Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica/Archive1

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Good lord, man. Could you at least try for an NPOV? I'd say the majority of this article needs a rewrite (which I'd work on were I not at work...)--Duncan da Husky 16:31, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Admin promotion and the "GreenReaper" section

I removed the part about admin promotion, as it was not specific. If you're thinking Verix, he's from SA, not ED - or are you lumping "all people from websites like ED and SA" into the same category, like people lump "all furries" into one? And if you are aiming at Verix, I think you'll have a hard time denying that his contributions have value.

I'm not an "Encyclopedia Dramatican". I've not been involved with that site until people from it started coming on and I decided to correct the article they made about us. I've not been active on there outside that. Besides, if I was going to contribute to a site like that, I'd go for the Uncyclopedia, which is hosted by Wikia (update: not anymore). Fortunately, I have better things to do than contribute to either. :-)

Also, do you have a source for that quote? I know I've said something like that (and the sentiment is correct), but I thought I phrased it differently, and I think I was talking about SA, not ED. If you're going to make quotes that make anyone look bad to some people, it's your job to ensure that they're a) verifiable, and b) relevant. *grin*

Frankly, I think that most of my actions are not particularly relevant to the ED article - they're more general "trying to make sure that people hear about WikiFur, even if some of them are people that are critical of furries". They may, of course, be worth talking about, and I encourage debate about whether or not my decisions are correct, but I don't think this is the best place.

(By the way - when people put a section marked "Criticisms", I instantly think "someone with a point to make". It's a dead ringer for trouble on Wikipedia, and it's just the same here. Having that section alone is probably NPOV - we should not state criticisms, but attribute them to others.) --GreenReaper(talk) 17:52, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. So, it's OK to put a "These choices he has made are controversial, but nothing can be done about them.", but it's not OK to specify who the people who seem to think it controversial are, and it is OK to have a whole section on me, even considering the above? :-)
I don't actually disagree with the removal of that section of text, but then I don't think that the topic should have been there in the first place. It had nothing to do with ED. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:13, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)


Oh, so that's what the Rollback link does. Whoops. Anyway to provide explanation - the laundry list of organizations which were listed here basically recapitulated Category:Anti-furries and were unrelated to the subject of the article.--Duncan da Husky 22:07, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

i'm not the founder of encyclopedia dramatica. i don't even do anything on that site. you should check your facts. -jameth :)

Do you have any URLs that you can point us to so that we can update the entry accordingly? Thanks, --Dmuth 22:53, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
URLs for what? if you look at the domain registry and the admin information for ED , you could easily find out who runs the thing. and my name isn't on there. :) jameth
Oh wow. Mediacrat's arch nemesis comes up again in my life. Awesome. How ya been, Jameth? I remember you from the LJ Drama stuff. Guys, he didn't found ED, that was Sherrod DeGrippo. Jameth was the REASON why Sherrod created ED, but he's the creator of it, not JamethRedcard 23:22, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
hay epal :D - 02:46, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) (jameth)

from User talk:Siege

Wikipedia said that was his real name,and ED was complaining that Wikifur could not get the founders name right. Are you saying that was his real name? -- 15:52, 21 June 2006 User:

The ED was founded on the principle of mocking everyone. It's not that we can't get the guy's name right; it's that there hasn't been an authoritative source who has come to us to get it fixed if we're wrong. Leave a message with GreenReaper about that, would you? -- Siege(talk) 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

FurAffinity Shutdown

Being a security nut in the computer industry, I've heard a remarkably different version of the FurAffinity Shutdown story. From what I've heard, it was brought down due to its head of security not wishing to apply proper security, and someone who knew this suggested it was fair game. This type of manuever is done often by companies wishing to remove a site that is popular (it costs too much to maintain securely) or by employees who wish to point out vulernabilities without going through the proper chain of command (it's unsafe, so fix it.. we will when someone breaks it.. imagine that, someone broke it). Are we absolutely certain that ED intiated the attack, or should that be removed from the article?Redcard 23:34, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Since I'm a regular countributor at ED, I doubt you people will belive me, but the attack against FurAffinity was not made by a person directly related to ED. Someone attacked FurAffinity and after the attack, that person started the FurAffinity article to brag about its crappy security. (Besides the edits on the FurAffinity article, he only made something like 10 other edits) It's quite common for people who start drama on the Internet to register on ED and write an article about it. That doesn't mean they were related to ED, however. Also, from what I remember, Redcard is right about one thing, FurAffinity had crappy security, since the passwords were all stored in plain text. Under normal circumstances, it's impossible to hack a site and retrieve all passwords like that, because passwords are either encrypted or hashed. Obviously, I'm all for misinformation, but since someone asked about the facts, I might as well tell you what I know. :p (I was online editing ED in the night the article was started) -- 16:02, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • No, they weren't stored in plain text. They were stored using (most likely) a one-way cryptographic hash. The attack consisted of obtaining the entire list of these hashes (though some sort of flaw), then throwing dictionary words through the hash function until the attacker found some matches. Still crappy security, but not in the same category as 'plain text passwords' crappy. -- 17:25, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)


E.D. was founded by "Joseph Evers"? WTF?! Wasn't it founded by some ugly whore going by the name "girlvinyl"? Or is "she" a transvestite guy, IRL Joseph Evers? Or wat?



This article is POV bullshit, I am editing it -- User:

Not much of an edit, and it certainly didn't improve the POV any. -- Siege(talk) 05:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
More importantly, since the user also vandalized Talk:Something Awful, this brings the validity of any other edits they have made into question. --Dmuth 06:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV on Criticisms section

Actually, I'm not sure if the NPOV template is the best one to use, but anyway...

