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:

 

[LanceSky]

First, welcome to the forum, LanceSky. Great to have your here. Would love it if you post a link to your portfolio and tell us a little about yourself.

Thank you! Well, I'm an entrepreneur from the Netherlands. I originally studied law, but I haven't done much with my degree as during my studies I started making money online. My first encounter with the domain market was actually when I tried to acquire a business domain, but the domain holder wanted a 0 more than I was willing to pay. After which I realized I was on the wrong side of the table. So since then I have been selling domains from business ideas that I haven't found the time for. And apparently there is a market for that. But I haven't organized them into a portfolio yet.

The issue is that Epik rescued only very specific extreme domains and sites that posted harmful content. No domains were rescued on the other spectrum.

I am honestly not really aware of cases where registrars turned on domains out of public pressure, while the user-generated content was actually being moderated. Normally that only happens if there are clear criminal activities going on, where there is no intent to abide by the law. Where it is pointless to refer people to the website owner or hoster. These cases seemed pretty unique. Cloudflare also considered these cases unique. But it was certainly unique in their high profile, as everyone across the industry started to get involved.

But even if it is as you say, should a person not intervene for something he believes is right, if he hasn't done so before? Or should you applaud his efforts, that he has come into action? And do his actions in any way indicate that other domains aren't welcome on his platform? Because I get the impression he is trying to create awareness that domains are indeed welcome on his platform.

Although I am not arguing whether or not the writer(s) of the Wikipedia page were biased, but you will notice the references at the bottom of the page and those appear to be the sources.

Rob Monster himself is also a relevant source. As he was directly involved in this case. He had publicly declared his intentions. And the Wikipedia articles are about him. So they should be able to cite his views. Although I guess Wikipedia has different standards than journalists and courts.

I argued before, that @Rob Monster and Epik would better spend their time in a media campaign as opposed to a war of words with the Wikipedia writer(s). They have to change the tide.

You are absolutely right about that.

Or he could call the registrar to take down the website that hosts harmful content. Although, Wikipedia could always move their domain to Epik. So I guess that wouldn't work.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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]

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?

 

[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]

You mean the guy who barely speaks english? Yeah keep paint broad paintbrush.

I dont know if you noticed @NameShiba who started Wiki, denounced his views/ and the guy even recanted it. (though damage done)

but you ignore that.

I firmly believe that in any sort of discourse things should be handled appropriately and professionally.
Nobody should aim to make the posts at the individuals themselves -- but rather with the firm disagreements of the content provided.

In short, be firm, be cordial, and let's get back to business and talk domains.

 

[Intelliname]

Brought to you (literally) by GoDaddy, Afternic (home of the fast transfer!), and Key-Systems GmbH.
I'd like to also say thank you to ICANN for their role in appropriate accreditations that allowed this message.

I just want to say that racism sucks. It takes many forms. None of it should be tolerated. Judging others by their skin color, and having pre-factored expectations based on where someone comes from, is one of the most deeply ignorant facets of humanity on this planet. It almost always also reveals fears and deep-rooted insecurities from the individuals portraying it.

Simultaneously and without question, this popularized mechanic of calling others racists and nazis as a political tool to galvanize and reach the hearts of the innocent is its OWN FORM of racism. It is being wielded far too often and frequently, with concentrations coming from media interests owned almost in entirety by six individuals. Paraded in campaigns at schools and through organizations as propaganda, designed to stimulate votes. So that an entirely different set of corrupt people can instead manage coffers and benefit from lobbyists worldwide. I don't even like the fact that the global dictionary standard is making me try and capitalize the word "nazi", and I choose to use small letters for it.

I liked this quote as well, although I don't see it on the top of Facebook's wikipedia page:

"Pages operated by factions of international white supremacist organisations including Combat 18 and the Misanthropic Division were reported, but Facebook refused to remove the content and told researchers to unfollow pages if they found them “offensive”."

 

[Intelliname]

You can reduce the entire experience to that, and again I am sorry for the hardships. Former positions whether fair, biased, objective or not, have nothing to do with the mis-direction going on here. You have a brilliant mind.

Something though tells me that if it was your family having their pictures being posted in articles asking others to hurt them, or your company and name being perpetually branded like below, you would have a far, far different righteous attitude and self-perception. This isn't about Rob Monster, it is about protecting YOU.

You just can't see it yet.

How you could twist this thread asking for help from others in the industry, and driving awareness into a VERY REAL problem into a perpetual attack on Epik is beyond me. You can paint me anyway you like.

