Monday, December 28, 2015

Zzuuzz: Example of a Minor Threat

One of those "evil patrollers" my source notes are shot through with, Zzuuzz (yes, that is his Wiki-handle) is mostly used to block the living hell out of any IPs (internet protocol numbers) that might be spamming or hoaxing articles. Zzuuzz's true name is unknown; my sources think he is a gamer kid from London, England. He showed up on August 3rd, 2005 and was reverting vandalism manually by August sources believe he is a sockpuppet of some insider, which puts him in good stead with a number of those people. It's now 2015 and Zzuuzz is still doing the patrolling and article-gnoming he was doing ten years ago.

We are bringing up this clown because his successful Request for Adminship in 2007 marked the point where the "patroller" types were held in higher regard then the people who actually wrote new material. Zzuuzz had tried to get an RfA going in September of 2006 - he was shot down:

Final (55/16/7) Ended Sat, 17 September 2006 21:54 (UTC)
Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) – A solid vandalism reverting user who has been serving the wiki community in an exemplary manner for over a year now. I must admit when I saw that he wasn't an admin I had (a first for me) the cliched 'oh, he's not one?' thought. The user has already been entrustd with Vandal Proof and Zzuuzz's regular speedy-article tagging, 3RR and vandlaism reports indicate a thorough familiarity with policy.
Put simply, a perfect example of a dedicated user who would serve the community as a civil, intelligent vandal-busting admin. Robdurbar 09:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Thank you all for your comments. I am withdrawing this nomination. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will mainly continue the battle against vandals by helping with AIV, which I already monitor - I like to have all the vandalism reverted by the time the user is blocked :) I will also help with the speedy deletion backlogs, PRODs, page move/merges, and category renaming. I would like to get more involved with determining and removing copyvios - it is quite inefficient to get involved as a non-admin, but it's something I have an interest in. I will also help with open proxies and closing xfDs. Basically, any backlogs and processes I have the ability to help with.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am very pleased with all the little edits. I have created only a handful of articles (egs [1] [2]), but stubbed many. And prodded quite a few too. I often trawl the trashier categories and special pages, sifting the junk, wikifying, and dampening the POV, introducing newbies to the way of the encyclopaedia. My work on vandalism and preserving the integrity of Wikipedia is obviously a key thing - I am pleased with whichever contributions it was that prompted my RickK barnstar[3]. I am especially pleased with every reference I have added (I am a verifiabilist, but they are also great for helping with POV and vandalism), and some of my talk page contributions have been quite helpful too.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I don't think I get into conflict, or get stressed - but I see most editing as a process of negotiation. If people have a point of view it will usually have to be catered for eventually (subject to NPOV and verifiability etc), so I tend to make corrections and balance POV in small stages and over the longer term, using references and the talk pages. I am of the opinion that the vast majority of disagreements can be overcome with reliable references and that is how I generally approach things.
There was one episode which once caused me to despair a little. This edit was never really going to stick. I tried discussing it on the talk pages (before and after) but no one was convinced. I will leave it to readers to see if they can spot the problem I was addressing. Though I think I had policy, encyclopaedic values, and common sense in my favour, I had consensus against me. If I had pursued it further I would probably have put in a RFC and/or summoned some independent third parties, but after some effort I just gave up on it. I have worked on quite a few religion/statistics articles, and gradually got used to the idea that some of them are just full of unverifiable numbers. I have to admit I am not that bothered by it now - there are worse things, and I usually have better things to do than continually try and convince people that that you can't just make up numbers and make whole populations appear and disappear. Unless it's vandalism or I have support of course. I usually just put the verifiable facts on the talk page [4], safe in the knowledge that encyclopaedic standards will prevail one day. 

