Epik Wikipedia battle is full-on right now

[Rob Monster]

@Intelliname has engaged the battle with the Wikipedia handlers who have been camping on a Wikipedia article about Epik that is full of nonsense narrative.

You can follow the debate here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Intelliname#April_2020

Bring popcorn but do it quick because they will probably censor this too.

Take lots of screenshots.

Here's a start:

 

[Rob Monster]

You can see the current article here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epik_(domain_registrar)

You can see the change history here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epik_(domain_registrar)&action=history

I first called out this nonsense on Twitter here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1160620833020293120

Enough is enough.

 

[Intelliname]

This individual hear was told that we were aware of their help in curating and creating narrative against Epik, and he literally (in a public forum) asked Wikipedia to shut the thread off because he was afraid that he was going to be exposed for his malfeasance and external paid alignments:

@331dot: is it possible to remove their ability to edit this talk page? I’m worried they will use it to carry out their outing threats, and the fact that they have stalked me down to a now-archived teahouse question is a disturbing indicator of what we might expect from this individual(s) later on. Woerich (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you imagine the arrogance that this would take?

He wasn't concerned about the truth... He was afraid that his role in lying was going to be exposed.

 

[branding]

Popcorn ready. Let's go. About time. I think the Wikipedia article has always been unfair and biased. Read it back then when you mentioned it.

 

[Samer]

“Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”

“not unless doesnt fit our narrative..”

Samer

 

[JB Lions]

This isn't Domain Industry News, seems like internal issues. The posts above just show Rudy violating terms of that site. You're the only registrar that has these kinds of problems.

 

[branding]

This isn't Domain Industry News, seems like internal issues. The posts above just show Rudy violating terms of that site. You're the only registrar that has these kinds of problems.

Agreed. Like I said, the article doesn't do you justice but the fact that he's part of the team doesn't really help your case.

Good luck though! Following.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Bring popcorn but do it quick because they will probably censor this too.

Take lots of screenshots.

Why screenshots? When there are archiving services such as Archive.li?

Using the URL in your screenshot, your screenshot has now been archived at: https://archive.li/al0bb

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Why screenshots? When there are archiving services such as Archive.li?

Using the URL in your screenshot, your screenshot has now been archived at: https://archive.li/al0bb

As an additional example, I archived this thread here: https://archive.li/K9SDO

The only way this post will be "scrubbed" is if it's reported and violates a nP rule.

Some members like to excessively dislike posts right away, then sometimes remove the dislike. To each their own. But if you ever want to question details such as that, you can archive a page, with a public time stamp, so even if details change, you will definitely know details change, and not leave it up to question, if scrubbed or not.

Another example would be archiving tweets. https://archive.li/5nTfS

Though, when archiving tweets, sometimes its best to archive individual tweets, as archive.li doesn't expand all tweet responses...https://archive.li/lUeaf

 

[Samer]

As an additional example, I archived this thread here: https://archive.li/K9SDO

The only way this post will be "scrubbed" is if it's reported and violates a nP rule.

Some members like to excessively dislike posts right away, then sometimes remove the dislike. To each their own. But if you ever want to question details such as that, you can archive a page, with a public time stamp, so even if details change, you will definitely know details change, and not leave it up to question, if scrubbed or not.

Another example would be archiving tweets. https://archive.li/5nTfS

Though, when archiving tweets, sometimes its best to archive individual tweets, as archive.li doesn't expand all tweet responses...https://archive.li/lUeaf

And some members like to block people who waited them to come back after long getaway for no reason at all.

to each his own; Wikipedia is “fake news” they censor what dont like while slander you portray their own political agenda. It’s amazing extent of the fight Rob done to protect him and his company’s good name. Can see why you like them (Wiki) but this reflects poorly on them. - IP ban while continue character assassination and mischaracterization of events took place.

I feel bad for Rob and empathize with him.
On the one hand “important” to be listed entry on Wikipedia. the other hand; “their version” of events that took place; which i largely disagree with; Make Rob so political aligned, when Rob barely involved. He’s learned; but still has to wake this Wikipedia BS people read everyday.

