As a result of that impasse, a decision was taken to part ways with Joey. YourDaddyJoey.com left Epik and as far as I know that site did not come back online. His other domains are either being dropped by his request, or transferring elsewhere. I understand he is in depositions, but it is happening.
When do you expect this to be complete? It has been a month and he has multiple domains with Epik, where he continues to host the exact same site you removed. Again, multiple reports have been made with these domains.
At the end of the day, Epik has a reasonable standard for acceptable use and we work with reasonable people. We are not free speech absolutists and have never been. Those who think we are free speech absolutists are sometimes disappointed. After all, the media, including Wikipedia, told them otherwise!
The only mention of free speech absolutism in either article is in the Rob Monster article, which explicitly states that you have said you are
not a free speech absolutist. I added this in February of this year, one day after the publication of the NPR piece where you said as much.
And as for harassment of defamation, I would say that by any objective standard, your Wikipedia article, and related prominence on search engines as the Ministry of Truth on Epik and Rob Monster are the most blatant acts of defamation of which I am personally aware from any time in my entire career.
I have repeatedly invited you to point to any portion of either article that is not reflective of the sourcing. You have never done so. The offer remains open should you change your mind.
I'm sure you know that defamation is "the oral or written communication of a
false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation.. etc. etc." A good example might be if someone
repeatedly suggested that I am "addicted to MDMA". I am still waiting to hear which statement in either article is false; I work very hard to ensure that the articles I work on are well-sourced and accurate, and while I am not immune to making errors, I have checked both articles quite closely. It is of course possible that one of the
sources has made an error, but one of the things we look for in determining whether a source is reliable or not is their history of publishing retractions where appropriate. If they have erred, I would urge you to contact them—if any source used in a Wikipedia article has retracted a statement, we will always update articles accordingly when we see it.
Your editorial bias on Wikipedia is far from neutral. The articles are effectively locked down to prevent reasonable edits.
The Wikipedia biography about you is not locked from editing. The Epik article is semiprotected (
a very low bar to surpass). We discourage people from directly editing articles about themselves or their businesses, but you are more than welcome to create an
edit request to either. I will happily enough stay out of any edit requests you make, if you like; they go into a queue where they are reviewed by uninvolved editors fairly quickly.
Your near-exclusive editing of a very slanted narrative is not copacetic with Wikipedia's published code of conduct for article writers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Show attachment 201939
I have also repeatedly invited you to explain how the article is not "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This mostly turned into railing against the media and the suggestion that various domaining blogs ought to be usable as sources, though even if they were usable, they seemed to primarily just go into additional detail on various Epik endeavors rather than presenting any contradictory points of view.
I think I have been quite reasonable in my interactions with you over the past years, although my patience has admittedly been wearing thin over the past week or two with the escalation by Joey Camp, enabled by you. And I will note, by the way, that I have not edited either article in that time. But I cannot say the same about your treatment of me. I'm not sure where in a "good faith dialog" (as you mentioned earlier) you fit in
signing and re-sharing an absolutely unhinged Change.org petition about me (later removed as an abuse of their service) by a person who suggested people ought to show up my house. If you've forgotten, it was the one about how I apparently use Wikipedia to "try to extort money from global organizations by intentionally creating a false narrative" and likens me to a "dirty fish". Or publishing on your Epik.com blog an
open letter to Bloomberg News, apparently about some issue you had with them in which I had no part, where your spokesperson made a number of disingenuous statements, including that I had "literally posted Swastikas on [Epik's] own social media feeds and statements against racism"—an apparent reference to
this reply to your now-deleted statement about racism, where I included a screenshot of a news article, which in turn had a screenshot of a website you had provided services to. Why did you delete that antiracism tweet, by the way? And what about this? Why were you messaging with Joey about doxing me, shortly before I received the emails from him about sending people to enter my home?