Then the second RfA happened:

Final (42/1/1); Ended 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) - This user is yet another great user who would be an asset to the administrator community. He contributes strongly to all areas, and has improved since his last RfA, which may have passed if he didn't withdraw. He's great at vandalism-patrolling, he also contributes quality disussion to AfD, and he has improved his article-writing, which was the reason for most opposes last time. Definitely deserving of the tools. Wizardman 04:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will mostly use the sysop bit to help with the backlogs at AIV and CAT:SPEEDY. I have much experience of cleaning up vandalism which has given me a good idea who needs blocking to prevent further damage and who doesn't. I will probably also help with protection where appropriate, and I anticipate assisting in other areas with frequent backlogs such as copyvios and open proxies.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with all the contributions I have made to cleaning up Wikipedia, improving its quality, and helping others improve their contributions.
A2: In light of some requests, I will try and expand this answer. I've improved thousands of different articles and I'm pleased with just about all of it. I don't really focus on improving the coverage of subject x or topic y, or adding significant text to any particular article. I prefer to focus instead on introducing elementary encyclopaedic standards across a broad range of articles. There are many articles I revisit of course, and slowly improve over time. The list of articles I have edited most (as mentioned below) contains some of the following... I help a bit with the MySpace article, both in the article and the talk page. The article is a magnet for vandalism and original research. But I can't take too much credit for that. I help to maintain the List of Internet slang phrases which is one of the most-edited and best-referenced articles on Wikipedia, though you will either love it or hate it (or try and transwiki it). The List of London School of Economics people is another list I have edited frequently, along with quite a few of its sub-articles. The United Kingdom, England, and London articles get their share of vandalism removed by me, but I have also improved them in some other ways. I have also helped a fair bit with CAT:NOCAT and Category:Lists, as well as numerous articles within Category:United Kingdom and its sub-categories. My article creations include the notable Clara Furse and the significant Sandy Gall. I will also take credit for rescuing Ray Moore (broadcaster) recently, and I have created an article for Roncq which still needs a bit of work before it reaches featured standard. I've removed libel from literally hundreds of articles, especially but not exclusively from school articles, several hundred of which I have been helping to clean up over the last few months. I've removed a further load of copyvios, hoaxes, spam, vanity, abuse, and fake deterrent protection templates which were all quite embarrassing to the encyclopaedia. My favourite AfD recently was Fecal vomiting which was headed quickly for a rather unpleasant end before I contributed. I also take a small amount of credit (rightly or wrongly, probably wrongly) for the first eight words of the Northern Ireland article, which are now stable following an extensive debate about them into which I interjected. I have contributed significantly to our knowledge of which statistics we lack about English people, and for that matter, Irish people, Cornish people, and perhaps also to some extent Asian (people). I contributed stability to the year of establishment of the term chav, and I have added some good references to the article about Wanker. I have also been active at the Help Desk and at the other end of the {{helpme}} tag, assisting many other editors with their questions and problems to help them contribute what they can. I help a fair bit with new pages and new users in a similar vein, and I obviously assist to quite a large extent in the effort to help vandals find the right path. These are a few of the various things I have worked on, and I take pleasure in it and credit for it to varying degrees.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I don't really get into conflicts over editing. I generally only add material that is well referenced and NPOV, and I find this is a good ingredient to prevent and even resolve conflicts. If there are disagreements of opinion or fact then I will normally open or join a discourse and attempt to negotiate a suitable narrative within the editorial guidelines.

Supposedly there was a lot off-wiki arm-twisting in the first RfA, paving the way for the "success" of the second. Since winning, he has been known to ban the IPs of entire colleges to shut down one troll; he has blocked nearly 14,000 users (mostly by 'bot) and others have had to unblock more than 1000 users he has shut down. He is also as clumsy in chasing suspected socks, which is hilarious if he actually is one. Zzuuzz deserves to be unmasked and kicked out.

Because Ian Frasier "Lemmy" Kilmister died today, some music:

You will be missed.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Guest Post by Mutineer: "Is Jim from Wikipediocracy Wikipedia's James Alexander?"