The second paragraph in the criticisms section accused ED of being "litigious" and using DMCA takedown notices. I think we need to have some evidence of this if we want to keep that section on the page. Citing my own experience here in WikiFur, I know of no legal threats/DMCA notices made against us, the most that's happened to the article is repeated vandalism attempts against it. --Dmuth 15:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • We should really remove that "What is unfunny" spiel. Merely putting quotations around the first 'unfunny' is enough to call it into question without launching a rant. --Brody
  • For someone saying that most admins aren't minors, it used to be so until they de-admined many of their bad admins. Now it's just some. (this is funny, too) SleepAtWork 20:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Evers theory

Perhaps he is the CrayolaCrime who is (girlvynl) Sherrod Degrippo's husband? SleepAtWork 02:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please either provide evidence to support or refute the theory. -- DeVandalizer 11:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not gonna provide evidence, but Joseph Evers is not married to GV. 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Which one on ED is Joseph Evers? Ghettofinger? SleepAtWork 13:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Joseph Evers is much too important to admin ED. He just collects ad revenue. 12:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Evers again

Is there any evidence that this guy actually exists? IMHO, this guy was just made up so the guys at ED can laugh at everyone who actually believes them. Just look at stuff like this (Image:Josephletter.jpg on ED), how can anyone take that seriously? If you're an admin on the english wikipedia, have a look here:

Joseph Evers bought ED from DeGrippo in mid-2005. Why would this be made up?
*Because it is stupid. SchmuckyTheCat 18:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(SchmuckyTheCat is an ED admin who should know who owns the site.)

We're just being trolled with this, that's all. They tried it on Wikipedia, they try it here. --Conti| 16:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I read that girlvinyl sold it to him because the site made no money and then so Joseph Evers put up banner ads on the site. The site was founded by her, I believe and not Joseph. I think you will need to ask them yourself, though. As for the site, its info says it's registration is private. I think it would be easier to figure it out if non-admins on wikipedia could see the hidden edits in the history you mentioned, then it would be easier to know if it was just trolling. Tretonin 20:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The ED article on Wikipedia got deleted, that's why the talk page is deleted, too. So sadly, non-admins can't see the edits right now. See also ["Typhon/Chat log" on ED], search for his name. Doesn't really sound like they're very serious about them, does it? --Conti| 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The log basically claims Joseph Evers is a furry, which doesn't sound serious. I vaguely remember their article on wikipedia and I think people debated Joseph Evers. They used to say the same thing about SchmuckyTheCat, who you quoted, that the person's a furry, so maybe they're the same. Tretonin 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Google "Joseph Evers". It says he is president of the GNAA, too. So whatever this means, who knows? Tretonin 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

ED says a lot of things. I think all we should be saying is that girlvinyl is the current lead administrator of the site, whether or not she founded it. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming Names

Regarding the recent edits by WolfLupus, is this considered a personal attack on personal attackers? o.O I'm not sure whether this should stay as is, be edited to remove names, or removed completely. Spaz Kitty 21:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally didn't have names. I just put in vaguely without names. I added them because of this edit to back up with sources. I think it shouldn't have names, but Spirou is happier with them in. WolfLupus 21:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it wasn't the names, it was the deletion of the "Furaffinity," "Greenreaper," "See also," and "External links" sections that prompted the reversal Spirou 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ooops. That was by accident. WolfLupus 21:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I prefer having the names removed, but leaving the statement in, as the article currently stands. Spaz Kitty 21:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Update since other revisions. I hope the stuff I did was good. I tried to go through the article. WolfLupus 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Whatever you do, do not go to this horrible site. It is absolutely awful and should not be on the intneret. It is offensive, racist and sexist and uses obscene language every chance possible. This does not even begin to touch on the obscene and gross images displayed on almost every article of the site. DO NOT GO TO THIS SITE IT SHOULD NOT EVEN EXIST!!!!

And that would be why we have the NC-17 logo on the article. Readers can decide on their own whether they want to visit the site or not. --Douglas Muth 16:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering

Am I the only one who noticed all the [ gooks], [ niggers], [ kikes], [ dotheads], and [ spics] they have as admins? And these are the people making fun of us for being furries. Whiteandproud 18:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for playing "I'm one you guys, really!," Whiteandpround, and here is your parting gift, please refrain from using racist or incendiary comments on the wikifur comment sections. Spirou 19:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am a proud white rhino. On WikiFur I noticed everyone is white, so I like this site. Whiteandproud 19:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
...And I'm the Queen of England ^-^ As powerful as I am, I still can't determine somebody's skin color by the way somebody types, but I can verily identify a very poor way to try to incite "OMGDrama" on a site. Again, thanks for playing, I will be here all week, don't forget to tip the buffet, and try your waitress =) Spirou 19:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Furry month

ED has decided to make September 07 Furry month with all their front page articles be furry related. See [ here]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .


These people are using my art without my permission and posting inflammatory material about me. I tried editing the nasty article about me but got banned for being a "blanker." I just wonder if I can fight them in any way.--Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland 22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you try what I suggested last time? It probably won't get any of the text off, but their provider should require them to remove the images that belong to you. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do remember them saying they turned down my request because "Duke Otterland is not a real person," but I'm trying again.--Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland 23:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoever "they" are, they are right, unless you have legally changed your real-life name. The DMCA takedown notice must be named and signed by the copyright holder. It should be sent to the host I mentioned there - I would not recommend sending it directly to ED. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it even worth fighting them?--Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland 00:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Possibly the best question to ask. You can probably get your images off there, but frankly they're just likely to add new images. The more fuss you make, the more fun they have. They're probably not going to go away, but really, who cares what they think?
I would note that "inflammatory" is not the same as "completely untrue". They are an encyclopedia of drama. They are only paying attention to you in the first place because you are a source of it. Become uninteresting to them, and you will find them less inclined to care about you. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica and Wikifur

While I do not intend to change the point-of-view of this article (as (a) I am an ED sysop (b) ED is negative about almost everyone, including furries, and this has resulted in a widespread dislike of ED among the furry community), I would like to draw attention to several inaccuracies in this article.

