Talk:Something Awful

message: The New York Times refers to it as a "comedy blog." Do not revert edits reflecting this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.221.232 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite the source in the article then.--Drat (Talk) 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really relevant since it's more than just a "blog"- it's got some bloglike entries, but it's also known for user-generated content and for its forums.-Wafulz 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you're making that determination on your own, which can be considered original research. I edited the page again, and put the source this time. If the way I cited was incorrect, please fix it, but do not revert.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.233.139 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the citation, since it looked hideous that way in the article's first sentence. I do have serious reservations about using a music blog as an authority to determine the nature of a website. If a couple of other sources can be provided which refer to SA as a website, it should probably be reverted back with citations for both. Cumulus Clouds 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it isn't original research. Within our other citations, we have SA described as a weblog, online community, comedy website, a humour site, etc. "Website" adequately covers all of this.-Wafulz 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *I strongly object to having my name used in that edit summary to justify your position. I've already stated that I believe SA meets the definition of a website, and I was merely fixing a citation, and I did not mean for this to give any credibility to the argument that SA is a blog. I mentioned earlier that I have serious reservations about using a music blog (the cited source in the blog quote) to determine the definition of a website on Wikipedia. I agree with Wafulz' logic that it doesn't meet the burdens of the definition of a blog, and is referred to more often as a website. It's my personal opinion that changing that sentence to read "comedy blog" from "website" is an attempt to marginalize the authors of that site and their material.Cumulus Clouds 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "The New York Times refers to it as a "comedy blog."" Ohhh, I'm sorry didn't realize the New York Times is the inerrant word of god on all things... I mean the owners, moderators, and users of the site don't think it's a comedy blog, but if the New York Times said it, who are we to argue. Shion-ko (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda weird to spend your sixth edit responding to a literal 15 year old comment, but to each their own I guess? --Golbez (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedy blog 

message: has earned him cameo placement in nerd culture: I guess that "nerd culture" means video games, but what does "cameo placement" mean? -- Hoary 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the same as "redundancy department of redundancy"-Wafulz 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "cameo placement"

message: Maybe the easter egg in the game "Morrowind" should be mentioned here, In Morrowind the player can find a dead body of an NPC with the name Arlowe. This is a reference to Kyanka who used to go by the name "R-Lo" on the SA forums. (R-Lo is pronounced the same as Arlowe) The player can loot this corpse and find the "BanHammer", (on the SA forums R-Lo/Kyanka said he used the BanHammer when banning someone). The game's expansion "Tribunal" also contains a weapon named the "Mace of Slurring", when this Item is taken to the curator of the museum and the player asks her about it she will say: 
"Yes, it's a rather...odd piece. From what I've gathered, it was crafted near the end of the Second Age by Kyanka, a slightly deranged Altmer weaponsmith and enchanter. He had a rather warped sense of humor, and apparently delighted at the thought of reducing opponents to a gibbering mess before crushing them to death. The mace has, admittedly, seen little use."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.248.114 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "video game easter eggs"

message: "ALOD" redirects to this article, but isn't mentioned in the text. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think redirects from acronyms  have to be in the article as long as they're likely search terms.-Wafulz 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALOD 

message: The section on the forums, where it's referenced that SA hosted a BitTorrent tracker, is wrong.  While SA did host file forums, it never had its own tracker; trackers were run off-site by individual forum members.
I'd change it, but the page is protected, and I don't want to register a Wikipedia account. 69.204.199.161 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Torrent Tracker 

message: Why does "Blue Ball Machine" redirect to this page?  There's nothing here about "blue ball machine". 192.91.147.34 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone changed it from YTMND about a month ago because SA made it.-Wafulz 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Ball Machine 

message: I think the type of humour on Something Awful speaks specifically to young, white males. It's not to say the forums is absent of non-young white males though. I'd like a section that analyses the kinds of humour propagated on SA forums.
:Unless it's sourced to reliable, independent sources, it's original research, and not permitted.--Drat (Talk) 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young, white male website 

message: It redirects to this page, but there is no mention of it in the article. Why? Pgrote 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably related, or a product of the website. It doesn't have to be mentioned- it just has to be a likely search term.-Wafulz 00:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is likely due to a thread from "Let's Play" forum (a subforum of Games) called "The Terrible Secret of Animal Crossing." The archived version, if anyone really cares: http://fromearth.net/LetsPlay/Animal%20Crossing/index.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.232.159 (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible secret of space redirect 