I pray and root for him.

Samer

 

[Rob Monster]

In the meantime, they locked the article.

It seems the editorial review has been escalated 2-3 levels. That article has essentially been camped on since it was first produced.

While we have been supportive of lawful free speech, we also have identified the boundaries for acceptable use:

https://www.epik.com/blog/epik-draws-line-on-acceptable-use.html

Our social media channels are overwhelmingly positive, both as Epik and mine personally.

While there are those who advocate for anarchy, I have made the counter-argument:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1244713538586894336

Some of these positive messages also get a lot of views (8000+ on this one):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1249389477774200832

The Wikipedia narrative simply does not fit the reality of who we ever were, and certainly does not align with our operating practices of broad empowerment without bias or preference.

The article was defamatory, and since Google amplifies it in search, we have a problem. We want this fixed, both for our own benefit but also for our growing client base who should be able to endorse us confidently.

On the positive side, after a year of being locked out of Facebook, the folks at Facebook did restore our account. We have also been given broad access to social media tools and lead-generation data.

So, the reins are clearly loosening, but now we have some cleanup to do. It appears that the people at Wikipedia, have yet to get the memo that Epik is cool.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

to each his own; Wikipedia is “fake news”

Your comments are more fake news than wikipedia. Not meant to be antagonistic. Simply my opinion, especially since wikipedia cites their sources, and has a procedure for editing/review/factchecking, there is a reason why I trust wikipedia more than the average website/nP member. Though, there are certain nP members, who generally, I'd like to trust more than wikipedia. I still fact check. Or question a nP member if further clarification is warranted/possible/worth the squeeze.

NamePros is much more open than wikipedia, fact. As such, nP members have to value their sources (or other nP members) more so independently to interpret and conceive new perspectives. As namePros is much more lenient with the publishing procedure, sometimes it helps to ignore members if you feel they are much more likely/prone to spreading fake news, opposed to those who fact check, and think independently.

Then you have mods. Be it nP mods. Or wikipedia mods. Both largely rely on a user driven reporting system. Some members pushing a narrative, others combating fake news, and those stuck in between, trying to find some sort of truth. Ultimately, we are all one ecosystem. Take for instance, any time a new article is posted on a domain blog, at least the headline, gets widely distributed (mirrored) by multiple distributing sources on the internet. If you only read the headline, and base your opinion on the article without fact checking, the narrative may be wrongly trickled down (telephone game). Those who wrongly trickle, and don't try to assist a possibly a unkowing editor, by fact checking, and free thinking, are essentially just mirrors echoing somebody else, not necessarily adding any original value, more so possibly unknowingly supporting fake (wrongly interpreted) news.

 

[Rob Monster]

Your comments are more fake news than wikipedia. Not meant to be antagonistic. Simply my opinion, especially since wikipedia cites their sources, and has a procedure for editing/review/factchecking, there is a reason why I trust wikipedia more than the average website/nP member. Though, there are certain nP members, who generally, I'd like to trust more than wikipedia. I still fact check. Or question a nP member if further clarification is warranted/possible/worth the squeeze.

NamePros is much more open than wikipedia, fact. As such, nP members have to value their sources (or other nP members) more so independently to interpret and conceive new perspectives. As namePros is much more lenient with the publishing procedure, sometimes it helps to ignore members if you feel they are much more likely/prone to spreading fake news, opposed to those who fact check, and think independently.

Then you have mods. Be it nP mods. Or wikipedia mods. Both largely rely on a user driven reporting system. Some members pushing a narrative, others combating fake news, and those stuck in between, trying to find some sort of truth. Ultimately, we are all one ecosystem. Take for instance, any time a new article is posted on a domain blog, at least the headline, gets widely distributed (mirrored) by multiple distributing sources on the internet. If you only read the headline, and base your opinion on the article without fact checking, the narrative may be wrongly trickled down (telephone game). Those who wrongly trickle, and don't try to assist a possibly a unkowing editor, by fact checking, and free thinking, are essentially just mirrors echoing somebody else, not necessarily adding any original value, more so possibly unknowingly supporting fake (wrongly interpreted) news.

