     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Encylopedia Dramatica's Ryan Cleary Arrested, split from older ED topic
The Joy
post Sun 17th July 2011, 6:22am
Post #21


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 16th July 2011, 7:41pm) *

It seems this may have had some effect - the ED home (and I'd assume, catch-all) URL is now just a simple static HTML page, saying they need a new hosting provider (and, of course, "donations" for same), one that "is able to host our kind of content."


Please let it be Wikia. Please let it be Wikia. Please let it be Wikia! laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Sun 17th July 2011, 5:58pm
Post #22


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 16th July 2011, 5:41pm) *

It looks like the DMCA request came from Sherrod DiGrippo herself, who apparently still claims copyright on the name.

Somey, it's "DeGrippo" not "DiGrippo". As long as Somey is naming names, Ms. DeGrippo's complaint ended up in the lap of Garrett E. Moore, who is 22 years old today. I haven't seen it, but I suspect that the complaint was fairly broad in scope, and not just about the domain name. Mr. Moore is the main man behind ED, now that Ryan Cleary is grounded due to strict bail conditions. He says he will have ED back up within a few days.

Mr. Moore is from Zanesville, Ohio and has also lived in Florida. Now he lives near Lansing, Michigan with his fiancee, Karen Rose Shinaver.

Here is Mr. Moore with a cute bow in his hair.

At the moment Mr. Moore is laughing at the possibility that Ms. DeGrippo has only seven days left to sue him. It probably won't happen, because Mr. Moore doesn't have any money. But if the two ended up in court, it would be interesting to hear Mr. Moore's attorney argue that the new ED is not doing anything different than what Ms. DeGrippo was doing since the original ED started in late 2004. True enough, but while this is a valid ethical argument, it is no doubt irrelevant in any potential DeGrippo vs. Moore civil case.

Mr. Moore has Anonymous and Anonops connections. However, he's not a trigger-happy DDoSer with his own botnet like Ryan was. Remember Ryan? That was only a month ago. How time flies when you're a basement-dweller having fun!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sun 17th July 2011, 8:28pm
Post #23


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The ED forums were always full of stupid, but this post-GV version is epically stupid.

I suspect their "community" is getting more hostile than ever. If this is the cream of Anonymous, toss em' all in jail, please!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Thu 28th July 2011, 4:15pm
Post #24


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



Encyclopedia Dramatica's seething satire is back

This is an article in a new online publication, and it was written by someone who went to journalism school. That means she used first and last names of people when this information was available. How quaint and refreshing!

I don't like that old December 2005 Jimbo quote about me that she repeated needlessly, back when Jimbo was talking out of his rear end and telling the press that Seignethaler brought it on himself, but I guess I have to take these things in stride.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Thu 28th July 2011, 5:11pm
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Blerg, and it's given them more incentive to go and bug the talk page again.

I'm currently in an RSN discussion asking whether the Daily Dot is reliable. It probably is, however, once they make a freaking staff page, and I don't have a problem with that. It'll be nice to have a reliable site that actually covers internet topics.

However, Eordogh's article has spawned sections like this, which I can't even take seriously. In fact, I think i'm going to go and say specifically that.

But, yeah. It's all very tiring. I don't have a problem with expanding the coverage in the article on ED.ch if we have the sources for it, but lay off on minimizing Oh Internet. It gets really annoying after a while.


Edit: On a separate not, I seem to have pissed off Meepsheep, even though I don't remember ever interacting with him. But my ED.ch article is actually slightly insulting now, which is an improvement. Anything to make it less sad and pathetic like it was before.

This post has been edited by Silver seren: Thu 28th July 2011, 5:13pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Thu 28th July 2011, 10:28pm
Post #26


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 28th July 2011, 10:11am) *
I seem to have pissed off Meepsheep, even though I don't remember ever interacting with him. But my ED.ch article is actually slightly insulting now, which is an improvement. Anything to make it less sad and pathetic like it was before.

Yes, I will say, the current version is good (meaning not completely moronic).

Wasting your time worrying, though.
I can see how this will end.....ED will disappear, and several online douchebags will go to jail.
And yet another perfectly good Wikipedia article will be obviated.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 28th July 2011, 10:31pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Fri 29th July 2011, 2:13pm
Post #27


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 28th July 2011, 6:28pm) *
And yet another perfectly good Wikipedia article will be obviated.


I'm currently working on rewriting that article. Do you have any suggestions or concerns? Silver_seren has already offered assistance.