message: Why isn't there anything on here about the GOONS? They're one of the largest online game groups in existence!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.111.135 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are new articles about goon presense in various MMORPGs, and in particular there are a couple of articles about their involvement in EVE-O.  Could warrant mention. 75.178.83.47 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Show us the sources and we'll see what we can do. The more sources and the more reliable they are, the better.--Drat (Talk) 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GOONS

message: As terrible as it may seem to consider that such a thing even exists, the pervert named Metis and his whole, hideous SWAP.avi have a WHOLE lot to do with SomethingAwful.... as does the concept of >.> Furries (furry fandom, etc)... and anti-furries.... (SomethingAwful, Goons etc...)...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.153.217 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just yesterday heard from other goons that furries don't get banned on SA anymore. Any truth to this? :effort: tildetildetildetilde  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.63.170 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm.... 

message: I don't understand why people put redirects to this page if the item being redirected is not mentioned in the article itself.  If you do not feel that the activity in question is worth mentioning on this page, then the redirect should not exist. 76.102.100.52 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am absolutely in agreement with you. Both The Wyoming Incident and 333-333-333 direct here, but give absolutely no inkling as to what they refer. Vote to eliminate redirects OR information about what these mean. Bill shannon (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Elimination of redirects

message: Quit putting the Anonymous template on this site. It is completely irrelevant to the article.
This is also NOT abuse so quit being biased assholes and reporting me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.175.8 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 June 2008
:Please discuss the matter at Template_talk:Anonymous_and_the_Internet#I_removed_something_awful --Enric Naval (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous 

message: I think this article would be much improved if somebody added bios for the key SA writers. I think some of the writers are notable enough to even get their own articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.12.247 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles on the writers were already created and deleted for being non-notable. Don't bother.--70.112.7.228 (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting more information on the writers 

message: "Since the website's creation, its forums have amassed over 100,000 registered users" - I believe this terminology to be misleading. They may have had 100,000+ users over the history of the site but they themselves recently admitted to having approximately 50,000 inactive accounts plus the tens of thousands that were banned over the years that are counted in totals. Additionally, due to the nature of the site, it isn't determinable whether they've had 100,000 unique users since people have been known to have numerous accounts by themselves. Claiming over 100,000 is essentially republishing Something Awful LLC hype at face value and can't be considered encyclopedic. I would be more satisfied with referencing it as one of the largest general-purpose forums on the internet without listing an unverfiable number of users.--70.112.7.228 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think stating the number of registered users they have is out of line. As with all forums, a number of accounts are banned and inactive; but if we start excluding such groups it's hard to know where to stop. How do we determine, for example, who is inactive? - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 11:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My main point is that SA's user count is misleading compared to most other forums in that its user count doesn't decrease when an account is banned and also increases when somebody re-registers a banned account. So 114,000 doesn't really tell you anything about anything.--70.112.7.228 (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I changed "users" to "accounts", if that helps any.-Wafulz (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds awkward. By noting the 114,000 accounts you're attempting to convey how large the forum is, correct? Why don't you cite the forums position at big-boards.com instead? Then the number of accounts won't have to be continuously updated and you can provide a more accurate picture of SA's size compared to other American forums.--70.112.7.228 (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know Bigboards' methodology so I can't comment on it, but if someone is unfamiliar with message boards, being told an approximate number of users/accounts is clearer than being told its position relative to other forums.-Wafulz (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  100,000 users? 

message: I'm removing the link to the film; since the article doesn't mention it, it seems to be tangentially-related promotion.  If the article includes a section on the film, the link can be restored.  Thanks, Eeblet (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom House Link 

message: GOONS has had a few alliances including Cyber Nations, would it be kosher to go into those into more detail?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.159.16 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website Alliances 

message: This article seems to omit the numerous acts of e-bullying, griefing, e-stalking, sadism, etc. the majority of goons are infamous for. Care to fix that ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllFactsPlease (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you got reliable sources, then there may be a place for mention. If you've got nothing but forum posts, random blogs, and anecdotal evidence then no.--Drat (Talk) 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This Wired article should do the job, at least for the griefing matter. As for all the rest, there are plenty of instances in the forums, especially in the Comedy Gold section. AllFactsPlease (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That article looks to be a good source of info. Of course, the more sources you can find, the better. However, forum posts are not reliable sources.--Drat (Talk) 05:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omissions 

message: i added the new section about the forums culture. if any others would have input, it would be great. :]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.120.202 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk about Godwinning yourself. While the first people who reverted didn't give any reason, the last person did: "utterly unsourced and uncited". In addition, you had replaced the References section header with your own instead of making a new one. You need to cite reliable sources (which forums and 99.99% of blogs are not) for your information. You also can't use personal experience for input, as that would be original research.--Drat (Talk) 05:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  added new sectin? 