The challenge we have here is that Molly White, the editor and creator of the Epik article, thinks it is "her article", rather than recognizing that there is a community editing mandate. She sees Epik through a narrow and weaponized lens for reason that are in the process of being uncovered and/or exposed. The moderators have now locked the article pending internal review. If they are smart, they will do as Facebook and Twitter did and conclude that there are other censorship battles more worth fighting than this one.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

The challenge we have here is that Molly, the editor and creator of the Epik article, thinks it is "her article", rather than recognizing that there is a community editing mandate.

Molly is not your only challenge. Taking ownership, and not deflecting/puffing chest, also seems to be a challenge.

If they are smart, they will do as Facebook and Twitter did and conclude that there are other censorship battles more worth fighting than this one,

I remember you took a similar tone to WIPO.

In response, WIPO said:

This email does not fully address the elements of the Policy or contain the required certification (see paragraph 5(c)(viii) of the Rules). Moreover, it makes a number of needless derogatory remarks (and threats) about the UDRP and the Center.

Source: https://domaingang.com/domain-law/bc30-com-udrp-what-not-to-do-when-negotiating-a-domain-sale/

Which had an unsuccessful initial result. Currently pending appeal.

I imagine Wikipedia appreciates Molly.

Heck, I didn't know about Molly until today, and still, I appreciate Molly.

Needless to say, I don't think attacking Molly is the correct route (or the high road) here.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Intelliname#April_2020

Your name is literally GorillaWarfare, and one of two links you have on your page is The Satanic Bible. Plus you have remained on call within minutes of any direction to be a singular point to attack Epik repeatedly and help curate data. This is fact, and I am not judging you for it, but it will be made clear and illustrated to our fullest capacity.

It's not my position to do so, but I feel approaching Molly on a human level, appreciating her, and not attacking her, would yield better results than what appears to be the current course of action.

Simply speaking, I almost thought to message Molly a nice message, as an epik customer, with a more transparent message, to share my perspective. This might get a different result, by first agreeing with her on the points she is correct on, rather than leaving those as sour points. It appears past that at this point, as intelliname (a great writer indeed) seems to be applying pressure directed at the moderator, rather than directing that pressure and respecting proper procedure. As it stands, if things progress, I'm more likely to send Molly an apology message on behalf of you guys, as an epik customer, so she knows not all epik customers are the same.

 

[Rob Monster]

Molly is not your only challenge. Taking ownership, and not deflecting/puffing chest, also seems to be a challenge.



I remember you took a similar tone to WIPO.



Which had an unsuccessful initial result. Currently pending appeal.

I imagine Wikipedia appreciates Molly.

Heck, I didn't know about Molly until today, and still, I appreciate Molly.

Needless to say, I don't think attacking Molly is the correct route (or the high road) here.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Intelliname#April_2020



It's not my position to do so, but I feel approaching Molly on a human level, appreciating her, and not attacking her, would yield better results than what appears to be the current course of action.

Simply speaking, I almost thought to message Molly a nice message, as an epik customer, with a more transparent message, to share my perspective. This might get a different result, by first agreeing with her on the points she is correct on, rather than leaving those as sour points. It appears past that at this point, as intelliname (a great writer indeed) seems to be applying pressure directed at the moderator, rather than directing that pressure and respecting proper procedure. As it stands, if things progress, I'm more likely to send Molly an apology message on behalf of you guys, as an epik customer, so she knows not all epik customers/staff are the same.

You can be sure that we used the nice guy approach first.

I am not debating her writing skills or research talent.

I was calling out her obvious bias.

I was calling out the locked down status of the article that blocked others from editing.

You can turn a blind eye to that if you like but I think if you look a little deeper, you might conclude that the playing field is far from level.