Below is an untitled article from Mutineer. Consider it a Christmas present, or a really late Chanukkah gift.
There are reasons to believe the WMF's Trust and Safety Manager James Alexander engages in sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. There is a reason to believe James Alexander, prominently shown at his WMF employee page, is not his real name. "Sockpuppetry" is an Internet term for deceptively making use of different accounts to create the appearance of support or resistance for a particular matter of debate. It can also be for harassment of someone the sockmaster dislikes, for example one has been in an online argument generating personalized antagonistic feelings, and so the sockmaster creates the new account to attack his or her enemy as if it were some new person coming fresh to argument. The James Alexander question can be organized like this:

1) WMF employee James Alexander openly points to his previous unpaid Wikipedia account of Jamesofur. He leveraged it when he sought employment. He said his advanced community rights indicated his value. Jamesofur passed an RFA (, and has OTRS rights.
2) Wikipedia user Begoon had very sporadic and mainly non-verbal activity, but sounded off angrily when Jamesofur failed his RFA, basically saying it was a stupid system and so forth. Begoon angrily retorted a person that questioned why someone with an handful of edits would show up so vociferously in an RFA. Begoon fired back that the person should not be so uncivil and suspicious, that this was exactly why Wikipedia was unfriendly to newbies, that he, Begoon, had just been watching for a while. With this theme, he was speaking like someone well-versed in Wikipedia's administrative workings. It was a Shakespearean "methinks thou dost protest too loudly" moment. In his comments protesting the RFA down-vote of Jamesofur, Begoon hand-typed the signature "Jim." (Https://
3) A Wikipediocracy participant Jim in his avatar's undertitling identifies himself as Wikipedia editor Begoon. (Http://
4) Wikipediocracy's Jim has asserted that he has personally communicated with the WMF's former Community Relations Director Philippe Beaudette. Beaudette led James Alexander's WMF work section, and was James Alexanders' immediate superior. (Http://
So, in drawing this thesis together, I've shown, solidly or inconclusively, a daisy chain connection from Begoon to Jamesofur to James Alexander to WO's Jim to Begoon. The obvious supporting clue is of course the name "James," which is commonly shortened to "Jim." A review of Begoon's editing history is rather startling. It doesn't seem a natural progression of an editor. It's actually a little bizarre, sort of mechanized and incredibly sporadic in its first years of edits. It makes a bit more sense if considered as an alternate account of some other user, who goes to Begoon now and then for particular administrative edits. This would fit in with the idea that Jamesofur is the sockmaster. Jamesofur edits in his own hand, and makes use of Begoon now and then, such as in the complaint at Jamesofur's RFA failure.
The broader question begged by this example of James Alexander is whether WMF employees should be allowed to list themselves as pseudonyms on the WMF's official organizational profiles. Another WMF employee, whose name is either Karen Ingraffea or Karen Brown, communicates on the official Wikimedia-l mailing list under a pseudonym.
Let us examine momentarily the contributions of Begoon. On first looking, his edits appear to reveal something of a strange fish. Begoon contribution history overview:
Very first edit is on 13 September 2009 to "Pole dance." He deletes a reference, claiming it is "commercial." However leaves the article text that was said to have been supported by it. Second and third edits less than 45 minutes later appear to be, not sure, automated rather than manual edits, marked as "creating" the user and user talkpages, but they don't say anything.
Comes back after about two weeks and fourth and fifth edits appear to be, what, looks like bolding or upscaling "==User Page: Begoon==" the labels on the the talk and userpages. Comes back for sixth and seventh and eighth edits no less than six months later and is back at Pole Dance article, again removes a references on basis "commercial link," he's removing some text as well now.