 

[HotKey]

And speaking of tribes, where do our allegiances lie? We are so quick to forsake those whom dedicate and commit time and time again, for an unknown?

The unknown, whom is blaspheming one our our members and the company founded, joins our forum, commits for a day, and is gone. Poof. Is this where our allegiance lies?

We ask rhetorical questions, knowing full well the answers. Calling out, searching for weakness in that which strengthens us. And yet, we come home every day, here back to NP, because it's where our heart is.

What up, dudes??

 

[bmugford]

It is malfeasance and either is cured soon, or will be pursued in court.

Cool, good luck with that. Again, truth is an absolute defense for any libel or defamation claim.
If you don't like the way something is framed, but it is factually true, then too bad.

I would be very surprised if an actual court is going to entertain any of your conspiracy theory nonsense either.

The internet remembers. You will just have to live with your decisions and the connections you made and trumpeted. That is not going to disappear, as is much of the conspiracy stuff you have said on NamePros and other venues.

That Huffington Post article is way more damaging than anything on Wikipedia. It is the second result when someone searches your name. Why don't you go after them?

Brad

 

[JB Lions]

@Rob Monster - the guy above really isn't helping you out at all, actually the opposite. He just threw your pic in with some degenerate types, then said something about some Satanic bible, child porn and other stuff, the usual all over the place kind of thing. I mean really, it's Clown Show type of stuff. Make better decisions.

 

[JB Lions]

JB Lions I didn't throw his picture in anything.. these are the pictures in order from SPLC's own website. The references to the bible and child porn were from the actual pictures of the editors WRITING the wikipedia page. Please wake up. Your bias is now dripping on my keyboard.

Your nonsense is dripping all over this forum. Look at your posts, it's some really crazy stuff. You came to this forum with Epik Epik Epik, yet you have GoDaddy and Escrow.com links all over your site, home page. You're not even a true believer. Why don't you have Epik and Epik Escrow links? And that nonsense you posted towards Grilled yesterday, taking personal stuff he shared with you and trying to use it against him, it's truly pathetic.

 

[Silentptnr]

Well boys, I'm all rested up. Ready to rock. Who wants to talk?

 

[The Durfer]

Epik is an ICANN-accredited domain registrar and web hosting company[1] known for providing services to websites that host far-right, Neo-Nazi, and other extremist content as well as those that sell illegal drugs and counterfeit medications.

GoDaddy Inc. is an American publicly traded Internet domain registrar and web hosting company[5] headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona and incorporated in Delaware.[6]

As of March 2019, GoDaddy has approximately 18.5 million customers and over 9,000 employees worldwide.[7] The company is known for its advertising on TV and in the newspapers.[8] It has been involved in several controversies related to censorship

Dynadot is a privately held ICANN accredited domain name registrar and web hosting company founded by software engineer Todd Han in 2002. Dynadot's headquarters is established in San Mateo, California, with offices in Zhengzhou and Beijing, China, as well as Toronto, Canada.

Now, you decide if that is not blatant opinion for epik and neutrality for Godaddy and Dynadot.

What i mean, is they said Epik - picks their noses, and smears boogers on girls
while Godaddy and Dynadot are professional and have no pimples or martians working for them. Got it.

Doesnt even mention where epik's physical address

 

[Silentptnr]

Everyone starts neutral.

Respect is earned.

Not demanded.

Not to be gained through threats.

But earned.

(to me at least)

I'll be the first to agree!

I'm a bit different though. I really do listen to those who point out weaknesses, problematic situations and such. I don't know that Rob always listens as well as he advises. But I don't hold it against him. Maybe he is listening. I see so much positive energy. I believe he means well. That's the start.

 

[Silentptnr]

When someone I care about makes a mistake, takes heat, or gets backlash, I don't tell them "You brought it on yourself". I tell them to work harder at proving who they are. I don't tell them to change. I tell them to change the optics. I know they mean't well.

This situation is no different. I care. I think Rob has worked hard to prove who he is. I think Rob has worked hard to change the optics.

I don't see it being received fairly, "respectfully", or with caring. Maybe some caring, but it's been pretty harsh as far as I can see.

I honestly think he is owed an apology by some. Will it happen? Probably not. But maybe one day.

 

[Silentptnr]

What part of not actually "her article" did you miss? :eyeroll:

I read it cover to cover. I was embarrassed for her. And I havent even met her.

I like her style. But I think she allowed her personal feelings to get on the page disguised as "facts".

 

[Samer]

Not one comment in that wikipedia of Epik scamming, committing crimes or otherwise, yet they found a way to highlight a narrative. It's just wrong.