message: I'm just a random Wikisurfer and sometime contributor, so if you can, take this as a reasonably objective editorial comment (never been to SA, etc. although I do know what a furry is):
I think the basic information on what SA is needs to be immediately after the contents box, before the history box, or some summary of it (better than the introduction). The history delves into details that don't make sense until a reader gets into the 'forums' section. Jed (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing the article (again) 

message: Tryptofish, if you continue to alter Something Awful's entry on Wikipedia I will take it up with the admins. Your apparent vendetta against members of the site became clear with the heavy-handed, bureaucratic way you handled discussion in the Crucifixion thread and will not be tolerated. There is no way I can take any edits you make in good faith. Gustave Pennington (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An example: "His suicide was mocked in the Something Awful forums." Why would an unbiased person possibly add this to the article? It's unnecessarily hostile to the users of the forum, and certainly not accurate. Gustave Pennington (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gustave, your comments here are a violation of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN. It is only natural that my attention has been drawn to this page, and my edits have improved the page. The edit that you specifically quote was a replacement for a recent edit by another editor that was unsourced, and my edit is correctly sourced and factually accurate. (I note that other editors have decided to delete that entire paragraph, which was started by another editor, not me, and I accept that decision. I also note that the numerous other edits I made appear to be accepted as constructive.) You have previously made it very clear that you have a vendetta against me. Please do not threaten me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tryptofish, I think it's fair to say that based on comments you have made deriding somethingawful.com as a "hate site" [such as you did here here]. for instance, that you are probably too involved to be able to edit this article according to WP:NPOV. Attempts to do so could be construed as pushing an agenda. It's probably for the best in this case if you step down from this one and concentrate on articles you could really improve, rather than swatting a potential hornet's nest. Your opinion on SA is well known and hardly neutral in this instance, given the recent activity on your talkpage. IgorsBrain (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Igors, I appreciate that you are saying that in the spirit of constructive advice, thank you. But the fact is, that if you look at this page now, after I have edited it, then other editors made further edits which I am not contesting, the page has been improved. I did not create this hornet's nest. And the editors (not IgorsBrain, to be clear!) who seem to devote all their edits to commenting about me on article talk pages might, themselves, want to instead concentrate on really improving articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Another thing. This issue of "bias" cuts both ways. A number of editors who are involved with this page have stated on-Wiki that they are members of SA. If anyone wants to scrutinize my edits for POV, then their edits are just as much fair play. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, hornets make hornet's nests, but that doesn't mean swatting them is still a good idea. ;) I appreciate that you are here constructively but given that the issue surrounding the crucifixion pages is still rather raw it might be an idea for both sides of the argument to take a step back from the discussion for a while, have a bit of a breather, and concentrate in other areas of wikipedia that need improvement - at least for the time being. I don't think anyone can fault you for removing unsourced material and correcting grammar and so on, but the inclusion of material that isn't particularly accurate or relevant, such as the bit about the forum member committing suicide and being "mocked" for it (which doesn't seem to me to be the defining element of that thread - plenty of people also gave commiserations and discussed what could have driven someone to such an act) is unnecessary. I note, however, that you have not contested any reversion and appreciate that you were only trying to expand the article, but with a website that has as many users as SA one might as well apply the same standards as one would to a commenter on a CNN.com news article. The views of the forum do not represent the views of the site etc. etc. If you disagree with me and feel it does warrant inclusion then I would be more than happy to discuss that on here, but given recent events I think sitting out for a while and concentrating in other areas would be a good thing for all of us, myself included (because I do visit SA.com frequently so cannot hold myself to impartial standards either). I completely agree that the issue of bias cuts both ways here. I think it would therefore be a fine thing to stick to articles we can be 100% sure of impartiality over, at least until the situation has become less provocative to those concerned. I want to make it clear that I feel this applies to everyone involved, not just Tryptofish and myself. :) IgorsBrain (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's very fair, thank you for that. Just to be clear, it was NOT me who added the material about the person who committed suicide. I saw it added by someone else, and tried to replace an unsourced statement with a sourced one. That's it. Other editors then decided to delete the paragraph completely (in fact, one editor expanded what I had written slightly, then another decided to delete it) and, no, I am not interested in contesting that point. But let me underline this point: the bias issue cuts both ways, and editors who are SA members need to be careful about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: In regard to that, I note these two edits: , and . In both cases, they are reasonable instances of the kinds of editorial judgments we make all the time, and I'm not contesting them, but I note that both were made by editors who have self-described on site as being SA members. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Look at these edits! Not that I'm contesting them, but... look at them"? I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I can remove a bad passage from United States, being an American doesn't change the fact that it was a bad passage, and I very much doubt I would have my nationality brought up on the talk page after removing said bad passage. So please explain why you highlighted my edit. --Golbez (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look calmly at the discussion above. Per IgorsBrain, "I want to make it clear that I feel this applies to everyone involved, not just Tryptofish and myself." It's a matter of opinion whether the passage here was "bad", or simply something where editors honestly disagree about whether it helps the page or not. In this case, there are POV issues, about which editors can honestly disagree. Seeing that other editors disagreed with me, I'm not contesting the reversions. In your hypothetical, I could imagine situations in which editors from outside the US would have POV concerns about material. So I'm not saying you were wrong, but I am saying that, if, per the heading of this talk section, my edits are going to be highlighted, then the edits of editors who self-describe as SA members should be highlighted too. Now having said that, I want to add that you, personally, have been very helpful both here and at SA in speaking thoughtfully about what is and is not the right way to do things at Wikipedia, and I am grateful to you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tryptofish's Edits

message: There seems to be a disagreement about the role of the SomethingAwful website in 4chans creation. My own investigations can only find references to 'moot' the creator of 4chan being a member of SomethingAwful at one stage. In fact the 4chan page mentions this only in passing as well. If we cannot find reasonable evidence that there is some kind of significance to this linkage, I propose that this sentence be removed. Fancy steve (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for discussing it here. Actually, my reasoning is also based on the same passage from the 4chan page. It discusses it in the context of the origins of 4chan, and does seem to indicate that the founding of 4chan grew out of this person's activities at the SA forums. That seems, to me, to indicate a relationship between the two sites, in an interesting way. 4chan appears to be highly notable, and a role of SA in its origins seems to be worth reporting. In no way does it imply that everyone at SA likes or agrees with 4chan. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: P.S.: The source cited at the 4chan page, , does appear to claim explicitly that "it all started" at the SA forums. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is "It started back in 2003 (a long time ago in Internet terms), on Somethingawful.com. A poster to the comedy website named "moot" started an anime-based photo-sharing site called 4chan.org. Much to their chagrin, most of what people posted were cute pictures of their pets, particularly cats.". Again, this seems to indicate that a single SomethingAwful poster started the 4chan site. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the opening paragraph of this page that describes the SomethingAwful site in general. Maybe a better option would be to amend the 4chan page and expand on the importance of SomethingAwful in its creation. Fancy steve (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it wasn't me who added it here to begin with, but having it at the other page isn't mutually exclusive with having it here, and the other page does already cover it. The quote does seem to me to establish a source stating that SA --> 4chan. (You are right, I misquoted the "all".) The fact that it was a single user, as opposed to some sort of site-wide collaboration (?), does not change that, but perhaps it does indicate that the sentence should move out of the lead. How about moving it down to the forum section? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I've moved it down. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still disagree and I believe the sentence should be removed entirely. I can see how possibly the 4chan page would benefit from further elaboration (if it can be substantiated) of the link between SomethingAwful and 4chan being created. I don't see how the reverse is true at all, as the creator 'moot' is only one of thousands of accounts. There seem to be discussions of this kind of point above on this talk page relating to previous edits, where in effect it could be shown that out of 130,000 users that pretty much everything notable on the Internet could be attributed in some way to SomethingAwful. Fancy steve (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text:  At the very least until we reach agreement the wording of the sentence should relate to the fact being referenced. 'Launching point' could be taken to mean more than what is being stated by the reference, which in my opinion is a vague reference at best. Cheers Fancy steve (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, about that last point. I've re-worded the sentence. Not that you were really claiming this, but the sentence obviously does not attribute everything on the Internet to it, only one specific site, which is related in subject matter, and the attribution is sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, its more of a slippery slope thing. The forum list and membership numbers at SomethingAwful seem very comprehensive so I'm sure with some digging there could be hundreds of similar linkages made between both savoury and unsavoury content. I'm not sure what a good resolution is, whether to expand on as many as can be found or to keep only but the most important (how to determine this :) Maybe there will be other comments here that can assist in resolution. Fancy steve (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's fair. I certainly wouldn't argue for anything that wasn't sourced or wasn't related to a site/phenomenon that is logically related to the subject of the page. I think these things have to be decided case by case, rather than by broad strokes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that you now say that you do not agree to leave it on the page. Has something changed? All I'm aware of is the IP editor raising NPOV, and it seems to me that the NPOV concern is answered. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I never felt that the edit should stay so yes I disagree that consensus was reached as per your edit summary. I was happy to wait for other feedback rather than edit war the sentence, however it seems from recent edits that others feel that it should also not remain. I would prefer that it was discussed here rather than reverted back and forth however. Cheers Fancy steve (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree entirely about not reverting back and forth. So, hearing your views here, I agree that we should wait for discussion, and that's why I came to talk. My thinking is that the other editor (the IP) did not yet really make a case on the merits, so reverting that was appropriate, especially per WP:VOTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert in matters NPOV but from briefly reading the policy I would think it falls under undue weight, given that we are not elaborating on any other specific forum members. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This seems to gel with what I mentioned above. What do you think? Fancy steve (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's one of those things where the answer is not clear-cut. If, for example, it is typical of forum members to not be involved with any other websites and to condemn what 4chan does, making the 4chan founder some sort of "deviant" from what forum members typically do, then it would be UNDUE. (But my impression is that it would be a great exaggeration to describe it that way.) Given that 4chan is a featured article, it would certainly seem that 4chan's creation is notable and encyclopedic, and that article reports the relationship to the SA forums. It follows, then, that reciprocal mention here (albeit very brief and clearly written to make clear that it was a single member) is a notable fact to report. I understand the rationale that it would be, as you said, a slippery slope to go into lengthy detail about everything ever done by forum members, but it seems to me to be reasonable to report a small number of notable things they have done, which most articles about organizations do (example: Tea Party protests#"Teabagging" controversy, which goes far, far beyond anything we contemplate here), and this seems to be notable. Another part of NPOV that is very applicable here is that pages need to present balanced accounts of what the subjects of the page do, not just make a sanitized presentation of the good things or a one-sided attack against supposedly bad things. Thus, for example, Microsoft has a criticism section without being written entirely as an attack page, and people who work for the company have been prevented from suppressing the criticism section of the article. Now the Microsoft example is one of actual criticism, whereas the sentence we are discussing here is not criticism at all. If I understand correctly, though, the concern at this page is that, if many examples of individual actions of forum members were to be included, then many of those actions might "look bad" to some readers, and create a misleading POV on the page. But I don't think it follows from that, that we should preemptively block any mention of even a notable fact like this one, out of the prediction that future edits might create a POV. Objectively, this particular edit is quite neutral in what it says or even implies about SA. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I still do not agree. I don't know what typical behaviour of forum members is, the best that I can find is by looking at the forums list themselves. These seem to include almost every topic under the sun, from politics to computers to a whole bunch that I don't quite understand. From this brief look there doesnt appear to be any relationship to 4chan that I can see either expressed or implied. Maybe I am not looking in the right place? Is there some other evidence that we can quote? Without this I still dont see how this linkage is justified amongst any number of possible others. Fancy steve (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Sure it is WP:OR if I am using it as a reference, which I am not. I was simply searching for a point of reference that we can agree on and expressing that I was unable to find one. Please provide one if you have it. The sourcing again simply says that the creator was a poster to SomethingAwful, albeit in an incredibly passing mention. Can you convince me with something that explains why this particular forum member is of more significance than any other, as I have said all along? Maybe a more constructive discussion would be to find some instances of other linkages (not 4chan) that meet your same criteria, for comparison purposes. Thanks! Fancy steve (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, point well-taken about the way you were using it for comparison. The significance of the 4chan founder lies in having founded 4chan, of course. Being significant in that way is not at all the same thing as being an average forum member (again, compare Tea Party protests#"Teabagging" controversy—and another example is that nearly every page about individual colleges and universities mentions alumni who have done notable things, without implying that these alumni are typical of all attendees at that institution), and being somehow average is not the right way to apply policy here. I suppose the comparison that would be relevant to what you say, would be if another forum member had also founded a website that is notable enough to have, for example, a Wikipedia article about it. If there is, then perhaps that would also be relevant to this page. If not, then a case could be made that this instance is all the more newsworthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The barrier for entry to a university is far, far higher than the barrier of entry for a web forum. No one would seriously entertain listing all the famous people who have ever posted on Wikipedia, or who have ever left a review on Yelp. --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Hello, yes. :Category:Notable Wikipedians notwithstanding, the fact is that Wikipedia#Related projects is an entire section devoted to other projects, some of which pre-dated WP, others of which are sister projects, and still others of which were subsequently created by Wikipedians. That third group is exactly analogous to the single sentence discussed here, except that, here, we are talking only about a single sentence. The fact that the barrier to entry to SA is or is not lower than that to some other organization does not, in itself, reflect on the notability of the event in question. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

text: If Bill Gates was a frequent poster on a hypothetical computer forum that discussed Microsoft products, one might be able to argue that his membership is somehow significant to the forum itself and adds some weight or credibility to the forum contents. However if the forum is of general purpose and that the postings are not of any significant nature, then I don't see how this is any different than adding Bill Gates to a grocery store article as to where his groceries are purchased, or a car park article where he parks his car. As an aside I am unable to determine whether Bill Gates is or is not a member of SomethingAwful. Fancy steve (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (I like your last sentence! I'd guess he uses a pseudonym.) Please see Harvard College#Notable alumni. He's listed there. I think the creation of 4chan is more notable than buying groceries or parking a car. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of that article, lets hope that 'moot' was not a Harvard College alumni. Regardless, being on that list implies that the person achieved a level of education commensurate with graduation. What does the equivalent list look like for this page, that the person paid the forum entry fee? As before, I'm sure there are many other instances of notable forum members but I'm really not convinced that a list of them all is appropriate. Fancy steve (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen about "moot". But, ironically, Bill Gates didn't graduate; he dropped out. As I said above, "the fact that the barrier to entry to SA is or is not lower than that to some other organization does not, in itself, reflect on the notability of the event in question", so the entry fee versus an SAT score is really beside the point. And no one is arguing for "a list of them all", just one sentence about one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you know what, now we've gone through this discussion, I think it might be appropriate to have some kind of section detailing notable forum members. I'm not sure how many there would be but if it starts becoming some kind of trivial list we can work on culling it at that point. I'll look and see if I can find some. Thanks for persisting with the talk :) Fancy steve (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Thank you, too, for discussing this in a helpful and friendly way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I realize, of course, that it takes time to research such a section, no problem, no hurry. In the mean time, though, I have a question. How would you feel about putting the sentence back, pending further expansion? Just asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  4chan 

message: A couple of weeks ago non-registered users have lost the ability to read the posts on SA forums( I'm not talking about archived ones ), but I don't have the date and I can't find anything about this on the site itself. Could someone with a confirmed date update the article ?Ezhuks (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's working again now. It does that for seemingly random periods. Nothing worth writing about in the article.--Drat (Talk) 10:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I though they had locked me out! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They did it again a few days ago. Maslego (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How long does it usually last when they do this? --161.130.206.147 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forums no longer readable by guests 

message: If you look at Google street view you can see that Something Awful has moved to "202 North State Route 7, Pleasant Hill, MO‎"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.24.204 (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no you can't? --Golbez (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about at http://www.panoramio.com/photo/39925120 and http://www.panoramio.com/photo/39925147 --tagno25 (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about their website? http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/four-new-commercials.php "Something Awful corporate offices in majestic Pleasant Hill, Missouri" --cattrain (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move To Pleasant Hill MO? 

message: Article says: "In 2005, William Freund sought advice in the Something Awful gun subforum about purchasing Hevi-Shot brand ammunition several days before embarking on a shooting, in which he killed two people before committing suicide. Freund had stated in the thread, which was closed along with his account being banned well before the killing spree, that he intended to use the ammunition to defend his Halloween pumpkins from vandals.[18]".
Question: If he posted in the forum "several days" before embarking on a shooting, what does it mean to say he was banned "well before" the shooting spree?  Can this be cleared up, please?  --203.113.233.226 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's somewhat incorrect. Freund posted on October 25, 2005. He was placed on probation (can read the forums, but cannot post) as a direct response to the thread (the probating admin commented "goddamn idiot") on October 26, 2005. He was not banned; that means you cannot read the forums anymore and must pay to come back. Probation runs out after a certain period; in this case, it expired on November 5. He was permabanned (cannot even get back in if you pay) on November 2, following the murders-suicide which occurred on October 29. So while it is inaccurate to say he was banned before the murders, his ability to post had been removed. But none of this happened "well before", it was all within several days. --Golbez (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification re: Shooting Deaths 

message: Okay I know there's been this thing going about the internet, "how is babby formed"... seems to be a reference to this Yahoo Answers question  so not knowing what the whole thing is about (and mostly from a reference in a /. article about literal quotation: ) I go looking on wikipedia which redirects me here. Why is there nothing in the article about the thing I was searching for? If I'm redirected here, someone presumably thought Something Aweful was the most relevant article to redirect to, but for some reason there's nothing in the Something Aweful article about the title of the page I was redirected from.  !? 207.65.109.10 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Shmorky, who is commonly associated with SA being kind of their resident animator, created the Babby animation. It's possible that he had an article but it was deleted, and then redirected here. Also, the title is right at the top of the screen, so there's no excuse spelling Awful incorrectly, twice. --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensitive about spelling? Anyway, I think the point is why do we have How is babby formed? as a redirect to this page, when the page has no information about it. (The redirect page history does not suggest an earlier article.) I suppose a good case can be made for taking it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but I also don't think it's a terribly urgent need. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensitive? No. Annoyed when people do it despite all evidence to the contrary being in their face? Yes. I put effort into my posts, I expect no less from others. --Golbez (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

text: And Babby redirects to Infant. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Babby"? 

message: But there is nothing in this article about him CTA MART (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jeff K." redirects to this article 

message: I recently saw that information pertaining to the removal of a child molestor from modding the Something Awful forums has been repeatedly removed by Golbez, who admits here he has a bias due to being a Goon and being bought an insulting avatar based on these edits.
For reasons of transparency, I admit I too have an anti-Something Awful bias due to personal disgust with the forums, but I feel this information is notable and should be reinstated to the article. The sources check out and the information is verifiable. Second, the removal of a pedophile with major control over a forum with minors in their membership is noteworthy, especially since Wikipedia covered a similar person on Reddit whom Something Awful had involvement, so I feel Golbez may be removing these edits due to his own bias as a SA member and thus is removing this information to shield Something Awful from verifiable and noteworthy criticism. Arcane21 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Golbez could you please explain to me why you think a high-profile moderator on a forum being removed for being discovered to be a literal child rapist and publicly shamed on said forum isn't notable in the history of said forum? 71.60.35.185 (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The website has had literally many hundreds of moderators over its history. The guy in question wasn't a significant moderator , more an assistant on some of the lesser known niche subforums. Unfortunately child abuse is *really* common (and not in the horrible ways a certain popular conspiracy suggests, rather its a phenomena that is usually both familiar and demographic independent. The guys involvement just isnt a significant part of the history of the site. 2001:44B8:6117:B100:151E:947B:CDD3:EFD7 (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

text: First of all, I should point out that it is highly likely that our new friend(s) is a goon as well, since, well, why else would I have a new av. You're welcome to believe this, and take appropriate action, but until then I continue to see this as a coatrack/BLP issue. As for is it "notable in the history of the forum", yes, it's absolutely notable to the SA forums, but to be mentioned on Wikipedia that notability has to be established *outside* of said forums, and that's up to reputable third party news sources. Show me some - and no, somethingsensitive does not count, being a forum - that discusses the modding and/or demodding of Aatrek. Til then, it's nothing but forum drama, which we have no need for. And, let's be honest, our new friend, "Notaatrek", clearly is here for no reason other than to add a mention of Aatrek, and so there is clearly a COI there as well. --Golbez (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted on the user with the obvious COI username, that is a good point, Golbez. I also concur there seems to be a lot of COI influence on both sides, yourself due to insulting trolling on the very forums this article addresses, and the other editor due to their obvious desire to see critical information be inserted into the article. I also concede perhaps a better source aside from the Something Sensitive forums may be needed to show relevance in third party news sources. Arcane21 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I am also a member of the SA forums for nearly a decade. I have no wish for anything other than neutrality and truthfulness with regard to this article. The issues of neutrality are many, amdndxtend beyond this one simple edit. In addition, these issues completely undermine Golbek's claims that "relevance" is his criteria. For example, there are many SA members who do not know who Jeff K. is, yet he is included.  Most know of Aatrek, who is not included. There are many examples of relevant and noteworthy items not being included. Since they are not what is being discussed here, I do not wish to muddy the waters with regard to this discussion. But the omissions are problematic because they are not apparent to anyone who has not been a forums member for some time amd as such give an incomplete or intentionally misleading picture of the subject. This undermines not only the credibility of Golbez, but that of Wikipedia. This page needs a lot of work to be informative and accurate. 66.87.121.142 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So work on it. Just make sure everything is verifiable and properly sourced. The attempted Aatrek insertion was not. --Golbez (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: there was a news article cited....how is that not verifiable?66.87.121.142 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The news article was about the arrest. It had nothing to do with SomethingAwful and did not mention that he was a mod on it. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Golbez surely there was not an issue over the facts that it did happen. In one of the previous edits you reversed there were 3-4 cited sources including news articles. It happened (and I know you personally know the facts so its not a case of ignorance) but you reversed it anyway. So your blithe attempt to obfuscate the discussion at hand by saying "add it, just source it" rings hollow because that was done above and beyond what most items on the page are sourced but reversed anyway.12.203.17.151 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