Okay I'm speeding up, comes back 11 days later in an RFA on Jamesofur. Begoon speaks! So which way does he go on the nominee? No way! What, he complains that the process is absurd, and is miffed when questioned how a person with nine edits happens to show up there. How uncivil and suspicious and mean to a new user, he says. Here, I'll quote a sample:
"I don't really blame you for wondering - however, The answer is yes, I have a grand total of 9 edits. Please explain how that makes my opinion invalid, or even, failing that, less valid than yours. As to how I found this page - well it's a high profile page, and I was interested in how this wikipedia stuff works. You can assume I have some kind of motive, or you can take my remarks at face value. I can't see any reason to care what you think after such an uncivil reaction to the first attempt of a new user to involve himself. Jim...."
Okay, now he's editing more frequently. Just spot checking now. Some edit where he puts... lines? on a talkpage discussion regarding edit filters. An RFA again, this time he opposes HJ Mitchell's second RFA. Something at his talkpage. Something at "Cubelurker's" talkpage regarding a message. RFA stuff. WP:AN/ANI! I knew Begoon was going to end up there as a sneering regular constantly maneuvering for blocks.
Minor administrative changes at Chamberlain Memorial, Captain Noah and his Floating Zoo, Millersburg Township, JP1 remotes. Begoon's into remote controls. Uploads an image of an emblem for "Vanatuatu Girl Guides Association," okay. Seems to be doing the same for a bunch of Girl Guides Associations. Templates an editor for, the template says, "apparent vandalism." I looked at the edit, yeah it was vandalism of the goofy sort. Really skipping now.
Templates (w. Twinkle!) an editor with "final warning vandalism." It's all sort of like this. There's a lot! If there's a content *addition* anywhere as opposed to tag or revert or something, I haven't seen it. Skipping 250 at a time now. An SPI, says doesn't know but the alleged sock edits look similar. Good gosh, there's so much. Skipping to 2013. Same sort of stuff, I guess it's more advanced because the bit counts are higher. Begoon seems to have made friends now, WP:AN/ANI captain Dennis Brown seems to be one, Christmas greetings etc. RFA, RFA, RFA. Ah! Some block philosophy worth quoting:
"But, see, there's the problem, in a nutshell... The history of this talk page, its archive, the Fort Lee talk page, the welcomeg template, the ANI discussion etc., all say the very same thing. A succession of experienced editors come to you to give advice or discuss problems with edits you have made. Your response is invariably a massive rant about why you are right, and they are all of them wrong, every one, they're not "assuming good faith", they are picking on you, "denigrating" you, "deriding" you - rinse and repeat (and, boy, do you repeat...) Your analysis of all this is ''"The overwhelming body of my work and experiences has been decidedly positive"''... Can you see the disconnect here? That's what you're being asked to do, because if you can't, the amount of other editors' time you insist on wasting with your repetitive wikilawyering, pointless arguing, and assertions of unfair treatment has been judged too costly in wasted time and effort to permit. Nobody can make you see it, but you now need to if you want to continue to edit.17:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"
This is absolute classic WP:AN/ANI pontificating where the gangs of sharks have picked their prey, and set the stage for the ritualized slaughter. It remains but to mute the content editor, keep sneering and mischaracterizing, and wait for the LCDA (lowest common denominator administrator) to press the block button. Begoon is bonding and socializing with his fellows at WP:AN/ANI. Block of victimized content editor equals victory and someone for them to feel superior to. He continues this behavior in other examples.
In conclusion, this article has made the case that, while not 100% certitude, there is reason to believe that the WMF's James Alexander sockpuppets Wikipedia under the Begoon handle and is part of the abusive administrative culture that derives satisfaction from targeting, hounding (often in a group), and blocking potentially good content editors.