Brandt, would you feel comfortable being mentioned in Wikipedia's Encyclopedia Dramatica article? Are there any inaccuracies or misrepresentations within the Daily Dot article that you're concerned about? You didn't have any say in how your old Wikipedia article was written, so I believe that it would be best to allow you to have a say in this before being included in that article. There is currently a discussion on whether the Daily Dot article is reliable. What's your feelings on its reliability?

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Fri 29th July 2011, 2:15pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Fri 29th July 2011, 5:11pm
Post #28


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 29th July 2011, 3:13pm) *

I'm currently working on rewriting that article ... Silver_seren has already offered assistance.

Surprise, surprise! tongue.gif
QUOTE

You didn't have any say in how your old Wikipedia article was written, so I believe that it would be best to allow you to have a say in this before being included in that article. There is currently a discussion on whether the Daily Dot article is reliable. What's your feelings on its reliability?

Mike

You do realise that WP is a Wiki that anyone can edit. Whatever you put is subject to ruthless and arbitrary editing. And there's no guarantee you'd be able to revert, if a few editors decide to WP:OWN the article. Daniel Brandt's view on the reliability of the Daily Dot may not have much effect on anything!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Fri 29th July 2011, 7:18pm
Post #29


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 29th July 2011, 2:13pm) *

Brandt, would you feel comfortable being mentioned in Wikipedia's Encyclopedia Dramatica article? Are there any inaccuracies or misrepresentations within the Daily Dot article that you're concerned about? You didn't have any say in how your old Wikipedia article was written, so I believe that it would be best to allow you to have a say in this before being included in that article. There is currently a discussion on whether the Daily Dot article is reliable. What's your feelings on its reliability?


I was going to ask whether adding information about Brandt was a due weight issue on the talk page, but asking him here probably is better.

@Detective: Between Michael and I, I think we'll be able to keep the information neutral. The community may hate him and that makes them often forget they're writing an encyclopedia, but it shouldn't be too difficult to tell when someone is trying to skew the information.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Fri 29th July 2011, 7:31pm
Post #30


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Fri 29th July 2011, 12:18pm) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 29th July 2011, 2:13pm) *

Brandt, would you feel comfortable being mentioned in Wikipedia's Encyclopedia Dramatica article? Are there any inaccuracies or misrepresentations within the Daily Dot article that you're concerned about? You didn't have any say in how your old Wikipedia article was written, so I believe that it would be best to allow you to have a say in this before being included in that article. There is currently a discussion on whether the Daily Dot article is reliable. What's your feelings on its reliability?


I was going to ask whether adding information about Brandt was a due weight issue on the talk page, but asking him here probably is better.

@Detective: Between Michael and I, I think we'll be able to keep the information neutral. The community may hate him and that makes them often forget they're writing an encyclopedia, but it shouldn't be too difficult to tell when someone is trying to skew the information.

Note how respectfully Brandt is being treated here. "An armed society is a polite society" (Heinlein).

Note to Wales and Friends: Civility is not the same as respect. As the military demonstrates, the two are sometimes barely nodding acquaintences. And it isn't more civility that either the internet or Wikipedia needs. Rather, it's some attention to matters of respect. Respect requires memory and reputation, and an anonymous username system is handicapped in letting people acumulate reputations, right from the get-go. So there's a place to start.

Civility (ala Robert's Rules of Order) is what we do in order to keep from wasting time insulting each other, when we'd be better off debating facts. Sometimes, as in congress and the courts, civility has to be enforced as a rule. Respect, however, cannot be granted as a social right, and it cannot be enforced nor dispensed, any more than love. The best one can do is construct a social system that allows it to be freely given by grace, or earned, or both. This requires memory in the system, and a way for reputation to grow. Wikipedia is presently a system which allows respect to only a few individuals outside itself, and then only due to the threat of nuclear net reprisal. You might want to rethink the wisdom of that. Especially since you haven't seen the worst of what continuing this game under such rules can do to you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Fri 29th July 2011, 7:44pm
Post #31


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 29th July 2011, 8:13am) *

Brandt, would you feel comfortable being mentioned in Wikipedia's Encyclopedia Dramatica article?

The DailyDot article is at least as reliable as most Wikipedia articles — which is to say, I don't want my name in the article. It was clear that with the DailyDot article, my name was going in regardless of my wishes, because Garrett and Zaiger were on my case and she had already heard their side of the story. At the time, my ED.ch bio was featured in summary form on the ED.ch home page, complete with a picture of a very mean-looking old man that purported to be a picture of me. But it wasn't a picture of me. It was Zaiger's impression of how he thought I looked. I don't know whose picture it was.

(The reporter logged into the ED.ch chatroom and said she was a reporter, and asked for some quotes about the reappearance of ED. That's how it started. I didn't know she was writing something until I got her email, and it wasn't until later that I noticed the chatroom log.)