I would like to point out that Encyclopedia Dramatica does not organise vandalism attacks against WikiFur or indeed any other wiki. While policy was unclear on this in the past, it has recently been codified (see the ED page ED:MIGRANT (I cannot paste the URL, as the spam filter prevents me)). To quote from said page,

  • Vandalism: Enyclopedia Dramatica, despite the allegations of Wikipedia, is not a vandalism wiki. While ED does not attempt to regulate the actions of its users outside this website, ED does not organize nor support trolling campaigns. If that's what you're looking for, try 7chan or the GNAA.
  • Attack articles: Again, due to untrue allegations by other wikis, you may be under the perception that ED is an attack site. We are not; we are a lulz site. Attacking people is fine so long as there is lulz in it; if there is no lulz, there will shortly be no article. If the target of the article attempts to vandalise or blank it, that creates lulz, so please make sure that the subject knows what you said about them.

While I understand that you would be reticent to accept sources from any site (especially one as notorious as ED) as definitive proof about that site, I would like to point out that ED:MIGRANT is a policy page. Blu Aardvark is an independent person, and as stated above, ED does not attempt to regulate the "extra- curricular activities" of ED users- apart from anything else, such an attempt would be doomed to failure on the internet.

I also have an issue with the statement of there being "little editorial control"- while this may well have been true in the past, ED administrators maintain a high standard of "control" ( I hesitate to use the term "quality", as this is subjective and I doubt that many WikiFur users have a high opinion of ED.)

Thanks, --Yirimyah 08:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can verify some of what this person has stated. I've done my share of poking around the site in the last few months (even registering an account and explicitly identifying myself as a fur) and they do seem to have policies about articles and their content. They have had to deal with vandalism incident of their own, as well, wherein subjects try to blank articles, etc. (sound familliar? :-)
We should probably fix this article up a little. --Douglas Muth 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal details

No. Flat-out, no. It doesn't add to the article, and is deliberately inflammatory. I find it ironic that you Wikipedos and furfags feel justified in listing my personal details, and yet you would literally throw a tissy fit if I returned the favor, even going to the point of threating mock legal action. I won't go there, but don't make me bust out my sockpuppets. -- 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are the person mentioned in the article, personal information may be reverted if asked for. Please refer to WikiFur:Personal exclusion, and contact any available Admin to submit such request. General blanking just leads to an automatic article reversal. Thanks Spirou 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't give a shit about the games you play here. The admins of this wiki should not allow that kind of crap to begin with. Also... vandalism? The fuck? I will continue to remove the offensive edit, because there is no excuse for it to be here to begin with. -- 10:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The section does not contain personal information. It has an IP address Blu Aardvark used and then a city, which are both ruled at least by placed like LiveJournal not to count as personal information. Then it just gives proof of vandalism ties between Blu Aardvark and elsewhere, also proving he is an administrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica. The only thing that might be related are the links to Blu Aardvark's own websites and where Aardvark choses to give out his personal information there. So I believe I have proved that the section does not have personal information. Tretonin 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I say it's alright as long as the person in question is alright with it. Which I personally doubt. --Tori 21:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I say you have proved nothing. I also suggest that you are full of shit.-- 01:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To Blu Aardvark, I think you should refrain from furry insults since I can tell you obviously took your name from the furry comic The_Ant_and_the_Aardvark. The article says, "The Ant and the Aardvark was a series of theatrical cartoons produced at DePatie-Freleng Enterprises from 1969 to 1971, about a blue aardvark always trying to catch a red ant named Charlie." Tretonin 21:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Furfags always want to see furries, don't they? Fact: I chose the name "Aardvark" because I have a transient tic disorder, and in the past, one of my tics was that would occasionally blurt out "Aardvark". I chose the preface "Blu" when signing up for an online game. Aardvark was already taken, and I always hated the idea of appending random numbers, so I appending a second word to the beggining. There was a character limit, so my second word was limited to three characters; I chose "Blu" as fitting nicely and having a ring to it. I assure you that it had nothing to do with some furfag's fanfiction. -- 01:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed some furvert threatened me with a ban for "vandalism", ie, removing the aforementioned personal details. As an example, I left an edit in the article to clearly show you what vandalism is, since you fucks don't seem to know the difference. The fact of the matter is, you're entire ED and Wikifur section is rather irrelevant, except to enlarge your e-penis. Some Encyclopedia Dramatica editors, myself included, have vandalized Wikifur. We've also vandalized a handful of other Wikia as well; you aren't special in that regard. But is that in any way relevant to the article? And even if it is, are the personal details really necessary? You and I both know that the only reason they are included is so that you idiots can feel morally superior. -- 04:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the reason is to encourage you not to do it again by leaving clear evidence tying you to the previous attacks, which you seem interested in removing. Whether or not that is a valid approach is up for debate, but it is perhaps understandable given the circumstances. No community likes those who attempt to disrupt it, and our personal information policy does not cover concealing deliberate acts of vandalism. Indeed, there seems little here that is connected to you, the RL person - just you, the vandal.
My main question would be whether or not most of it should be covered here, or here. I'm inclined towards the latter, as it is a project matter, and you are not necessarily a representative of ED.
You are welcome to try to break out your sockpuppets, but they will not avail you here. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't care if you list it on a project page, but it does not belong here in the article. -- 05:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, related: I'm actually more likely just to ignore you furfags. Attempting to re-instate the information is actually more likely to encourage me to vandalize again, in more creative and/or desparate ways. -- 07:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's back up, and slow down

Allow me to clarify my specific concerns with the article. First, it is misrepresentative. The vandalism I performed as User:Jewbo Wales was not targetted at WikiFur in particular.(Indeed, I could care less about WikiFur, if it weren't for the current insistence that my personal details be included in this article.) Nor was it a result of coordination with Encyclopedia Dramatica - if you recall, I vandalized solo, and didn't get all that much in before the account was blocked (eight edits or so, maybe more, maybe less). It was a semi-random wikia that I selected to "rape" when I was engagine in a cross-wiki vandalism spree (I did it for the lulz, in case you were wondering). It was the second of four that I vandalized before I got bored and moved on.