Monday, December 21, 2015

The End-of-the-Year "Where Should We Go?" Post

It's been an interesting year and a quarter here at Wikipedia Sucks! - Wikipediocracy began it's final slide into irrelevance, major Wikipedia assholes were named and shamed (though Beyond My Ken will not bend and admit the game is done), and the eternal truth that Wikipedia is a doomed enterprise was promulgated. However, the shadows are falling on this enterprise:

My information is getting older. The information that was leaked to me was a few years old when I got it, and it's aging faster still. I want to talk about new fiascoes beyond whatever tomfoolery Jimbo or one of the "name" WMF'ers is involved with, but I'm noticing a lot of the stuff discussed online has to do with GamerGate and it is this blog's opinion that GamerGate is a cul-de-sac. It's "interesting" for the drama but utterly pointless in the end, like a split in a Trotskyist group. So what I need is to be clued into the non-GamerGate drama in the remaining cadre of Wikipedians. But those guys lead into point "B" which is....

I don't want to write about WikiPedos. But I will be forced to do so because I'm the only one with a working blog with the information on them - it was a real cottage industry last decade to name these people in now-abandoned blogs that I keep stumbling across.....Encylopaedia Dramatica is also a great source because they have chunks of the lawyered-to-death "Evil-Unveiled" copy-pasted and buried inside the website. The only reason I would "want" to name-shame these clowns is that they are there on Wikipedia not to get the facts straight, but to pick up young boys. It needs to be done, but it distracts from what I thought was going to be my bread and butter....

Nerd crimes. I'm talking about illegal rings of Warez traders doing their business inside Wikimedia Commons, hacker/cracker/script kiddies shooting the breeze in talk pages, late-stage phone phreakery discussed in the early 2000s version of Wikipedia.....I'm sure it happened, but I can't find traces, thanks to the Secret Collapse of 2007. I'd rather talk about technocrime or bizarro cults or UFO believers involved in technocrime-accomplishing cults rather than discussing Matthew Buck.

So this is where we are going, probably: more dumping of old scandals written in a way so that outsiders can understand them, research into new scandals to keep relevant, occasional posts on the child porn/child-molesting scum Wikipedia is shot through with, alongside the regular features of the blog. With any luck I will run out of the old material in two years.

I would like to thank all the readers for boosting our views from zilch to 21,940. I would especially like to thank all the German readers over the last month who showed up over 3Apes and SearchBastard thanks to that recent article on the subject of Wikipedia's prehistory. Vielen Dank. I would also like to encourage anybody who speaks African languages to translate these posts and send them around to African websites, and the same with Chinese ideograms. The people sailing into the sea that is the English-language internet need to be warned of the rocky shoals out there.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Guest Post by E. A. Barbour. "Encyclopedia Dramatica: It Could be Funnier"

Encyclopedia Dramatica: It Could Be Funnier
by E. A. Barbour

This isn't intended to be a "history" of ED. I've already written a lengthy account of that for the private book wiki about Wikipedia I am associated with. This essay is mostly intended to be a discussion of ED's shortcomings, and why it continues to exist and enjoy popularity with a certain demographic. Please note that some of the links in this essay lead to highly disturbing content.

The first time I ever saw ED was in 2006. A blog linked to the lengthy ED article of Gemma "Snapesnogger" Wilson, a young woman from Australia who was a well-known amateur cartoonist and "furry" fan. She had generated incredible chaos on DeviantART, furry forums, and elsewhere by constantly dramaqueening and attacking others -- who cheerfully reciprocated. I was amazed at the nerve of whoever created said article, in complete disregard of libel law and common sense. Still, so far as I can tell, Ms. Wilson has never sued anyone over her militantly hostile treatment on ED, and similar things can be said for other popular ED targets. "Chris-Chan" Chandler's ED article  is still one of their longest and most popular, and I can find no evidence of any serious legal action stemming from it. Mr. Chandler seems to relish the negative attention he receives from ED, like many of their drama-happy "victims". And the Offended article (Don't look at that!) continues to be among their top-rated and most linked-to pages. "Offended" is intentionally one of the ugliest and most disturbing things on the entire Internet. So (of course!) hackers and trolls link to it routinely.


