comparison. The significance of the 4chan founder lies in having founded 4chan, of course. Being significant in that way is not at all the same thing as being an average forum member (again, compare Tea Party protests#"Teabagging" controversy—and another example is that nearly every page about individual colleges and universities mentions alumni who have done notable things, without implying that these alumni are typical of all attendees at that institution), and being somehow average is not the right way to apply policy here. I suppose the comparison that would be relevant to what you say, would be if another forum member had also founded a website that is notable enough to have, for example, a Wikipedia article about it. If there is, then perhaps that would also be relevant to this page. If not, then a case could be made that this instance is all the more newsworthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The barrier for entry to a university is far, far higher than the barrier of entry for a web forum. No one would seriously entertain listing all the famous people who have ever posted on Wikipedia, or who have ever left a review on Yelp. --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Hello, yes. Category:Notable Wikipedians notwithstanding, the fact is that Wikipedia#Related projects is an entire section devoted to other projects, some of which pre-dated WP, others of which are sister projects, and still others of which were subsequently created by Wikipedians. That third group is exactly analogous to the single sentence discussed here, except that, here, we are talking only about a single sentence. The fact that the barrier to entry to SA is or is not lower than that to some other organization does not, in itself, reflect on the notability of the event in question. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Touché. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If Bill Gates was a frequent poster on a hypothetical computer forum that discussed Microsoft products, one might be able to argue that his membership is somehow significant to the forum itself and adds some weight or credibility to the forum contents. However if the forum is of general purpose and that the postings are not of any significant nature, then I don't see how this is any different than adding Bill Gates to a grocery store article as to where his groceries are purchased, or a car park article where he parks his car. As an aside I am unable to determine whether Bill Gates is or is not a member of SomethingAwful. Fancy steve (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(I like your last sentence! I'd guess he uses a pseudonym.) Please see Harvard College#Notable alumni. He's listed there. I think the creation of 4chan is more notable than buying groceries or parking a car. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of that article, lets hope that 'moot' was not a Harvard College alumni. Regardless, being on that list implies that the person achieved a level of education commensurate with graduation. What does the equivalent list look like for this page, that the person paid the forum entry fee? As before, I'm sure there are many other instances of notable forum members but I'm really not convinced that a list of them all is appropriate. Fancy steve (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Amen about "moot". But, ironically, Bill Gates didn't graduate; he dropped out. As I said above, "the fact that the barrier to entry to SA is or is not lower than that to some other organization does not, in itself, reflect on the notability of the event in question", so the entry fee versus an SAT score is really beside the point. And no one is arguing for "a list of them all", just one sentence about one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you know what, now we've gone through this discussion, I think it might be appropriate to have some kind of section detailing notable forum members. I'm not sure how many there would be but if it starts becoming some kind of trivial list we can work on culling it at that point. I'll look and see if I can find some. Thanks for persisting with the talk :) Fancy steve (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thank you, too, for discussing this in a helpful and friendly way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I realize, of course, that it takes time to research such a section, no problem, no hurry. In the mean time, though, I have a question. How would you feel about putting the sentence back, pending further expansion? Just asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Any objections, anyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Forums no longer readable by guests[edit]

Please limit discussion to improving this article.

A couple of weeks ago non-registered users have lost the ability to read the posts on SA forums( I'm not talking about archived ones ), but I don't have the date and I can't find anything about this on the site itself. Could someone with a confirmed date update the article ?Ezhuks (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's working again now. It does that for seemingly random periods. Nothing worth writing about in the article.--Drat (Talk) 10:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I though they had locked me out! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
They did it again a few days ago. Maslego (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
How long does it usually last when they do this? -- (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The longest i've seen is one week. Seems like they are going for a new record=( Happy days are here again! forums open! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Move To Pleasant Hill MO?[edit]

If you look at Google street view you can see that Something Awful has moved to "202 North State Route 7, Pleasant Hill, MO‎" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, no you can't? --Golbez (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
How about at and --tagno25 (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
How about their website? "Something Awful corporate offices in majestic Pleasant Hill, Missouri" --cattrain (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification re: Shooting Deaths[edit]

Article says: "In 2005, William Freund sought advice in the Something Awful gun subforum about purchasing Hevi-Shot brand ammunition several days before embarking on a shooting, in which he killed two people before committing suicide. Freund had stated in the thread, which was closed along with his account being banned well before the killing spree, that he intended to use the ammunition to defend his Halloween pumpkins from vandals.[18]". Question: If he posted in the forum "several days" before embarking on a shooting, what does it mean to say he was banned "well before" the shooting spree? Can this be cleared up, please? -- (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's somewhat incorrect. Freund posted on October 25, 2005. He was placed on probation (can read the forums, but cannot post) as a direct response to the thread (the probating admin commented "goddamn idiot") on October 26, 2005. He was not banned; that means you cannot read the forums anymore and must pay to come back. Probation runs out after a certain period; in this case, it expired on November 5. He was permabanned (cannot even get back in if you pay) on November 2, following the murders-suicide which occurred on October 29. So while it is inaccurate to say he was banned before the murders, his ability to post had been removed. But none of this happened "well before", it was all within several days. --Golbez (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Okay I know there's been this thing going about the internet, "how is babby formed"... seems to be a reference to this Yahoo Answers question [6] so not knowing what the whole thing is about (and mostly from a reference in a /. article about literal quotation: [7]) I go looking on wikipedia which redirects me here. Why is there nothing in the article about the thing I was searching for? If I'm redirected here, someone presumably thought Something Aweful was the most relevant article to redirect to, but for some reason there's nothing in the Something Aweful article about the title of the page I was redirected from. !? (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Shmorky, who is commonly associated with SA being kind of their resident animator, created the Babby animation. It's possible that he had an article but it was deleted, and then redirected here. Also, the title is right at the top of the screen, so there's no excuse spelling Awful incorrectly, twice. --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sensitive about spelling? Anyway, I think the point is why do we have How is babby formed? as a redirect to this page, when the page has no information about it. (The redirect page history does not suggest an earlier article.) I suppose a good case can be made for taking it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but I also don't think it's a terribly urgent need. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sensitive? No. Annoyed when people do it despite all evidence to the contrary being in their face? Yes. I put effort into my posts, I expect no less from others. --Golbez (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
And Babby redirects to Infant. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Jeff K." redirects to this article[edit]