text: The articles cited in the shootings section do not explicitly give the forum names of the shooters, but they are included, as they are common forums knowledge. How is this different from the attempted insert, especially when backed up by a quote from the admin of SA himself? By your criteria,  much of the Something Awful entry is not properly sourced and should be removed.66.87.121.142 (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources were a forum (not valid), a first-party source (not valid), and a news source about the person in question that does not at all link him to the forum. So. Tell me how this inclusion is sourced, please. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

text:  Golbez I think your neutrality in this matter is suspect and you should step away. You seem to be personally motivated in this case and you are applying the rules unequally. There are other sections that are uncited by third parties and completely non-notable your definition (see the 'Public Appearances' section, which has a link to something awful and a link to YouTube as citations). Please enforce the rules fairly or remove yourself from the situation, as you seem to be obviously biased in this matter. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative environment. If you feel that the section is lacking, please participate instead of deleting the work of others because it personally upsets you. James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. And I agree, that public appearances section probably could go away. The SPEWS, Katrina, Boll, Freund, Allred, and Slenderman are all sourced from third party sources mentioning their link to SA. The Aatrek addition does not. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sean Smith blurb was not, and removed as to be in line with the high standards that you hold for this page. James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I could assume good faith, but I am a mirror. It's clear you think you're trying to get to me with this, but no, I don't care. I think Sean Smith should be included here, but only with proper sourcing; as we lack that at this time then yes, removal was proper. --Golbez (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Golbez  this may be a shock I am not out to get you. Please don't accuse me of unfounded malicious intentions because you are being teased elsewhere on the internet. Thanks. James "J.J." Evans, Jr. (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war over information regarding a child molestor who was removed from Something Awful 

message: I reversed an edit made to inform readers that SA is no normal comedy site, but in fact a "far-left" one which has indeed "been accused (by whom?) of shifting towards the political far-left with the platforming of black supremacist activists(!) on their forums and (presumably SomethingAwful's) general support (no one on Earth could tell you what constitutes 'general support') for the violent extremist group Antifa." No citation was provided for any of these claims. Needless to say, since this could not pass WP:RS or WP:NPOV less, I feel comfortable being WP:BOLD and deleting not only these claims but the similarly citationless "Far-left political shift" section, where we are told that an SA moderator (whose role is specified) is "a black supremacist activist". WP:BLP et al.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.208.132 (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm considering pre-emptively semiprotecting. This is a fast moving story with zero third-party sourcing and I find it hard to think of any quality edits that can come of it today. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, it's been pretty quiet. I'll keep an eye on things. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I've added the one bit of third-party sourcing, but that's only repeating the allegations from the site. What it was useful for was RSing the sale to Jeffrey - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed uncited 'information' 

message: On the front page the last updates for SA are all from mid-2020. Is the site finally calling it quits? Thunderbunny (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just been a little in limbo since the Lowtax issue came up. The forums are still going, and last I heard they're going to start working on front page stuff again, they put out a call for writers some time back. --Golbez (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

text: nobody cared about the front page - Jeffrey took the worst stuff off the front page, but ~100% of people coming to the site seem to go straight to the forums, so it's low priority behind keeping the 20yo code base from exploding - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer updated? 

message: The founder appears to have died, i think it deserves a mention!
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3984488  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.203 (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately we don't have a good source on this yet. A forum link doesn't qualify. --Golbez (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: His ex-wife confirmed that he committed suicide. Seems conclusive. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3984488&userid=216359 101.118.148.200 (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: IRL that's confirmation, but for Wikipedia we need an RS ... been looking, hope for one to come out today - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: https://kotaku.com/something-awful-founder-richard-lowtax-kyanka-dies-at-1848037837 ... except the source Kotaku uses is, immediately, that post. DS (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is fine. I think what matters for us is a third party source, where they got it isn't necessarily relevant. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, Kotaku will do here I think. And now Vice - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Kyanka death?