The timing is also bizarro:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2018/10/15/george-soros-invests-future-free-open-knowledge/

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/vice-media-250-million-debt-funding-george-soros-1203205076/

Do you think just possibly people might follow the money?

 

[Joshh71390]

The namepros winner of reg of the year!

 

[Chris Hydrick]

You can be sure that we used the nice guy approach first.

How can I be sure?

I am not debating her writing skills or research talent.

I was calling out her obvious bias.

It didn't seem like that was all you were doing.

You can turn a blind eye to that if you like but I think if you look a little deeper, you might conclude that the playing field is far from level.

The timing is also bizarro:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2018/10/15/george-soros-invests-future-free-open-knowledge/

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/vice-media-250-million-debt-funding-george-soros-1203205076/

Do you think just possibly people might follow the money?

Why would George Soros or Vice have a vendetta against epik? They might argue against certain actions, and/or a lack of addressing certain actions. But beyond that, it seems like conspiracy theory talking points, irrelevant to the example at hand, and if not relevant, it seems more like casting a big net, to attract those who support anything against George Soros or other 1%ers believed to be controlling a certain media narrative. Almost as if the marketing was, "Are you one of the [possibly millions] of domain owners who don't agree with GoDaddy? Try Epik, we're different." At least, that might have been some perspectives, likely some whom have never heard of Epik, might have had when Epik stepped up to give Gab a home after GoDaddy gave them the boot.

My thoughts are just because the media, or tech community, aspires for political correctness, and they voice that concern, I don't think that equates to a master deep state like conspiracy against epik. But then again, as the CEO of epik, I imagine your comments have much more factual background to the information you're saying.

And maybe it's not just pushing conspiracy theories, and deflecting responsibility. I'm not in a position to make that call. But this is where I'm going to bow out of this thread, Rob. I believe you are a very intelligent human, and with great power, comes great responsibility. Whether that be an ability to influence for the greater good. Your own gain. Or, possibly both. Regardless, as it is my sincere hope for all very intelligent humans, that those with great power don't abuse their abilities or positions.

 

[omelet]

You can be sure that we used the nice guy approach first.

I am not debating her writing skills or research talent.

I was calling out her obvious bias.

I was calling out the locked down status of the article that blocked others from editing.

You can turn a blind eye to that if you like but I think if you look a little deeper, you might conclude that the playing field is far from level.

The timing is also bizarro:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2018/10/15/george-soros-invests-future-free-open-knowledge/

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/vice-media-250-million-debt-funding-george-soros-1203205076/

Do you think just possibly people might follow the money?

I agree. We don't feel freedom and democracy at Wikipedia

 

[JB Lions]

You can be sure that we used the nice guy approach first.

I am not debating her writing skills or research talent.

I was calling out her obvious bias.

I was calling out the locked down status of the article that blocked others from editing.

You can turn a blind eye to that if you like but I think if you look a little deeper, you might conclude that the playing field is far from level.

The timing is also bizarro:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2018/10/15/george-soros-invests-future-free-open-knowledge/

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/vice-media-250-million-debt-funding-george-soros-1203205076/

Do you think just possibly people might follow the money?

Your boy getting blocked, you getting blocked, this George Soros conspiracy nonsense, this back and forth with Molly. You probably just made things worse. However tight it was, it just got tighter -

https://twitter.com/x/status/1160633673546424323

Read that back and forth, she looks like she's in high school but coming across as the adult, very smart.

She also just posted this in regards to the Soros nonsense:

..how Wikipedia works (with any of you, even Mr. Monster) and my own background there and reasons for editing. Obviously have grown somewhat tired of the conversations where I'm told my soul is at risk and I'm being paid by the deep state or whoever.

Hello folks from Namepros. Seems like some of you are reasonable people, so I hope it goes without saying that I'm not on Soros' payroll and I don't have a Satanic agenda, as Mr. Monster likes to claim about me. Always happy to have a calm, respectful conversation about...
https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF

https://twitter.com/x/status/1160633673546424323

 

[Paul]

In the meantime, they locked the article.