But there is nothing in this article about him CTA MART (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC) (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit war over information regarding a child molestor who was removed from Something Awful[edit]

I recently saw that information pertaining to the removal of a child molestor from modding the Something Awful forums has been repeatedly removed by Golbez, who admits here he has a bias due to being a Goon and being bought an insulting avatar based on these edits.

For reasons of transparency, I admit I too have an anti-Something Awful bias due to personal disgust with the forums, but I feel this information is notable and should be reinstated to the article. The sources check out and the information is verifiable. Second, the removal of a pedophile with major control over a forum with minors in their membership is noteworthy, especially since Wikipedia covered a similar person on Reddit whom Something Awful had involvement, so I feel Golbez may be removing these edits due to his own bias as a SA member and thus is removing this information to shield Something Awful from verifiable and noteworthy criticism. Arcane21 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Golbez could you please explain to me why you think a high-profile moderator on a forum being removed for being discovered to be a literal child rapist and publicly shamed on said forum isn't notable in the history of said forum? (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I should point out that it is highly likely that our new friend(s) is a goon as well, since, well, why else would I have a new av. You're welcome to believe this, and take appropriate action, but until then I continue to see this as a coatrack/BLP issue. As for is it "notable in the history of the forum", yes, it's absolutely notable to the SA forums, but to be mentioned on Wikipedia that notability has to be established *outside* of said forums, and that's up to reputable third party news sources. Show me some - and no, somethingsensitive does not count, being a forum - that discusses the modding and/or demodding of Aatrek. Til then, it's nothing but forum drama, which we have no need for. And, let's be honest, our new friend, "Notaatrek", clearly is here for no reason other than to add a mention of Aatrek, and so there is clearly a COI there as well. --Golbez (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Duly noted on the user with the obvious COI username, that is a good point, Golbez. I also concur there seems to be a lot of COI influence on both sides, yourself due to insulting trolling on the very forums this article addresses, and the other editor due to their obvious desire to see critical information be inserted into the article. I also concede perhaps a better source aside from the Something Sensitive forums may be needed to show relevance in third party news sources. Arcane21 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I am also a member of the SA forums for nearly a decade. I have no wish for anything other than neutrality and truthfulness with regard to this article. The issues of neutrality are many, amdndxtend beyond this one simple edit. In addition, these issues completely undermine Golbek's claims that "relevance" is his criteria. For example, there are many SA members who do not know who Jeff K. is, yet he is included. Most know of Aatrek, who is not included. There are many examples of relevant and noteworthy items not being included. Since they are not what is being discussed here, I do not wish to muddy the waters with regard to this discussion. But the omissions are problematic because they are not apparent to anyone who has not been a forums member for some time amd as such give an incomplete or intentionally misleading picture of the subject. This undermines not only the credibility of Golbez, but that of Wikipedia. This page needs a lot of work to be informative and accurate. (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
So work on it. Just make sure everything is verifiable and properly sourced. The attempted Aatrek insertion was not. --Golbez (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
there was a news article is that not verifiable? (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The news article was about the arrest. It had nothing to do with SomethingAwful and did not mention that he was a mod on it. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Golbez surely there was not an issue over the facts that it did happen. In one of the previous edits you reversed there were 3-4 cited sources including news articles. It happened (and I know you personally know the facts so its not a case of ignorance) but you reversed it anyway. So your blithe attempt to obfuscate the discussion at hand by saying "add it, just source it" rings hollow because that was done above and beyond what most items on the page are sourced but reversed anyway. (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The articles cited in the shootings section do not explicitly give the forum names of the shooters, but they are included, as they are common forums knowledge. How is this different from the attempted insert, especially when backed up by a quote from the admin of SA himself? By your criteria, much of the Something Awful entry is not properly sourced and should be removed. (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The sources were a forum (not valid), a first-party source (not valid), and a news source about the person in question that does not at all link him to the forum. So. Tell me how this inclusion is sourced, please. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Golbez I think your neutrality in this matter is suspect and you should step away. You seem to be personally motivated in this case and you are applying the rules unequally. There are other sections that are uncited by third parties and completely non-notable your definition (see the 'Public Appearances' section, which has a link to something awful and a link to YouTube as citations). Please enforce the rules fairly or remove yourself from the situation, as you seem to be obviously biased in this matter. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative environment. If you feel that the section is lacking, please participate instead of deleting the work of others because it personally upsets you. James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Nah. And I agree, that public appearances section probably could go away. The SPEWS, Katrina, Boll, Freund, Allred, and Slenderman are all sourced from third party sources mentioning their link to SA. The Aatrek addition does not. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The Sean Smith blurb was not, and removed as to be in line with the high standards that you hold for this page. James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I could assume good faith, but I am a mirror. It's clear you think you're trying to get to me with this, but no, I don't care. I think Sean Smith should be included here, but only with proper sourcing; as we lack that at this time then yes, removal was proper. --Golbez (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Golbez this may be a shock I am not out to get you. Please don't accuse me of unfounded malicious intentions because you are being teased elsewhere on the internet. Thanks. James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)