Second, it is quite bothersome and PoV to see my personal details listed in such a manner as to essentially slam a site which I am involved in.

And third, for crying out loud, it's my personal details. I make it simple enough for interested people to find that information out (it's not like I'm hiding or anything), but I don't intend for that information to be copied all across the internets. It's flat-out rude to do so.

So, I once again request that the information be removed. It really doesn't add anything to the article (other than a sense of moral superiority against those blasted vandals), is quite offensive, and is misrepresentative of the way things are. --Aardvark sockpuppet 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What really needs to happen is that this entire article should be rewritten. It jumps from one topic to another, and sounds like it's been written by a series of people, each with their own little grudge or point to make - since it has.
For this specific section, I think we need to decide what facts should go into here, and which should not. Here are some that spring to mind which may or may not be appropriate to use in the article:
  • Several ED articles link to WikiFur, and there is a regular (if relatively small) stream of traffic from the site to WikiFur.
  • ED users (some of whom were admins) have edited articles on WikiFur. Some have done so openly under their own names, at least one under an assumed name intended to be real, some under obvius vandal names, some without logging in.
  • Many, though not all of the article edits made by ED users have been detrimental to WikiFur. Some appear to be done "on behalf of" ED, others do not.
  • Those who have been known to made detrimental edits to WikiFur include Blu_Aardvark (who is an admin) and [to be fair] Samsara (who is not)
    • We have strong reason to believe that Samsara made such edits due to his simultaneous editing of articles on ED and articles here under another name.
    • We have strong reason to believe that Blu_Aardvark made such edits because the pattern of his edits and templates used matches that of an ED user, and his IP matches up to that of his edits on Wikipedia, where he was banned.
  • The detrimental edits made by Blu_Aardvark were relatively trivial, and easily reverted. He later moved onto other Wikia wikis.
The current use of the disputed personal information is to identify the owner of the account User:Jewbo Wales as Blu_Aardvark. As it appears to be accepted by all, there seems to be no pressing need for that information to remain. It is indeed not hard to find if you know the name Blu_Aardvark and are of a mind to look, as it is publicly posted on his ED website. The IP can be referenced by the Wikipedia article. This information can be located on the above user page.
I think that we should note prominent members of ED who have been known to vandalise here, especially if they tried to hide that fact. As much as they might like it not to reflect on ED, admins in particuar are representatives of the site even if they work alone. I wouldn't go around vandalising Wikipedia, because it would reflect badly on WikiFur once I was found out (as well as being incredibly futile). If they don't like that . . . well, they shouldn't do it, and if they continue to do it (being rude to us), other steps need to be taken to get them to stop (which may include being rude to them). If that is not necessary, though, then they should not be taken. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Punishing a group for the actions of individuals sounds great to me. So does fighting rudeness with rudeness. Generally, an eye for an eye is an effective problem-solving technique. 07:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, sooner or later one party or group runs out of eyes, so yes. It's probably not an ideal solution, though. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on edit histories, is ED user Miltopia. ED is not Furry enough until now 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Girlvinyl sold the site to Joseph Evers about a year or more ago, and I (User:Weev on ED) now have root on the ED server. GV doesn't really have anything to do with the site any longer except as a user and beaurecrat. -- 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You should put it up somewhere on the site in a protected area so it is sourced instead of heresay or original research as it is now. Tretonin 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC) -- 15:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Has the word "test" on it. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreenReaper (talkcontribs) . 15:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
.... I edited a test server page. I have demonstrated my control of the DNS. What more do you want? -- 04:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahh I see what you mean. My squid cache is misconfigured and is caching the old copy of the page. I will have to work on this later as I am going to bed, but i copied the new version here for you to read: curl -- 04:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove that stupid site!

This is way out of control about that stupid site, there all lies. REALLY LIES, NOT TRUE, MAKING FUN WITH ALL OUR FAVORITE CELEBRITY! I want that remove right now!

--Dragon-morph 20:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what parts of that site are untrue? Even if there are lies on there, that does not mean that we should not have an article about them.
As for making fun of others, I would like to remind you that the participants of that site have the same rights to free speech that the rest of us do. If you do not like their speech, you are free to exercise your own rights to free speech and disagree with them. (or even call them names back, if it makes you feel any better) But that is not necessarily any justification of censoring any mention of them. --Douglas Muth 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I read the ED article on you and I saw in one of their claims regarding your language skills, they cite edit diffs from Wikifur as proof so their site is not 100% untrue. Tretonin 01:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I read your comment in my RSS reader and I thought that Giza had an ED article. Simba B 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, I am lulz-impaired. I do have an account [User:Dmuth] there, though. --Douglas Muth 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ED Trolls

Jeez the article is being rewritten by ED trolls. I noticed how they hate to have mention the fact that most of ED's images are gay porn. Hmmm... What would MONGO do if he were here now? Tretonin 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • He would ban dozens of productive contributors for no reason. Is that what you want to happen here? What trolling has occurred? It seems our edits are accurate to me. Redfur 04:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha these edits what the Christ? --DS|go 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"You tell me. I only work here." :-P --Douglas Muth 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I reverted most of the edits by Shifting Souls as being attack edits, most if not all of which were mistaken criticism and implied accusations of homosexuality (such implicit accusations show unnecessary prejudice towards homosexuals, in my opinion). Here's a break-down of individual reverts, since it's impossible to fit it all in the edit summary:

  1. ED is not best known among furries as a source of furry porn. There's plenty on the "furry" article for satirical purposes, and some on several other furry related articles, including some who have asked not to be included at Wikifur for privacy reasons so I won't link them here. ED is not popular among furries, indicating that it's better known for being mean about furries, not for supplying furries with porn.
  2. ED is not known for gay porn. Special:Newimages is an automatically generated gallery of the last 20 pictures uploaded to ED at any time. Granted, not all of those will be used in articles, but the ones used in articles are not "mostly gay porn of ugly men".
  3. ED doesn't accuse people who have had their pictures stolen of stealing them from ED, that's absurd. The only time accusations of "stealing" have happened is when Girlvinyl issued a DMCA to Wikipedia for photos of her on Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia for ED's logo and photos of her.
  4. As far as I know, furries on ED are not "deemed traitors". Many write articles about furries who are unpopular among the fandom. Several of those articles are actually similar to articles found here, such as the Sibe articles.
  5. GreenReaper's edits, while not "vandalism" as I had originally put forth (and have since reworded), were not "too factual". ED is not an anti-semitic site. They satirize Jews because they satirize everything, including themselves.
  6. The "Rainbow template" on ED has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is just another attempt to associate ED with homosexuality, which, while not insulting in itself, is a non-existent association. The following sentence he added about 2 sysops being homosexual is true, but with my revert of the "rainbow" part, is now irrelevant (and also not particularly fantastic, as that's 5% of the population, a normal representation of homosexuals). Which note to the above comment, note that the same editor is saying ED is anti-Jewish but also pro-homosexual, despite the fact that ED makes fun of gays as well, so I'm not sure their judgement about ED is reliable.

And that's it. Let me know if there are any problems. Redfur 15:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if that Shifting Souls guy is Miltopia. Tretonin 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone seems to think so. Redfur 13:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the name on there was. Then the guy running that wiki, also known on Encyclopedia Dramatica as User:Samsara, User:RoundHouseKickToTheFace and User:AnHeroIsSpeltWrong at ED, registered the name and edited here, as he states in [ this comment]. [[User:Redfur|Redfur]] 09:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC) ::::I followed your link to "this comment" and I see Samsara asking the guy running that wiki to be a sysop. [[User:Tretonin|Tretonin]] 20:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) :::::Yes, he follows my edits here and saw that I exposed him. Now he's trying to cover it up. But the point is, Shifting Souls is not Miltopia. [[User:Redfur|Redfur]] 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I was looking to try to find out who the real owner of that wiki was and I found these two edits about MONGO's desyssoping. In that wiki's MONGO article, the owner put, [ "the good guys won and the villains lost, but not without a great price"] and then shortly later rootology ("fuckface" is his name on Encyclopedia Dramatica, please forgive the profanity) said in the talk page of Encyclopedia Dramatica's MONGO article, <nowiki>[http:// www. encyclopediadramatica .com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMONGO&diff=1997062880&oldid=1997062821 "the forces of good have triumphed over the forces of darkness at last."] I think that's who they are. Tretonin 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Redfur I clicked on that link to you gave to the Shifting Souls userpage and it has a big proof of IP addresses linking Miltopia, Shifting Souls, and Redfur as the same person, including some stuff Brand ttook. Tretonin 21:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this edit. It was not because I necessarily disagree with the edit, but rather because this is a talk page, not an article page, and another user's comments were being modified. If there is a disagreement with another user's comments on this page, editors should leave their own comments explaining why they disagreed. We also want to preserve the contents of talk pages so that an accurate archive of the discussion may be kept. --Douglas Muth 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they are Miltopia doing harassment. WikiFur:What WikiFur is not#WikiFur is not intended to hurt anyone. SleepAtWork 02:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I restored the comments which were removed. As general rule, we do not remove comments for trackability reasons.
Now, on the subject of "Miltopia", assuming that one of the above users is this person, how does any of the removed/restored text constitute harassment? Are they making comments directed at you in the text? Are they contacting you via another communications channel and causing you problems? What we really need are some sort of details as to how the above edits are harassing before consider any sort of action. (and even if that is the case, a ban is more likely than removing their edits, though the edits might get moved to an archive page) --Douglas Muth 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This other website exposed Miltopia in a ring of vandalizing, trolling, personal attacks, etc. even here, mentioned IPs saying he was Redfur. Now that website gets made fun of on Encyclopedia Dramatica and he's going all around saying it's me on his site Encyclopedia Dramatica, on here, everywhere. I have nothing to do with that site Miltopia has been harassing me on Encyclopedia Dramatica, carrying it all over the net. GreenReaper knows who I am. Miltopia also lists some of my Encyclopedia Dramatica accounts and there is no reason for them to be here. --SleepAtWork 04:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me it started back in October where it says, "Based on edit histories, is ED user Miltopia. ED is not Furry enough until now 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)" Some stuff here and that IP range has been doing many edits to this article. --SleepAtWork 04:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

arbitrary section header

Ok first off, I am Miltopia. SURPRISE.

Tretonin: You're not hearing me. I WAS ShiftingSouls on Trendpedia. I provided diffs showing it was the trendpedia owner impersonating me here to "freak me out". There is no confusion here.

Samssara: None of your drama BS has anything to do with this article. Quit crying to Wikifur about me. They're not the internet police. What the hell do you expect them to do? Nothing.