Wikipedia IP banned me

I made account there just to post (add discussion)
Signed off my real name, occupation
Spent the whole day writing to add "discussion"

Deleted post, IP banned, Judge, jury, execution

I like our mods better.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Whatever you think ...

The Wikipedia editor is not an expert in the filed (domain industry) and editor/s starting point is written in a very specific style, known as the concept of “common knowledge” or "information that most people know". The US based TV stations (3) mentioned Epik but without accusation or by coloring the company name nor CEO name (they know that "cite is not considered "common knowledge"). Things can change anytime, anywhere.

In essence. the information is written / shared by a specific group of likeminded people / most of are students, part time journalist / freelancers (check the cite authors).

Wikipedia rules: cite if 50% likely to be challenged.

When you cite your sources, statements is not considered common knowledge.

This case is not an undisputed or definitive fact.

Most of so called WP editors are unsure (copycat), so ... cite it to be safe.

(btw. I'm Wikipedia editor/contributor for 18 years. Younger generation are using WP for a very personal gain s.a. CV and status.)

For the rest of the story: No comment.

Rules
0. Subject
1. Collect information
2. Read, read again, read in-between
3. Analyze
4. Compare (source/s, idea, authors background etc)
5. Challenge: subjective vs objective vs copycat (eg. VICE, HufPost etc), Mainstream media (Radio & TV) etc.
etc

Bye namePros! Enjoy your Domaining!

Regards

Thanks for stopping by @Lox

We are lost without you.

Please come back soon.

 

[TCK]

Thanks for sharing your experience @LanceSky. Again, glad you are here. Share your portfolio is you have one. It will give you exposure that may lead to sales.

Rob Monster himself is also a relevant source. As he was directly involved in this case. He had publicly declared his intentions. And the Wikipedia articles are about him. So they should be able to cite his views. Although I guess Wikipedia has different standards than journalists and courts.

Rob Monster is not a source due to obvious bias. Clearly, contrasting views/sources should be used in the article, if available. It is the impression of many on this forum that Rob uses/used controversial news to get more attention to Epik and maybe SEO points.

On a related note, I did have a lovely hour long phone call today with Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia.

This is a good first step. You need to get positive media attention outside of Np. Here you seem to be getting positive posts from only a handful of the same members. A journalist will not take that seriously.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

You are absolutely right about that.

Or he could call the registrar to take down the website that hosts harmful content. Although, Wikipedia could always move their domain

Or, the focus could be on the content (rather than personally attacking wikipedia(&other internet) members), and comparing epik article vs other wikipedia registrar articles.

Focusing on the content will help establish what is/was allowed, such as what domain industry blogs are credible enough to be included in wikipedia articles.

Noting, the GoDaddy wikipedia article includes citations from DomainNameWire.com

"Domain Name Wire. "Has GoDaddy Done a 180 on Invalid Whois?" November 2, 2007". Domainnamewire.com. Retrieved 2009-04-20.

Yet, Epik's wikipedia article has no citations from domain industry news sites. And that's not due to a lack of Epik related content produced from domain niche sites such as DomainNameWire.com

I highlighted "It's time for domain name renewals beyond 10 years" because I think it's notable information. Though, arguably, could be seen as marketing, despite it being an innovative novel idea. Nonetheless, if other registrars are allowed to cite sources such as DomainNameWire.com (a great publication IMO) then, that ability should be extended to all registrars.

Rob Monster himself is also a relevant source. As he was directly involved in this case. He had publicly declared his intentions. And the Wikipedia articles are about him. So they should be able to cite his views. Although I guess Wikipedia has different standards than journalists and courts.

Also citing GoDaddy's wikipedia page, BobParsons.me is a citable source?

"– A blog by GoDaddy CEO and founder Bob Parsons". Bobparsons.me. Archived from the original on 2009-04-30. Retrieved 2009-04-20.

So why can't Rob Monster be cited? #doublestandard #oversight #focusonthecontent

Rob Monster is not a source due to obvious bias. Clearly, contrasting views/sources should be used in the article, if available. It is the impression of many on this forum that Rob uses/used controversial news to get more attention to Epik and maybe SEO points.

I agree Rob Monster is clearly biased. And I also agree that it appears Rob/Epik exploits controversial news to get more attention to Epik.

However, if BobParsons.me is a quotable source for a competitor, then Rob Monster should be afforded the same opportunity.

(((though I question if Rob is capable of speaking on any topic (including prayer) without mentioning/marketing Epik)))

 

[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.