ED started out in December 2004  as a place for disgruntled Livejournal users (founders Sherrod "Girlvinyl" DeGrippo and Andrew "Jameth" Thornton being among them) to complain about each other. Absurd but true. Despite its profound offensiveness ED has always enjoyed a considerable amount of infamy. During the Sherrod era of 2005-2011 it peaked at around the 1000 mark on Alexa's web rankings. Since Sherrod and company abandoned it in 2011 (to start a now-failed "fork" called "Oh Internet") and it was revived by GNAA- and Anonymous-associated troublemakers, its Alexa rank cratered -- and slowly built up again. It recently peaked at the 15,000 mark (April 2015) albeit with a slow decline in late 2015. Nevertheless this is a remarkable showing for a website that is not advertised anywhere and is intentionally designed to offend. Even after the attempts by Google/Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt, attorney Sue Basko, and others to get ED's TLD registration canceled in 2011-2012, it continues to exist today thanks to private donations and aggressive banner advertising.

The Wikipedia article has some helpful information, although it can't be trusted fully thanks to endless editwarring. The Brandt connection resulted in a Taking Down ED portal, and a number of personal attacks against Brandt and a few others which persist today. The Wikipedia article says: "In a question and answer session at the ROFLCon summit in October 2011, DeGrippo was asked why Encyclopædia Dramatica was closed and replaced with Oh Internet. She replied: "We were unable to stop the degradation of the content. It just kept getting longer and longer and dumber and dumber and less and less coherent over time." She also explained why she had not released the site as an archive, saying that she "didn't want to", and suggesting that this would have made her personally responsible for any DMCA and privacy violations that it contained. She also stated that hosting Encyclopædia Dramatica caused her to have troubles involving the FBI." DeGrippo was notoriously working for a US Defense Department contractor at the time, and may have lost her job thanks to angry ED fans contacting her employer. As with Wikipedia editwarring and hacker disputes, most of the ED-involved people (pro OR con) are equally guilty of abusing, "doxxing", etc. each other, and of frequently refusing to discuss it openly. The "lulz" must flow. How is that different from much of the current Web 2.0?


ED is just like its "good twin" Wikipedia, in that it has severe flaws, many of which are directly shared between the two. They tend to flow directly from the dominant fanbase: young male gamers, hackers, and online trolls. As with English Wikipedia, Americans dominate and a much smaller group are British or Australian. Unlike Wikipedia, however, ED does not pretend to be a "legitimate and reliable reference work".

1) ED is constantly used by angry social media users, looking to piss on each other. Look at the Needed/Proposed page for a typical mix, or just watch "New Articles". Every day a few more bitchfests about little-known troublemakers from Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, 4chan, 8ch, forums or other "griefer havens" are posted. Usually the subjects are blindingly obscure nobodies who would be ignored in "polite company" yet manage to generate "dramah" online. It's possible to be a successful net troll and "noted asshole" without ever being mentioned in "serious media", or even anywhere offline. ED coverage feeds into that world of social-media lulz by being more outrageous than any other wiki. Sorry dudes, "epic lolcows" just aren't very funny.

2) A great deal of its database is badly outdated. ED started for Livejournal bitching and many such early articles continue to exist today despite their total lack of current relevance. Especially since Livejournal was bought by a Russian company in 2007, causing most of its English-speaking users to abandon it by 2010. Yet ED continues to have massive coverage of LJ drama dating back to before 2007. See the category for some examples, with 269 articles at present. A good example is Drama Queen Kim, which dates from 2006 and is probably forgotten by both its subject and by the people who wrote it originally. A similar connection to 4chan exists, and is similarly becoming outdated. Complaints about ED's heavy focus on outdated 4chan and other web "memes" tend to be accurate. This material is "ancient history" by web standards and keeping it live today makes little sense. Much of it connects to a long-dead forum called When the GNAA/Anon people took ED over in 2011, they simply restored as much content from and elsewhere as possible, without checking or updating most of it. As with Wikipedia, updates are mostly accidental and not well managed, if they happen at all. And many ED weblinks are long dead. Perhaps some historian will derive research materials about the early web from ED's old content. That is about the only legitimate purpose it could serve.

3) As I've said before, ED and Wikipedia grew up together and are more closely connected than even ED's current admins might realize. From 2005 until 2010 it was a meeting-ground for prominent Wikipedians, who used it to complain about and attack each other. Most of those Wikipedia insiders will not discuss their ED activities today, for obvious reasons. See Bureaucratic Fuck for some remnant examples. Pieces of forgotten (or censored!) Wikipedia history are still mentioned on ED today. Because of Sherrod's abandonment, the article edit histories, talkpages and deletion records from that era were not preserved. Thus most of ED's historical links to Wikipedia drama are lost forever.

4) The way ED insiders are treated by the outside world, especially the Wikipedia world, is inconsistent and hypocritical. From 2004 until 2011 brutal editwars occurred over the Wikipedia article about ED; it is still commonly vandalized today. Until late 2010 a well-known ED administrator was Wikipedia checkuser/oversighter Alison. Now-banned Wikipedia editors Badmachine/Hipcrime and Junius Thaddeus are currently high-ranking ED administrators. Ironically, complaints about ED's offensive content usually don't include these popular personalities, even though they have some ability to remove bad content (except in certain politically-motivated cases, such as Daniel Brandt's article). All of them are current/former regulars on the defunct Wikipedia Review and the current Wikipediocracy fora. Also ironically, Wikipedia itself is declining in popularity and editing activity, and is expected to eventually self-destruct in perhaps 10 to 20 years (my personal estimate). Its disgusting bastard stepchild ED might actually outlive it. Finally, an academic researcher wishing to study Wikipedia and how its "community" was built, succeeds, and fails, is advised to look closely at Encyclopedia Dramatica as well. I am quite serious.

5) A primary reason for the hatred pointed at ED is the frequently antisemitic content. It routinely regurgitates the tired old jokes about Jews being greedy and manipulative, most of the time purely to offend. Claims that "Jews did 9/11" are commonplace, intended for satirical reasons, and often misinterpreted. Much of this Jewish mockery was encouraged by the GNAA/Anon/LulzSec-associated hackers. The "mainstream media" has sometimes erroneously described ED as a conventional "hate site". Try searching for Encyclopedia Dramatica on for some examples. One of the most infamous GNAA-connected people, Andrew "weev" Aurenheimer, often liked to attack Jews online. I'm told he was responsible for many of the antisemitic rantings in present-day ED articles prior to 2011, along with Jeremy "Grawp" Hanson, Wikipedia's worst vandal (and himself Jewish). Since weev was imprisoned by the US Department of Justice (and later released by a judge's order because the DOJ's case was questionable), he has become openly and honestly antisemitic. Interestingly his ED article, which originally was a very positive hacker/griefer fan letter, has recently become less laudatory as weev has declined in popularity with ED's userbase (although this can be difficult to tell, as his article is occasionally trashed and restored.) In fact, much of ED's direct connection to the hacker underground has faded since 2012. As with Wikipedia history, past hackerdom exploits have left ragged traces on ED. Hackers love to offend "normal society", and also throw the words "faggot" and "nigger" around with abandon, just as ED does. At some point the meaning of such words is changed. More irony: the ED people using these words are often LGBT or members of ethnic minorities. The present-day admin called Oddguy is himself also Jewish.

6) As I said, for a "satirical" website, ED often isn't very funny. Part of the content is worthwhile as offensive satire and humor (see the Lulz map ) or IT-industry articles for some of the better examples), but much ED content is merely puerile and annoying, as well as outdated. Personal attack articles tend to be crude and humorless. Again, as with Wikipedia, ED writers are often ADHD/OCD personalities who have questionable social skills or skills in humor writing (or actually, in writing anything). I've seriously suggested that ED's operators hire a Jewish comedy writer with a Sacha Baron Cohen-style reputation for offensiveness, simply to deflect accusations of antisemitism or "hate speech". That won't happen.

7) And any discussion of funding leads to one of the darker aspects of ED today. The sysop and owner of its DNS entry, Brian Zaiger, runs numerous banner ads on ED and keeps all the resulting revenue -- and refuses to discuss ED's financial state. Until recently it was running "pop-under" ads that occasionally attempted to hijack user PCs via Javascript malformations. These ads caused many complaints and are no longer visible. ED users have openly questioned the actual costs of hosting ED and what part of the revenue is being kept by Zaiger rather than being used to keep ED going, and their questions have been mocked or ignored. Nothing can be verified, including frequent claims by insiders that ED has been "struggling" ever since the takeover. As with the early Wikimedia Foundation there is some money involved and the persons handling the money refuse to discuss the fate of the revenue publicly. This is reminiscent of the Freenode IRC server that has been heavily used by Wikimedia projects from Wikipedia's early days to the present -- and is also popular with hackers. Its sysop Rob Levin was notorious for begging money from Freenode users and claiming extreme poverty, while actually living in a posh Houston apartment, and hiring a nanny to look after his son. Levin's scam was exposed in June 2006, and in September 2006 he was killed in a mysterious "bicycle accident". Wikipedians still regard Levin as a "tragic" hero in spite of his proven dishonesty. Is Zaiger doing similar things with ED? He's already got plenty of enemies.

                                                              Brian Zaiger: Why is this man smiling?

8) As outrageous as the ED wiki can be, its attendant forum is much worse. New ED users requesting assistance or offering opinions are routinely harassed and degraded verbally, by the "regulars". Many of whom are also ED wiki administrators and sysops. Who often abuse and ban each other on the forum and thence on the wiki, giving ED something in common with the deeply insane RationalWiki (also a popular hangout for Wikipedians). Outright racism, sexism, and every other kind of -ism is practiced on the ED forum, and unlike ED wiki articles, it can't be easily dismissed as "satire". The level of trolling there sometimes exceeds even 4chan's /b/ or various hacker forums. ED's "official" IRC channel is similarly insane. Yes, it is possible to have juvenile and institutional cruelty as the primary purpose of an online discussion area. What a surprise.


Whether people like it or not, and despite its numerous problems, ED is perhaps the purest example of satire the world has ever seen. For good and for bad. ED is continuing a dark 20-year web legacy started by now-forgotten sites such as, Ogrish, and Portal Of Evil. It carries content that is disgusting, illegal in many countries, and would have gotten a book publisher shut down due to legal action. Yet it continues. ED is living proof that the web does not follow the usual social rules for media outlets. Web content is 100% ephemeral and prone to disappearing without traces, and being both ephemeral and America-centric, ED can use the First Amendment as cover, so it gets a sort of "free ride". In my opinion, despite its toxicity ED serves a semi-legitimate social purpose. Or it would, if not for the crazies.

ED would not exist at all if the web were not dominated by a libertarian/libertine, anti-copyright, and pro-libel attitude. And if it sucks, then the entire Internet sucks. Satire is like David Gerard: by intention neither pretty nor friendly. Griping about ED trolling merely nourishes the trolls and says or does nothing about the underlying social-media problems.

One final point needs to be made. ED appears to be in its unstoppable terminal decline. Each time its domain was changed between 2011 and 2013, its Alexa rank dropped massively. And despite efforts to encourage new editors, it continues to struggle in Alexa and search-engine rankings. The operators could make it a "legitimate" satirical website that ordinary people can stand to peruse; instead, they want to maintain the personal backstabbing glory days of 2007, or an approximation thereof. It needs drastic cleanup which simply won't happen. Just like Wikipedia.

                                                   Encyclopaedia Dramatica: Slip slidin' away.

                                     A fitting theme for this article: Dave van Ronk's version of "Mack the Knife"