Everyone: Who cares about Trendpedia, really. No relevance here. GR knows I'm Miltopia and doesn't care. Why? Because I'm not doing anything right now. Trendpedia's owner (who admitted to making bad-faith edits here) has had a major attitude adjustment since Samsara was blocked on ED. Believe what you want. But an editor there who vandalizes here isn't the "crusader for truth" Samsara paints him out to be, so there's no need to fear me.


Redfur 12:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Miltopia, it's trolling like what you just said which got Encyclopedia Dramatica on the spam blacklist here. I've not seen you help ED out once, you're just going around trying to delete things. You've also tarnished the reputation of its best editor, by saying I started up a competitor and it's not so. Maybe GreenReaper lets you do your business of tarshing ED's reputation because he thinks it deserves you to stuff like get it on the spam blacklist. SleepAtWork 18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, dear.
This article does seem to inherently attract drama. @ SleepAtWork: I can't see any examples of "trolling" by Redfur on the wiki. Provide differences, please. From what I can gather from skimming through Redfur's contribs, they all appear to be constructive. In fact, he has factualised and fixed this article, finding sources and such. And about "tarshing" ED's reputation: how so? Firstly, ED doesn't have a very good reputation amongst furries already, so one individual "trolling" on their own behalf, not ED's, is not going to make a difference. Secondly, if he is trolling (and I seriously doubt he is), that is not the reason for ED being on the spam blacklist, afaik. It is completely unrelated to Redfur/Miltopia, or "ED trolling" that I know of.
Finally, all this drama has no relevance to the ED article. Isn't this page meant for discussing the ED article, and not vendettas? So why is it being played out here?-SkippFox 08:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm that, to my knowledge, WikiFur has nothing to do with ED being put on the spam blacklist. It's always possible that they were added due to edits on WikiFur (heck, it's possible that I added them myself and erased them from my memory), but I have no reason to believe that that is the case. Chances are, they just took the cue from Wikipedia. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ED was put on the blacklist yesterday. I did ask why, and it was due to massive vandalism of Central Wikia involving ED links. Samsara, for you to blame me and come here tattling to Wikifur about it, saying I'm not doing my part to help out ED, and that I'm tarnishing the reputation of ED's best editor, which you're indicating is you (L O L) - I can't even come up with a descriptor. It's so... meaningless, really. I can't even keep up with what you're whining about. So can you just put a sock in it? Pursue your angst with me somewhere else, this is not the place to be throwing online conspiracy drama theories every which way. If you have something to add to the article or discussion about the article, talk away, but all if you're going to do is use this page for telling everyone what a scumbag I am, don't bother. If Samsara keeps yapping about this, I'd assume he's just doing it to drum up drama and get me banned just to make the drama go away, so I suggest everyone disregard his complaints about me and stick to talking about the article. Redfur 11:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Also note that the above referenced comment where Mr. Trendpedia admits to subtley vandalizing this article (which I, in my trollish ways, reverted) was deleted to hide it. In fact, his whole talk page was deleted form the server, as was the ED article there and the Miltopia article. Samsara also continues to remove comments form talk page, 3 times now, even after being told not to. So all this wikidata is going missing mysteriously (GreenReaper can vouch that the article existed before, he edited it), and the owner is covering his vandalism tracks, and stuff is getting deleted that is being discussed here. Is there really any doubt that Samsara is running it? He's playing the victim and deceiving people here and ignoring warnings, as well as vandalizing the article under alternate accounts. What would you call a person like that? A troll? Or is that someone who reverts said vandalism and improves an article a troll? Redfur 11:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So do all Wikia-hosted wikis use the same blacklist? This is very troublesome, given the WP MONGO incident and agenda against ED. Leam 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)



STOP BITCHFIGHTING ON WIKIFUR --Einsidler 11:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, plz continue, this is lol --Einsidler 11:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Einsidler, this is about me not being banned and Samsara being alowed to troll here. Plz don't stir the pot. Redfur 11:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


This article has been written by people pushing an agenda.

It has no claim to accuracy. I came to the talk page looking to find confirmation about the false claim Jameth's article started the site.

It was LJDrama.

Instead I find a series of bickering, followed by a conspiracy butthurt whine by Miltopia against many people he hates. I talk with him in IRC so often and Miltopia swears he's not actually furry.

Wikipedia's article would know.

Is it Jameth or LJDrama that started the site?????????????????????

?? 06:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

HI don't know whether it was ljdrama or Jameth, but I agree the talk page is a mess, especially Miltopia's joking around. It's hard to come by an article this unsourced. Here is everything unsourced.
First this statement:
sometimes mistakenly called Encyclopedia Discordia
I don't see any proof for it.
And this:
Founder: Sherrod "Girlvinyl" DeGrippo
No proof of this.
And this:
Current Owner: Joseph Evers
No proof of this.
And this:
Administrators: Weev, Girlvinyl, Ghettofinger, and Crayolacrime.
No proof of this.
And this:
Ran from/to: December 2004 - present
No proof of this.
And this:
founded as a compendium of internet personalities, events and memes
Many people I talk to call it a site where teenagers make fun of rock bands
And this:
Encyclopedia Dramatica has been compared to a tabloid.
No proof of this.
And this:
Its articles are about internet-related drama, memes and internet personalities
Many are offline things, especially their music section and shows.
And this:
they may also violate the Communications Decency Act (which may be ruled unconstitutional at this time)
The author clearly knows little about the act.
And this:
a recent law requiring websites to have proven through meeting their naked models firsthand that the models are in fact over 18 (this law shut a number of pornographic websites down)
This statement is entirely unclear.
And this:
Encyclopædia Dramatica is perhaps best known among furs for when a person hacked into Fur Affinity and posted the results on ED, causing that site's shutdown
No proof of this.
And this:
However, most of its users aren't anti-furry
This is a terribly wrong statement
And this:
and portraits all furries
Bad grammar
And this:
Besides criticizing the fandom in general, some furries use it to criticize other members of the fandom, particularly ones who they feel make furries look bad.
Needs a reference or two
And this:
In August of 2005, Fur Affinity was the target of a prolonged hacking attempt against its servers. The intruders took over administrator accounts, used them to post anti-semitic messages in the administration message space (thus putting these messages on the top of every page of FA), and then taunted the community by posting passwords to the Fur Affinity LiveJournal. Later, a complete list of users and their passwords was posted on Encyclopædia Dramatica; it has since been deleted.
"it has since been deleted."
This isn't provable. And furthermore, the section is disorganized and should be closer to the beginning
And this:
The most common criticism of Encylopædia Dramatica is that there is little editorial control
No proof of this. I believe the criticism was it is an attack site that slanders people and promotes everything bad about the whole internet
And this:
primary forms of control are requiring registration to edit and only allowing administrators to edit articles in certain namespaces
Out of date
And this:
Formerly, certain administrators of the site [Jacknstock at ED] would ban editors they considered "unfunny",
I'm not sure an article on encyclecopedia cdamartica about an ex-administrator is accurate.
To continue, it then said:
though the practice is strongly discouraged at this point.
No proof of this one way or another.
And this:
The text of Encyclopædia Dramatica, unlike most wikis, is not licensed
This contardaicts the statemement made earlier in the text.
And this:
ED has threatened lawsuits with and has sent DMCA takedown notices to Uncyclopedia and Wikipedia
Even a citication needed mark.

Its only sources are its own site, which states it's full of misinformation on one of its policy pagees. ------- 12:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

About the article's lack of sourcing

Joseph Evers is a fictional character created to deflect attention from the principals behind Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED). The true owners of ED are the members of Edrama LLC, and are likely to consist solely of Andrew John Thornton and Sherrod Ellen DeGrippo, seen above. I qualify the previous statement because Edrama is a Delaware LLC. A list of members can only be obtained from Delaware by a court order. Thornton and DeGrippo are also known as Ghettofinger and Girlvinyl.

The Better Business Bureau of Western Michigan has given a C rating to Encyclopedia Dramatica (EDRAMA LLC) because they do not have enough background information and don't know how long the business has been operating.

This is a house owned jointly by Andrew Thornton and Sherrod DeGrippo. It is located at 6170 Thunder Bluff Road, Kalamazoo Michigan.


Current Owner: Joseph Evers


Administrators: Weev, Girlvinyl, Ghettofinger, and Crayolacrime

I am doubtful because nobody sees him and there are no sources to prove it. Also I am pretty sure Ghettofinger and Weev are the same person.

They both do the same job and they both claim the same first name, Andrew. Weevlos gives this out on Encyclopedia Dramatica and Ghetto finger, now ajt, gives this out on his Internet Relay Chat /whois. Then they give fake last names like Thornton and Weevlos.

Especially, Weevlos. I doubt that is a real last name.

Ghettofinger and Weev are the same person, I am certain.

If someone did buy Encyclopedia Dramatica, then it is hepkitten. She is the leader of bantown and 7chan.

Codyblitz 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That is complete and utter bulllllllllllcrap about hep leading 7chan. ian is the leader and has been for a long time!! --Ediesanchez 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Have you looked at the whois of Codyblitz 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably just got hacked or something. You know how seven 7 chan is. Hal Turner did thinnk?

Isn't Either of the Andrews the same person as Andrewpants? ---Ediesanchez 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

United States Code : Title 18 : Section 2257

I put in the point about United States Code : Title 18 : Section 2257 because I think it is important. A lot of pornography websites have had to fix, update, and revamp their websites and businesses as a consequence of this new law.

I suspect that over the course of things, Encyclopedia Dramatica will have one day update its website and documentation in accordance with this.

So that is why I suspect the notability warrants being listed. Codyblitz 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

a2. ... is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
This sort of thing is not only inappropriate here, but it's also not factual. Please leave your legal opinions off this article. Leam 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That whole line " is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce" reads like gobbledegook gibberish. Lawyer speak.
I admit I do not knoww all this about law and what not, but I see that on all kinds of websites. Even Jeremy Bernal has this and he well basically just pretty much only draws things.
Well you see I see that everywhere. Every-where! Every site with adult content says and I quote:
"18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement: Records required to be maintained pursuant to U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 and 28 CFR Chapter 1, Part 75, are kept on file with the custodian of records and are available upon offical request."
So I just figured, you know. And well if Encyclopedia Dramatica is exempt from it, maybe the article can state it somehow -- what do you think? Codyblitz 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I agree that the law is gibberish. I also think it's unconstitutional. But currently, it's the law. Keep in mind that Bernal sells virtual (and I believe physical) porns, and ED is a not-for-profit satire site. Would you expect Wikipedia to suddenly have to get written permission for displaying nudity? If this were the case, the law would be overthrown as being ridiculous. I think you should leave the legality of (read as: whether or not you like) ED out of the article. There are plenty of websites that say "OMGZ FURFAGS GO Y1FF IN HELL" but that doesn't set a precedent for me including such opinions in articles that try to fairly document the furry fandom and community. Leam 21:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this article needs so much work...


I'll see what I can do. So much of this is wildly mistaken. Leam 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember, this article is WikiFur's article about ED. The content of the article should be the information relevant to the furry fandom. We are not particularly interested in it otherwise. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware, and I hope you will support a good deal of the forthcoming pruning and revisions.  :3 Leam 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that what I'm doing is a series of edits. Leam 21:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture a ven diagram. There is a circle around the words "Neutral Point of View". Then there is a dot with the words "Wikifur's Encyclopedia Dramatica Article". And then there is a path it has had, weaving and darting across everywhere. Never once has this article approached "Neutral Point of View".