It's not locked, just protected. You can edit it if you register an account. I see the Edit link when logged in, but not when logged out.

Bring popcorn but do it quick because they will probably censor this too.

They don't censor talk pages unless they get vandalized or contain something blatantly illegal. If one person tries to remove or modify content on another person's talk page, they'll get in trouble. Your userspace is sort of your own little Wikipedia where you can do (almost) whatever you want.

@Intelliname has engaged the battle with the Wikipedia handlers who have been camping on a Wikipedia article about Epik that is full of nonsense narrative.

There are a lot of tools on Wikipedia that allow anyone to view anything "suspicious", like when a lot of content has been removed from an article. Contributors watch the list, and when they see something suspect, they hit a button to roll it back:

If your article is unfair or biased, you can change it, but you need to play by their rules of etiquette. They don't like it when people go in and remove stuff. There's a whole collaborative process for correcting biased articles. It's a bit like a courtroom; regardless of whether you're right, if you don't follow the procedures to the letter, you're going to wind up in a jail cell.

If you barge in there and start deleting large amounts of content with a brand new account, they're not even going to look into why you did it or what you deleted--it blends in with all the vandalism, and their backlog is too long to worry about the specifics.

I was calling out her obvious bias.

There's a procedure for doing that; if you follow the procedure, they'll take it seriously. Otherwise, they're just going to keep showing you the door and increasing the protection on the page. For example, they're generally not going to read the replies on your talk page. You wrote a long reply there, but that page is meant for messages to you, not from you. Your replies would typically go on the other person's talk page.

 

[Rob Monster]

It's not locked, just protected. You can edit it if you register an account. I see the Edit link when logged in, but not when logged out.



They don't censor talk pages unless they get vandalized or contain something blatantly illegal. If one person tries to remove or modify content on another person's talk page, they'll get in trouble. Your userspace is sort of your own little Wikipedia where you can do (almost) whatever you want.



There are a lot of tools on Wikipedia that allow anyone to view anything "suspicious", like when a lot of content has been removed from an article. Contributors watch the list, and when they see something suspect, they hit a button to roll it back:

Show attachment 151361

If your article is unfair or biased, you can change it, but you need to play by their rules of etiquette. They don't like it when people go in and remove stuff. There's a whole collaborative process for correcting biased articles. It's a bit like a courtroom; regardless of whether you're right, if you don't follow the procedures to the letter, you're going to wind up in a jail cell.

If you barge in there and start deleting large amounts of content with a brand new account, they're not even going to look into why you did it or what you deleted--it blends in with all the vandalism, and their backlog is too long to worry about the specifics.



There's a procedure for doing that; if you follow the procedure, they'll take it seriously. Otherwise, they're just going to keep showing you the door and increasing the protection on the page. For example, they're generally not going to read the replies on your talk page. You wrote a long reply there, but that page is meant for messages to you, not from you. Your replies would typically go on the other person's talk page.

Thanks Paul.

Why don't you prove that with a balanced narrative. See if it stands for 24 hours. I'll wait.

 

[WhoaDomain.com]

 

[Rob Monster]

@Paul Buonopane

I tried to get you a backlink from Wikipedia but apparently NP is not worthy:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1250975705657204736

The Wiki page appears locked to me:

Good luck.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1250991976230662144

Absolutely reasonable! Just needs a reliable, independent source covering the fact that you won (that is, not a press release, not the posting on Namepros, but an article in a reliable independent site covering the win).

What exactly is the problem here?

Provide them what they are asking for: https://tldinvestors.com/2020/03/best-registrar.html

 

[NameShiba]

@ Thread

If you have a stance on this issue, feel free to add it to the Wikipedia talk page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:...roposal_to_change_the_lead_paragraph_for_Epik

Remember to be civil when discussing on the talk page -- make it clear how you feel on the issue.

Cheers.