Please Sign this petition to help Mr Rob Monster

[barybadrinath]

There has been continuous attempts of character assassination and paid witch hunt towards Epik Registrar and Its CEO Mr Rob Montser.
I request all respected domainers all around the globe to come and play their part by signing and sharing this petition to help one of ours i.e Mr Rob Monster.

If We domainers wont stand against these corrupt practices of paid journalists, no one else will. Today its Mr Rob, tomorrow it will be you.

http://chng.it/g9mqK4Cy - Link to petition

I also request everyone to spread out the word and to share it on your respective social media timelines.

Also please raise your voice here --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:...roposal_to_change_the_lead_paragraph_for_Epik

 

[DaveX]

Why is it factually inaccurate? Are you trying to say Epik didn't do those things?

What I'm saying is that "Molly" does not/should not, be in a position to write that type of information about an established company. It is the basis to write that type of nonsense about every company on Wikipedia.

 

[DaveX]

You can find supporting documentation all over the Internet, including domaining sites.

Like I said before...Try writing that about GoDaddy on wikipedia.

 

[DaveX]

Molly, for whatever reason, felt empowered to focus her opening on those items. That was the call she made. It was very wrong imo.

 

[TCK]

What I'm saying is that "Molly" does not/should not, be in a position to write that type of information about an established company. It is the basis to write that type of nonsense about every company on Wikipedia.

This is not the point. Should or shouldn't is not the question. The question is "is it factual?"

 

[bmugford]

What I'm saying is that "Molly" does not/should not, be in a position to write that type of information about an established company. It is the basis to write that type of nonsense about every company on Wikipedia.

Just because you don't like the way something is framed, doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

Molly, for whatever reason, felt empowered to focus her opening on those items. That was the call she made. It was very wrong imo.

Rob should be happy then. He is the one always talking about empowering people.

Brad

 

[DaveX]

Just because you don't like the way something is framed, doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Brad

Wikipedia is not an opinion site nor an open forum. That opening is an opinion piece frankly.

 

[bmugford]

Molly, for whatever reason, felt empowered to focus her opening on those items. That was the call she made. It was very wrong imo.

Well, the truth is that is what Epik is basically known for, especially outside the domain world.
As an actual company they are a small privately held company.

It was only after the New Zealand shooting and articles like Huffington Post where Rob really made it into the news.

Brad

 

[DaveX]

By the way, I bet if companies begin to see that Wikipedia is painting their organizations in that type of light, I bet it will change.

I predict Molly will receive some equivalent of an infraction. I believe Epik and other companies should not allow essentially RipOffReport style ambushes.

 

[TCK]

Like I said before...Try writing that about GoDaddy on wikipedia.

Epik is not Google or GoDaddy (as much as Rob would like to think so). They have many articles in authoritative sources written about them.

Wikipedia is not an opinion site nor an open forum. That opening is an opinion piece frankly.

Where's the opinion? Those statements are backed up.

 

[DaveX]

Rob should be happy then. He is the one always talking about empowering people.

Brad

okay?

 

[TCK]

For the record, I actually have nothing to do with the petition. It was the initiative of a concerned citizen written in their own language. I applaud the courageous and selfless act of opposing mob rule.

@Rob Monster, you most certainly did:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/epik-wikipedia-battle-is-full-on-right-now.1186029/

 

[DaveX]

Epik is not Google or GoDaddy (as much as Rob would like to think so). They have many articles in authoritative sources written about them.



Where's the opinion? Those statements are backed up.

Molly wrote a considerably narrow piece that does not do justice to the depth of Epik. I say Epik, but this could be about any company.

 

[DaveX]

Molly used terms that clearly indicate her displeasure with Epik. Her use of words like "tout". Her statements like "Epik has a history of not responding to reports of illegal activity on the websites they register"

What the hell?

 

[DaveX]

We should not be questioning NP, we should be questioning Wikipedia. Since when did Wikipedia start allowing shot nosed brats to post this type of crap. Sorry, but when companies are investing real money in growth and other areas, no kid with limited experience should have the ability to post such things.

 

[DaveX]

What Molly did was try to become a sleuth of sorts. From my reading, she took on a roll of some kind of reporter, versus providing unbiased, well-rounded, balanced information. Far too much spin.

 

[Rob Monster]

so your condoning someone who is attacking a woman's reputation that works for an organisation that you are in disagreement with?

Your business is your business deal with it - do not go down this Donald Trump path.......

It is not a question of gender, race, ethnicity, etc.. This is a concerned citizen who has taken issue with an obstinate editor who is abusing the Wikipedia brand for some private agenda. Related Tweet exchange:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1251358685965631488

Free speech is definitely at work here.

Molly is entitled to abuse her editorial position defending her article as her sacred property. And the Netizens of the world have the right to challenge that decision. And they are.

Read this thread:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1250944055128788994

In one thread she declares that all of the following are insignificant:

- Raymond Hackney
- TLD Investors
- NamePros

Wikipedia is not functioning as a platform. Wikipedia is showing editorial privilege and serving as judge, jury and executioner. You can be sure that this stance is not protected under CDA 230.

 

[bmugford]

Free speech is definitely at work here.

Molly is entitled to abuse her editorial position defending her article as her sacred property. And the Netizens of the world have the right to challenge that decision. And they are.

Threats are not protected by free speech. Are you alright with what was said by barybadrinath to her, on your behalf?

Brad

 

[TCK]

It is entirely possible that their resolve will cost them dearly before everything is said and done. If they were wise, they would choose an easier target to defame.

@Rob Monster

It's not defamatory if it is true. Point out anything said that is untrue on Wikipedia. If such is the case, why don't you use legal action?

This is bullying tactic that you are using because you know you have no legal grounds and you know what is said is true. And you are encouraging your minions to follow your lead.

 

[DaveX]

I have read the entire wikipedia article and looked into Molly a bit.

Let me ask? Would it be proper to post about Molly's sexuality which she identifies as "Queer"?
When Molly meets someone, say on a job, is the first thing she says "I'm Queer"?

What she has written about Epik is the same as a bio about Molly focused on her being Queer.

Not about her entire life, not about her accomplishments, but all about her being Queer.

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists, such as the members of Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more assimilationist branches of the LGBT community.[1][2]