Having many phrases such as "furfag" in the edit summaries don't help much. Codyblitz 20:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV isn't necessarily policy here, and you shouldn't so quickly dismiss the value of trolls. Talk to Green Reaper about the little boost SA gave Wikifur early on.  :3 Leam 21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty close, though. The article's content should be neutral - as close to fair, unbiased coverage as possible. That does not mean we absolutely need to cover every single aspect of the site, or explore the legal aspects in particular depth. We are not an encyclopedia of drama, or law. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. That's what ED and Findlaw and Groklaw are for.  :3 Leam 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Okay, starting with the Criticism section.

The only effective editorial requirements are that the content is legal and funny (unfunny is still bannable), and that users register (to prevent bots and vandals).

The text of ED is licensed to ED, and copyright violations are not at all encouraged. There is no illegal content on ED; many a butthurt individual has cried because of their ignorance of fair use, but that doesn't mean that any violations have occurred or that ED encourages illegal content submission.

ED has not ever, to my knowledge, sent DMCA notices to Uncyclopedia or WP. They may have responded with COUNTER-FILE notifications, but that is not the same thing at all. Those are simply assertions to the "safe harbor" that the use of the content in question is believed to be fair use, and that the courts need to be involved.

EDIT (I didn't see this earlier in talk): "ED doesn't accuse people who have had their pictures stolen of stealing them from ED, that's absurd. The only time accusations of "stealing" have happened is when Girlvinyl issued a DMCA to Wikipedia for photos of her on Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia for ED's logo and photos of her." This sounds like the actions of GV. If someone think adding a line about this back in is a good idea (which I, frankly, don't, because it isn't policy or typical) including an explanation of that specific instance and that the details aren't completely known would be prudent. Leam 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the outlandish criticisms, as they're basically insults. If someone can provide a citation, they're welcome to restore some of them. Leam 20:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the most common criticism of ED in general is its registration process. This might be the most common criticism of its users, but our concern is the general public. I think that most criticize ED because of its purpose - to promote drama - and because of the numerous invasions of privacy that result. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was chunking together parts of the preveious text. Will modify. In fact, will add the in use tag. Hope no one minds. Leam 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Leam 08:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal info?

Why are some real names here? What is the relevance, and is it really important? Considering they are known nearly everywhere by their handle and that said info isn't too hard to find, I don't see any reason for this. Forgive me if I missed the debate. Some of this info probably doesn't need highlighting, either. Leam 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For reference from WF policy: "Removal of a person's name from an article that is not specifically about them is generally only permitted if their identity is not important - for example, the name of a person who bought a painting for $10,000 at auction was not considered important since the issue was the price of the painting."

In terms of removal of personal information: if the people concerned ask for its removal, sure. They haven't. It is permitted, on request - not encouraged - and we don't remove the real names of people who don't ask for it.
As for your general complaints about "proof" - this isn't Wikipedia. "No proof of it" is only a factor when there is someone saying something different, unlike Wikipedia where it is a requirement to state anything at all. If people say something, we are going to assume they are telling the truth unless there is reason to believe otherwise, and if it is relevant then it should be in the article. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I still don't see the relevance of the real names to the furry fandom or community. Looking at the Lion King MUCK, the articles on LJ, GJ, and FurJournal, I don't see any names (or precedent). An article on ED is not lessened without the names, and it just seems the names were added in the first place out of spite. The ED contact info is readily available in WHOIS; you've made policy clear, but is this a good reason for inclusion? Leam 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Section on the posting of the pwds of the FA hacking?

Why on earth is this there? There was reposts all over LJ too; should a similar section be on the LiveJournal article? Removing this and the commented-out Jewish vandalism stuff (which I also don't see the point for). -.-

There's a difference between initial posting and reposting. Was ED the initial location? In particular, if an active member of Encyclopedia Dramatica obtained the passwords and decided to post them on ED, with knowledge of the likely result, then that should factor into the coverage. The action of administrators on discovering this would also be of interest. Was the article concerned deleted as a result? Was it featured? Did their actions hurt or help the furry fandom? --GreenReaper(talk) 06:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
And honestly, I think that LiveJournal could do with further development - if only in a general sense of "here are some of the things that the furry fandom uses LJ for", both good and bad. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I did some looking and it seems the passwords were leaked to the GNAA, /b/, ED, AND LJ, and not by the same people. I was pretty closely following that drama, and even I didn't know that.  :-/ So basically, someone cross-posted it everywhere for maximum effect, it was cross-posted again, and so on, and I can't tell where the original leak came from. As for ED hosting the passwords, it's just a link to where the hacker is hosting them, along with the old FA source. I'm sure the FA article was featured at some point, but I think it was during the cub porn drama. True, it would have had the hacked info on it, but everyone knew about that; the incompetance surrounding the break-in was widely publicized. The actions of ED and indeed any of these troll sites paled in comparison to the internal drama caused by the FA staff.  :-P Wouldn't this be more applicable under the FA article than under one or all of the places where the info was cross-posted? Have a section that mentions "the password was leaked to the following: blah blah and blah" as opposed to singling one site out. Leam 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Some mention of it may indeed be relevant on the FA article. I would suggest rustling up some good references for it, as if it's widely publicized then there should be plenty. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to do some digging, but my time is short. I'll see what I can do. I do know for a fact, though, that LJ user Golden Zoltan was banned from LJ for cross-posting said passwords. He was the one FA shit a brick about, if I'm not mistaken. Leam 08:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Neither the CDA nor the written release section are true, applicable, or appropriate. That the site has won ALL its legal challenges aside, this is not the place to be discussing such things. If someone wants to discuss legal matters, I invite them to chat with me or come to ED IRC.  :3 Leam 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)