That's why I accepted her email invitation to respond to their charges. Otherwise, I would have preferred to be left out of that article too.

I must say, giving someone the right to reply is a credit the the DailyDot reporter. That's not something one sees very often when it comes to Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Fri 29th July 2011, 9:46pm
Post #32


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I find it funny that the article doesn't discuss the recent host/server change because Degrippo's DMCA notice got them to be dropped.

Of course, that would prove a lot of the negative things people are saying about ED.ch, so they can't discuss the truth of the matter in such an article.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Sat 30th July 2011, 12:25am
Post #33


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Brandt, thank you for sharing your feelings. Unfortunately, I can't prevent you from being mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but I can prevent misinformation from becoming a part of that article. What I really need to know is whether any of the claims presented in the Daily Dot article are inaccurate. Do you have anything to say about the alleged harassment of Garrett's fiancée? How do you feel about the claims that you contributed to the end of the original ED? Did you offer advice on how to file DMCA to ED's opponents? Did you have anything to do with the suspension of ED's PayPal account? Your insight will help me separate fact from suspicion. I don't want too much weight to be placed on suspicion.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Sat 30th July 2011, 3:40am
Post #34


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 29th July 2011, 6:25pm) *

Brandt, thank you for sharing your feelings. Unfortunately, I can't prevent you from being mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but I can prevent misinformation from becoming a part of that article. What I really need to know is whether any of the claims presented in the Daily Dot article are inaccurate. Do you have anything to say about the alleged harassment of Garrett's fiancée? How do you feel about the claims that you contributed to the end of the original ED? Did you offer advice on how to file DMCA to ED's opponents? Did you have anything to do with the suspension of ED's PayPal account? Your insight will help me separate fact from suspicion. I don't want too much weight to be placed on suspicion.

You have yet to establish that my name will appear in any article that is written. If my name appears in a future Wikipedia article about ED, and I feel that I've been described inaccurately or unfairly, I will object on the Talk page for that artilcle.

Yes, I'm a "banned" editor, and there was a time when any attempt to clarify inaccurate or defamatory information about me on Wikipedia, by way of a comment on a Talk page, would result in my comment getting immediately deleted by some Wikipediot admin — merely because I was banned.

Do they still do this on Wikipedia? Does Arbcom support this? Does the BLP policy say anything about this? That could get interesting.

It would be premature to address the questions you raise until an article appears that contains objectionable information about me.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Sat 30th July 2011, 4:52pm
Post #35


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_...and_vigilantism

Is this satisfactory?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 30th July 2011, 5:47pm
Post #36


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 30th July 2011, 12:52pm) *


Kind of funny that you'd use that link to ask that question. Are you not aware that hours from now, that link could feasibly point to a section that says nothing more than "Brandtz is teh gay!" and is illustrated by a picture of a badger?

Michael, you do understand the nature of Wikipedia, right?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Sat 30th July 2011, 8:13pm
Post #37


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 30th July 2011, 10:52am) *

QUOTE
Moore also accused Brandt of harassing his fiancée at her workplace.

CODE

[May 24 2011 00:10:29] <garrett> Hello!
[May 24 2011 00:10:35] <garrett> Daniel Brandt dox have been updated.
[May 24 2011 00:10:42] <garrett>     Power word: Daniel Leslie Brandt
[May 24 2011 00:10:42] <garrett>     Age: [redacted]
[May 24 2011 00:10:42] <garrett>     DOB: [redacted]
[May 24 2011 00:10:42] <garrett>     Height: 6'0"
[May 24 2011 00:10:42] <garrett>     Weight: "Some extra baggage"
[May 24 2011 00:10:44] <garrett>     Address: [redacted]
[May 24 2011 00:10:47] <garrett>     Company name: Public Information Research
[May 24 2011 00:10:50] <garrett>     Company address: [redacted]
[May 24 2011 00:10:53] <garrett>     Company phone number: [redacted]
[May 24 2011 00:10:55] <garrett>     Known e-mail addresses: [redacted]
[May 24 2011 00:11:04] <garrett> just putting that out there
[May 24 2011 00:11:16] <Xero> nice


By the way, the height and weight are arbitrary guesses from a fake Myspace page put up in my name in 2006, presumably by some Wikipediot.

Just several minutes after this IRC chat happened, I began receiving new spam emails. These were in the form of "Welcome to our mailing list" emails, and most of them had an unsubscribe link. I proceeded to unsubscribe as many as I could. One of them offered up the IP address of the party that had signed me up for the list. I did a reverse lookup on that IP address, which was 69.16.222.138. This is what came back: kaeroseen.wks.liquidweb.com. (It no longer reverse resolves to that. But the slightly modified domain of kaeroseen.liquidweb.com still forward resolves to that same 69.16.222.138.)

I knew already that this was the nick for Karen Shinaver, who is a sysadmin at Liquid Web Inc. in Lansing, Michigan, and I knew that she was a close associate of Garrett's. She had been on the ED.ch chatroom.

I complained to the management at Liquid Web that Ms. Shinaver, or someone using her company shell account, had signed me up for mailing lists so that I would get email that I didn't want. They investigated and a few days later said that it was against company policy to sign up people on mailing lists without their consent. They added that they would handle the matter internally.

I wasn't happy with this, but I dropped the issue. I never telephoned her employer trying to get her home address, but it doesn't surprise me if someone else tried this. In any case, Ms. Shinaver was complicit in the harassment of me. Either she let Garrett use her shell account on equipment owned by her employer, or she did it herself.

Twice I've had Mormon missionaries knock on my door because someone in the chatroom thought it would be funny. And I have to let the answering machine pick up my phone because I was getting crank calls.

My interest in emphasizing Ms. Shinaver's role is also motivated by my desire to geolocate Garrett more precisely. I feel that it would be worthwhile for the FBI to interview him, because he has friends in LulzSec. Now that it has been established that Ms. Shinaver is his fiancée, all the FBI has to do is flash a badge at Liquid Web in Lansing, Michigan, and get her home address. Then they'll be able to find Garrett and ask him about his role on Anonops, Anonymous, and possibly LulzSec. They could also track him down by looking for school and other records in Zanesville, Ohio, and then perhaps locate one or both parents. But they're probably too lazy to do that.

Remember, Garrett, you don't have to talk to them. But if you do, you shouldn't lie to them because that would be a felony.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Sat 30th July 2011, 11:51pm
Post #38


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



*sighs* And now it's gotten sad again.

I mean, there's "showing that he sees this website as no more than a collection of poorly written attack articles"...I mean, that's pretty much what I think, yeah.

And this just made me laugh.

"he accuses ED of organizing a raid, despite the fact that we are a mere encyclopedia. It is also noteworthy that he does not call out the numerous attacks made against ED on that talk page, as he would with any other subject."

Of course ED has never been involved in a raid, everyone there are upright internet citizens.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sun 31st July 2011, 12:19am
Post #39


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Well, I've been watching ed.ch for a few hours.
It goes up and down like a yo-yo. So does their forum.

What are they running it on now, a Commodore 64?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Sun 31st July 2011, 1:15am
Post #40


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 30th July 2011, 6:19pm) *

Well, I've been watching ed.ch for a few hours.
It goes up and down like a yo-yo. So does their forum.

What are they running it on now, a Commodore 64?

The only servers we know about are the connection between Hetzner in Germany (85.10.206.54) and CloudFlare based in California. Garrett is claiming at least one additional server between the actual content and Hetzner. My guess is that there are about 100 hops total, involving at least one additional non-U.S. country besides Germany.

If you request a page that isn't cached at CloudFlare, or the CloudFlare cache has timed out and has to be freshened by them, then the packets have a long and treacherous journey before you see the page. Also, there may be content on the requested page that is not cached by CloudFlare, since it only caches relatively static content. If that's the case, the page cannot be delivered until that content is fetched. When everything is perfect for the page you requested, then CloudFlare sends it to your browser. If a router somewhere drops a packet, it has to be requested again. Every packet has to make it before CloudFlare delivers the page to your browser.

That's what I believe is happening, but it's mainly a guess. Why do they do this? They want to be so clever that no one can ever find the server that hosts the content. And even though the two main controllers of the content are Zaiger in Massachusetts and Garrett in Michigan, they want to be able to say that the content is not hosted in the U.S. and therefore U.S. laws are not relevant. Note Garrett's response to this CDA complaint: "Additionally, no one cares."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th 7 16, 4:00pm
 
     
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34127&st=20
wikipediareview.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-30
168319
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:RMTAMYJJU47JKW7EUO5SPNALXAZLEXCI
<urn:uuid:9e655262-73b3-4317-bd86-ed89ed870596>
2016-07-26T16:00:49Z
192.254.236.99
sha1:QIOISRPPWAHXQTROHYLUN3UO6LKYN35F
<urn:uuid:4028687e-7d30-4d53-b5a1-96f46eeeb2f3>
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34127&st=20
length
response
<urn:uuid:31f8ea32-b294-4c47-a963-a2d0136aeeb9>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-185-27-174.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-30
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf