Talk:4chan/Archive 3

BT Block
I just had to edit out a very badly written, presumptive, paranoia-laden piece of this article that basically claimed OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL SCREWED IN THE UK THE INTERNET WATCH FOUNDATION ARE GOING TO GET US ALL.

The BT block on /b/ now has its own section in the article, with actual links to actual discoveries about it. In my opinion, I kept it NPOV, but if you actually read what 4chan users found out then it seems far more likely that it's a practical joke from a 4chan admin or some jerk at BT doing it by themselves instead of it being on cleanfeed or whatever.

If you change this section, CITE YOUR SOURCES. God damn it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.26.19 (talk • contribs).


 * Actually, moot stated at Otakon that 4chan is, in fact, on cleanfeed, and has been blocked officially by BT.Dpbjinc 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Otakon hadn't happened when I posted that, genius.

Habbo Hotel Raids
I can understand the raid not being in the Habbo article, since overall it wasn't that important to the history of Habbo Hotel. However, it was a important event in the history of 4chan and /b/, as it represents a significant mobilization of /b/ posters and is therefore notable in the board's history. I've inserted a single line reference to it as an example of a forum invasion, since simply saying "/b/ does forum invasions" is no good without an example to back up that statement. Hopefully that's acceptable. Xuanwu 06:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am on BT and for some unknown reason I actually managed to get into /b/ today without a proxy...

Conflicts With Other Boards?

 * I'm not too familiar with this particular website, but it seems like it might have potential conflicts with other boards, although I'm not sure that these incidents are necessarily worthy of inclusion in this article.


 * A few months ago a group of people tried to attack the Protest Warrior forums by spamming the board with fake advertisements for 4chan, which presumably were meant to discredit them.


 * I don't recall the precise name of the website, but I think it was also anime-themed in nature.


 * As I said I'm not too familiar with this area so it's possible that this incident was inconsequential in and of itself, but I was just curious if there were rival boards or websites that 4chan has traded barbs with in the past.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it was a Naruto forum... Or was that when they invaded /b/? I cannot remember. Ryūlóng 00:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's possible, although the name doesn't ring a bell.


 * I'll try to pin it down, although I don't know how much success I'll have, since 99% of their threads were deleted within a few hours.


 * I did find this, which I assume is a parody of the incident discussed above,


 * http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/The_Great_Habbo_Raid_of_July_2006


 * Throughout its history, though the raids have increased in numbers dramatically since the Habbo Hotel raids, /b/ has raided multiple forums. Examples include the Biblocality raid, the Habbo raid, the Naruto-Kun forums raid, during which /b/ effectively disabled Naruto-Kun forums, the Mitchell Henderson MySpace raid, and the KKK chat raid. There are many other examples. Many /b/tards tend to look down upon other forums, sometimes with disgust depending on the forum, and raids of forums, games like Habbo Hotel, and personal pages like MySpace pages are regularly carried out by bored /b/tards. One doesn't need to do much more than post a URL to the site they wish to be raided, because most of the time /b/tards take the bait, no matter if the reason for raiding is "justified" or not. However, due to the frequent pruning of the threads and the lack of documentation surrounding these raids, it is quite hard, and impossible in some cases, to verify them, though I have seen each and everyone of the raids mentioned with my own eyes. As such, until /b/ goes off and does something that gets widespread attention, or something that drastically changes the atmosphere of the boards, I don't believe we should mention specific raids in this article, as raids have changed the atmosphere of the board. However, I don't see why we couldn't mention that /b/ HAS carried out raids. If we have to cite this, I've seen entries in the Wikiworld article that might suffice. (Steampowered 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC))

I can understand the argument that a specific raid on a specific date may not be verifiable. However, I think we can agree that at least a raid on Habbo occurred on a date, which is how I've now included it. My purpose here is to back up the statement in the associated paragraph that /b/ has done forum invasions. You can't say they have without providing proof of at least one forum invasion. Showing /b/ people doing a raid on Habbo provides this proof, with no need to verify the date. The date of the raid in this case is not important, only the fact that it IS a raid and that it DID happen, since it means /b/ people perform raids of some sort. Can we agree on this point? Xuanwu 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Sorry if this paragraph goes all over the place, I have a headache and really need some sleep.) I don't think we should add raids of specific places, because this invites additions to the article of many, many raids that have no notability whatsoever, even if these additions aren't by your hand. This was the problem with the meme list. Earlier this year, it grew from a small mention to a huge list full of non-notable memes until it was finally narrowed down to a small polished section. However, if raids that are added are notable and deserve mention, I won't mind a section, but that is just me. For example, 4chan did participate in the eBaums raid, which was mentioned on many other articles, and as such it is notable and could be added to a list. However, just the listing of things like memes themselves has generated controversy among the people contributing to this page, let alone the mention of things like raids. To add to this, I think there's a section further up this page that discusses why we shouldn't mention raids here. Though I would like to be able to have something to verify that /b/ does raids, I'm not sure if the picture is the best verification, at least alone. A general rule of Wikipedia is if you can't find an outside source to verify info in your article, it is not notable enough to be mentioned. Though following this rule too closely would end in half of this article being removed, I still believe that any specific raid won't be notable enough to be added here, though I know from experience that raids like the July 12 raid was a huge disruption for their victims, and that the raids changed the atmosphere of /b/ in a significant way. Though I don't mind the mention of specific raids or raids in general, I assume that many people here do not agree with that given their opinion on memes in the article. If everyone wants to keep your additions, they will have to put their 2 cents in on this page. Until then, it's out.


 * In short, I'm tearing down the mention until we can get a few more people to add in their two cents about this. I like what you added, but I'd also like to avoid big arguments about additions such as this. We need to decide exactly what we SHOULD add BEFORE we add it. (Steampowered 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC))


 * How about leaving the influences sentence? The article fails to mention exactly why the memes are notable, so putting in how the memes have affected work outside of 4chan (and work that is itself notable) helps justify the section's existence. Also, said influences are easy to backup simply by going through the comic archives, where the 4chan memes are easily found. Xuanwu 21:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not sure about this addition and we really need to work it out on this page before adding such mentions. Though I support a small list of verifiable, notable, influential memes and have in fact added them before, they have generally been short-lived, and I could not even add a mention of a specific meme to this article without conflicting with this page's contributors. The addition "a select few of which have become popular enough to spread outside of 4chan and become widely recognized internet phenomenons" was the most we could agree on. As such, we need to talk about editing this particular section more thoroughly with the rest of the group, as even small edits have started arguments. Even memes that had much more influence than the ones mentioned in those webcomics you mention have been shot down when I tried to add them to this article. For example, O RLY owl, WRRRRYYYYYYYYYYY, the OS-tans, Nevada-tan, and Osakaphone have all come to America through 4chan or have been created by 4chan, and have been the subject of their own articles in newspapers and, for some, a mention on TV, yet it has been decided that they should not be included in this article beyond a mention that some memes have become internet phenomenons. Mentions in small webcomics run by people who are most likely /b/tards seem to be far less notable than a mention in the media, so they seem to me to be far less likely to be able to stay on this article. Because of this, I'm removing this addition until everyone can decide exactly what the hell we should do with the meme section, as many edits to it have generated controversy on the talk page. I'm not trying to be an ass and revert all your changes, but all of your changes have been something that everyone might not agree on. The talk page is here for a reason.(Steampowered 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Your classification of Ghastly's and Girly as "small webcomics" seems to suggest you have the wrong idea about why I mention them: both comics are quite large and notable. The fact they've been influenced by 4chan memes therefore reflects how 4chan has affected the Internet culture, at least in the realm of webcomics. This is important to establish the site's notability, as well as the notability of the memes. Think of it this way: when an artist becomes notable, the sources that inspired him also become notable because of their contribution. Both Ghastly's Ghastly Comic and Girly have proven to be notable. Therefore, 4chan's influence on their artwork is itself notable, making the memes noteworthy. It's possible to mention influence without bringing up a specific meme. But the fact that the influence exists should be noted for its encyclopedic value, which I've just proven. I'm adding the line back in. Explain here before attempting to remove a second time. Xuanwu 22:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many, much larger webcomics than the two you just mentioned. Many. Hence the fact that I called them small webcomics, as the adjective small obviously denotes that they are lesser known than many other webcomics. If you are going to show a webcomic as an example of these meme's influence, choose a more notable one (It could also be argued that 4chan as a whole, not the memes themselves, is the real influence, and that the use of memes are just a symptom of 4chan's influence, but neither of us can easily prove either side of that argument. This would mean we should move such references into a more appropriate place). I had not even heard of the two webcomics you mentioned before this, yet I have been browsing 4chan, where I would more than likely hear about these comics, since 2004 and reading anime-related webcomics for quite a long time. Here's a much more popular and notable example you could replace those webcomics with : Chugworth Academy, which I've actually heard of many times both on 4chan and off. It's more than 4 times popular than each webcomic you mentioned, according to Alexa's traffic rankings. Not only has the author, Dave Cheung, posted on 4chan before, but he has also included more than a few memes in his webcomic. Just browse the archives at his website, I'm sure you'll be able to pick up on a few of them. After you find an example strip, you should cite it, just as you should have with the two other comics. And on the subject of not explaining myself before removing lines, sorry to be blunt, but don't be retarded. I typed out an entire paragraph of text explaining the removal, about 3 days ago, and there is no reason to say that does not qualify as an explanation of my actions, as I even said that I was removing your additions before I removed them. Look up above your last reponse. You seem to have referred to my paragraph with your response to my use of the words "small webcomics", but at the end your paragraph you seem to have convienently forgot my last response. By the way, I don't see why we need to back up the popularity of 4chan memes by adding an entirely new reference to "small webcomics" to the article, when we could, in fact, provide a citation in the form of an actual news story concerning a 4chan meme at the end of the first sentence in the the meme section, of which I have seen more than a few, but I'd actually still back the addition of any verified example of 4chan meme's influence, even if it is a small webcomic, as long as such notability is verified, whether by a webcomic or a news article. Despite pointing out more than a few holes in your endeavor to show how 4chan memes are in fact quite notable, I still fully support verifying their notability, but only if that the verification of their notability is satisfactory to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. However, such additions must be agreed explained here and agreed upon before they are added. As such, I'm removing your additions until everyone can agree upon this. Remember, the burden of verification lies upon those wishing to add to the article, not those that remove such additions. Not only have I explained myself here, just as I did last time, but I also hope that I have shown you that no further additions of this nature should be made until after this page's contributors' have agreed on a resolution to this issue. (Steampowered 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)).


 * Also, if you would like to verify the influence of our memes, you could link to this news article concerning the popularity of the O RLY owl. This article is appropriate because it cites the origin as 4chan, and also shows that it was notable enough to warrant a news article on the subject. I think we should put it at the end of the first sentence. Also, if you want to link to webcomic strips which have examples of 4chan memes in them to use as citations and verification of their existence and influence, then that could serve as further verification of both their effect on the webcomics and internet culture as a whole. However, either solution to this verification problem may somehow fall into the category of listing memes, which has caused problems, though the O RLY owl article is definitely verified, and the webcomics are probably verifiable and notable enough too. You never know how the talk page will respond. I guess we should give the talk page contributors a couple of days to respond before adding this. If no responses come in, then you can put it up, as two days should be sufficient time for anyone to object to or support this move, considering the activity on both the article and this talk page. (Steampowered 03:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
 * In the words of 4chan: "Lurk moar." The fact you haven't noticed either Ghastly or Josh, both of whom have contributed to 4chan in the past, means you're not very well versed in 4chan's history (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean you should defer to the expertise of us who are more familiar with 4chan's history). Ghastly, for example, was recently comissioned by a /b/ member to help promote the "Assdip" meme and produced a series of comics for it. He has also been the focus of several memes of his own (you can go to his forum to see 4chan pictures created around him). Josh's site, Slipshine, is a major advertiser on 4chan and he's also had his work featured there before.
 * Additionally, your classification of both of those webcomics as small is without grounds: Josh has published his work and is part of a major webcomic organization, Ghastly was the number one comic of Comic Genesis for a number of years before moving and has significant ties to artists like Michael Poe and Hard/Clay, the man behind Sexy Losers. The fact you haven't heard of either further proves that you need to do more research before considering yourself knowledgable in this field (again, not necessarily a bad thing since it means you haven't wasted your life away like some of us). Being active since 2004 does not qualify you to single handedly judge on what's small or large (I could bring in my own experience, but that'd turn this into an e-cock fight which is pointless), which is why I've rejected the arguments you've made - you have yet to bring up any valid points on why my contributions should be removed. I'm going to add them back in again and will continue to do so until you can argue using information that is more accurate (i.e. not calling two major webcomic artists "small"). Do not remove it. If someone else disagrees, they can remove it and the discussion will be rejoined here.
 * Your idea of bringing in Chugworth I agree with, since it's on the same level of popularity as Girly (a little less so) and I have noticed it using 4chan memes. I'll also add references that have been made in Tsunami Channel and Daniel Kim's work (Clone Manga). I'll also be linking to specific webcomic to illustrate the point (I'd been counting on the fact that it was common knowledge these comics had used memes - as you've demonstrated, not everyone is as seasoned a websurfer as others). Xuanwu 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to be convinced, but in particular the Chugworth "Spider man" comic, I've been seeing references to things like that for over 10 years. I'd like some slight convincing it came from 4chan. Mrjeff 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ghastly comic is a Bridget reference (Bridget is a 4chan meme). The Girly comic features the "WRY" meme. The Chugworth comic is derived from "How do I shot web?" If you dig through the archives you can find a better example. I used that one because it was the most recent. Xuanwu 04:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see the Chugworth comic as a reference to the "How do I shot web?" meme. I just see it as making fun of Spider-Man's webshooters and sexual acts. If it said "How do I shot web" then I would believe you, but it does not show anything like that. Ryūlóng 04:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the Bridget reference is kind of sketchy. Despite surfing 4chan since ZERO HOUR, and obviously having seen the Bridget meme, it took me a second or two more than it should have to get that reference. I had to go back 3 or 4 comics to find out that those characters were based off of Bridget (this was before you mentioned that was the meme they were referencing) as they were never mentioned to be fighting game characters or nuns in blue habits in the comic you linked, though it became clearer when I went further back in the archives. I suggest that we add a reference to this topic on Ghastly's forum, in which he talked of and posted a comic he began to draw for /b/, before indefinitely suspending all his comics. Then the mention of 4chan's influence on his work should be pretty undeniable. Also, I'm a bit bothered by the fact that you think I have only been surfing 4chan and webcomics for such a short time. Just so that you don't mislabel me as someone new to such things, I'll say again, as I said before in my previous replies to this topic, that I've been surfing and posting on 4chan since the middle of 2004, and reading webcomics avidly since at least the year 2000. However, even though I've been looking at both for a long enough time so as to not doubt 4chan's influence and the existence of those two webcomics, the quick nature of /b/'s pruning system and the sheer amount of webcomics that exist, it was probably easy for me to miss, and I should have taken that into account. I just think that I was paranoid that the rest of this page's contributors would delete any reference to any mention of any meme. I'm sorry to have argued with you for that long, and as I said before, I'm happy to have these references to back up the meme section, I just didn't want you to put something up that the rest of the talk page would tear down. I guess I did enough of that myself, so I guess I utilized a completely ineffective way of trying to prevent deletions and controversy caused by the addition of your references. Though I see I had good intentions, I won't be too much of a dick next time, and I'll just let people who have problems with additions tear it down themselves. (Steampowered 02:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)).


 * I just remembered the name of the forum that flooded PW with spam designed to incriminate 4chan.


 * It was called Gaia Online.


 * Is anyone familiar with this site?


 * Do they have some pre-existing grudge against 4chan?

Ruthfulbarbarity 08:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say that alot of websites have grudges against 4chan, and vice versa. 4chan has tried to raid Gaia Online a couple times, but I haven't heard of Gaia trying to incriminate 4chan. Chances are, though, that 4chan just committed the raid themselves, and that there was no spam posted by Gaia members that was used to incriminate 4chan. (Steampowered 02:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)).


 * Gaia members did attempt a reprisal raid of /b/. Given /b/'s chaotic and anti-decent nature, no one actually noticed until a Gaia user asked what /b/ thought about their raid. --211.31.223.253 13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

8/23/06
STOP REVERTING! early today, 8/23/06, /b/ had a major policy change, and there IS somewhat of a civil war at this very moment, as lame as it sounds.
 * That may be, but it's still not something for the article, yet, especially how it was written. Ryūlóng 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave it be. There needs to be something up to document this. And as long as there is something decently written about this, I think it should stay. Dirgenzhugeliang 03:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It cannot be sourced and may only be a single night thing for all we know. Ryūlóng 02:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's current news, so sources will come up. I actually can produce a source for some of what I said. I could just link to /b/ itself, that'd clear up the server crash, and the policy change. And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't add the unsigned tags to my comments.

I reference this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A4chan&diff=71514666&oldid=71503020 and repeat my comment: Alas, I have born witness to this atrocity, and it sucks. No more invasions :( Also, don't delete my comment on a talk page just because you don't like it. Just because you may be a mod on 4chan who keeps deleting GEORGE ZIMMER topics (those are funny!), doesn't mean that you have to be an ass here. 71.29.200.39

So bye bye, Cockmonglin' guy, Posted CP in a sticky, I didn't know she was five Them good old nigras Blocking pools worldwide, Singing this'll be the day that /b/ died.

SINGING THIS'LL BE THE DAY THAT /b/ DIED. 8/23/06 Nevar Forget.Thursday Postal 02:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I barely post at 4chan anymore, however this nonsense about the rules being enforced and the "Civil War" is complete nonsense and does not need to be mentioned in this article. Ryūlóng 02:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you yourself admitted you aren't qualified on this subject. Thursday Postal 03:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm tired of hearing crap like that on Wikipedia. There's no "qualification" necessary. And just because I say I barely post doesn't mean I don't visit the page and browse through the boards. Ryūlóng 03:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Least you know how to lurk moar then. Thursday Postal 03:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * More like "murk loar". Ryūlóng 03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well don't you think that in something that is hard to source, it should be left to the more involved people. The way you're covering yourself now, throwing a word like 'crap' around just leads anyone to believe you're covering yourself. You apparently have no idea how much of an impact this is, how this will be remembered as a turning point in 4chan. It is not complete nonsense, and does deserve a place in the article. Have you actually read the whole article? If this doesn't need mention, then alot of it doesn't. Dirgenzhugeliang 03:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I hate it when people use "you're not qualified to edit this page" nonsense. And unfortunately, 4chan's history is not very notable. So the mods decided to enforce the rules about Habbo/other raids, and everyone's going over to the Russian 4chan. That does not mean that everyone else who posts on 4chan will leave. Just a hell of a lot of /b/tards. Ryūlóng 03:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I never said that you were not qualified, I just said you might not be as qualified as others, saying that perhaps you aren't aware of how big this exactly is. Dirgenzhugeliang 03:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is just general unrest related to being told that more than once. Also, sign your comments. There is no such thing as forcedanon on Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet you feel it worthy to say that there is general unrest of being told that. Just like there is general unrest in /b/. If the unrest of one person is worthy of being mentioned, why not the unrest of thoisands? And I am aware there is no such thing as forcedanon on Wikipedia. You seem perfectly capable of figuring out I said this. And anyone can view the history if they'd like to see who I am. Also, don't sign other people's comments. Dirgenzhugeliang 03:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But I am not saying that I'm pissed that people say I'm unqualified in the article, I'm just stating it in this discussion. What I am saying about qualification has nothing to do with the section that is questioned. The section is questionable because of the fact that there is no way to source it or for it to be notable for the article. Also, I am doing the right thing in tagging your comments with unsigned, as there is no rule against that. However, it is a courtesy to sign your own comments, and I am merely showing that the comments have been made by you. Ryūlóng 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that this supposed "change" is nothing new. Posting CP, etc. were always bannable offenses, because they violate the laws of the United States of America where the servers are hosted. The only difference is that the mods finally decided to actually back up the rules with enforcement, rather than being lazy and out of touch. The people who are shocked and outraged are smug, self-absorbed idiots with a false sense of entitlement. As such, I do not think this incident is worthy of inclusion in the article...yet. Wait a week or so and see how this goes. --Sporkot 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not delete my writings because you're too lazy to argue against them. I'll just repost:

Of course CP is bannable; ITS ILLEGAL. CP has always been bannable, and unless U.S. law changes, it always will be. However, you are sadly ignorant if you think that borderline stuff has always been bannable, and especially RAIDS, which are part of THE BASIC FABRIC OF /B/. The mods doing this is a clear violation of /b/ policy: /b/ is supposed to be RANDOM. Rules governing what not to talk about are the worst possible things mods could do. Moreover, your "rather than being lazy and out of touch" is sheer idiocy, seeing as "the position of /b/ mod is not one of status". Mods (for /b/) are not meant to be power abusers bent on control of the boards. The /b/ mod's ONLY real function is to sticky GETs and delete CP. Anything else is just a humorous event meant to highlight the randomness of /b/. Ah yes, and Ryu-lóng, you are utterly unqualified to edit the 4chan article. Now, more than ever, we need to bring back Snacks. Logoboros 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had removed it because of extreme trollishness in your response, which it still has. You are reminded to be civil at all times, and your addition of the attack on me with your edit to your comment before was ust the icing on the cake. If you wish to contribute to this discussion civilly, you are welcome to. However, the edits that I see in your contributions just shows you to be a run of the mill vandal, who has decided to incite some drama here. Ryūlóng 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thought is was you. I'm not vandalizing, since vandals deface and destroy; I have done neither. This is a talk page, meant for discussion. Fascist deletion of opinions you don't like is against the entire idea. Besides, I'm just saying what all the /b/tards here have already stated, essentially. Logoboros 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I know how the /b/tards feel in this situation; their Habbo raid filled /b/ has been destroyed. Now they'll just have to keep all of that stuff to themselves, or come up with some sort of ridiculous code. However, their feelings are not necessary for inclusion in this article, which is what has been dealt with, and now fixed. Ryūlóng 21:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to include this in an encyclopedic tone
The fact still remains that what is currently happening deserves some mention. So, all immaturities aside, perhaps we can come to an agreement on what should be said. Dirgenzhugeliang 03:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will agree to that. Perhaps something merely along the lines of "Recently, the moderators of /b/ have begun to strictly enforce its rules, causing unrest in the community." Ryūlóng 03:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be nice to give a date, since 'recently' isn't a fixed time. An example of the strict policies would be nice, since that's left open to interpretation. And the server crash makes for an interesting side note, given the coincidental time it occured. Dirgenzhugeliang 03:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, how's this: On 2006-08-23, the moderators of /b/ have begun to strictly enforce its rules on posting illegal content (illegal forms of pornography) and posts concerning raids of other internet communities, causing unrest in the community. This event also coincided with a crash of the servers.--Ryūlóng 03:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not bad, but perhaps: On 23 Aug, 2006, the moderators of /b/ have begun to strictly enforce its previously neglected rules on posting illegal content (such as child pornography), plans of raiding other internet communities, and personal information. While only the former was met with an undefined ban on the poster of such content, the new rules encompass all three catagories, and are met with a permanent ban on the poster, and a two-week ban on anyone posting posthumously in the thread, whether they supported the content or not. The public was outraged, with many declaring that this was overboard and that the quality of /b/ would suffer. This coincided with a server crash, which may have been attributed to restructuring to make these rules more easily enforced, a regular server overload, an angered user performing a DDoS crash of the server, or just general technical difficulties.-- Dirgenzhugeliang 04:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I think my version needs a paragraphing, and perhaps a restructure of a sentence or two. Once we gain hindsight of all of this, alot of this will be omitted or redone, so for now, it isn't too crucial. Dirgenzhugeliang 04:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was trying to avoid some of the biased information in that... Here is my rewrite: On 2006-08-23, the moderators of /b/ had started to strictly enforce its previously neglected rules on posting illegal content (such as child pornography), plans of raiding other internet communities, and personal information. While only the former was met with an undefined ban on the poster of such content, the new rules encompass all three catagories, resulting in bans on the original poster and on anyone posting in the thread, whether they supported the content or not. This caused unrest in the /b/ community, leading many to find other image boards at which they could post such content without punishment. This event also coincided with a server crash, which may have been attributed to restructuring to make these rules more easily enforced, a regular server overload, an angered user performing a DDoS crash of the server, or just general technical difficulties.
 * This is essentially the same as yours, with a few diction changes, an alteration to wikiformatting, and removal of the really biased sentence. Ryūlóng 04:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I've removed the information on block lengths, unless there is information on the global rules list. Ryūlóng 04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The lengths of the blocks were declared by a stickied post by the mods themselves, so I believe that should stay. I like the change to "This caused unrest in the /b/ community", but the general consensus was that people thought this was overboard, and many feared that alot of what made /b/ so enjoyable would no longer be possible. Perhaps we keep that, and also mention that many others decided to move to other imageboards, mainly http://2ch.ru. Dirgenzhugeliang 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if the stickied thread stated as such, then the information can stay. Despite consensus on /b/, it is a hell of a lot less biased without mention of "overboard", and I do not think that providing a link to the "new /b/" is necessary for the article. Ryūlóng 04:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't intend on 2chan being linked, I just was naming it off. Perhaps instead of overboard, we say something like "Many members of the /b/ community believed that the new policies were too harsh" Dirgenzhugeliang 04:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That works, perhaps combining it with the "unrest" sentence. Ryūlóng 04:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On 2006-08-23, the moderators of /b/ had started to strictly enforce its previously neglected rules on posting illegal content (such as child pornography), plans of raiding other internet communities, and posting personal information. While only the former was met with an undefined ban on the poster of such content, the new rules encompass all three catagories, resulting in bans on the original poster and on anyone posting in the thread, whether they supported the content or not. This caused unrest in the /b/ community; while many lingered to express dissent, deeming the rules to be too harsh, others left to find other image boards at which they could post such content without punishment. This event also coincided with a server crash, which may have been attributed to restructuring to make these rules more easily enforced, a regular server overload, an angered user performing a DDoS crash of the server, or just general technical difficulties. Dirgenzhugeliang 04:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made minor changes to what you had typed to show what I believe will be a little better. Nothing major. This, I believe I will include in the article. Ryūlóng 04:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well agreed. I figured there could be a way to clean it up. After all, I merely copied and edited into it. Yep, I think this is an acceptable add. Nice to see we could hammer this out. Dirgenzhugeliang 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On the subject of what happened yesterday, perhaps a reference to this message from the mods will be of use to this paragraph and article : "Downtime for img/zip jumbo.4chan will be down for the next day due to a disk failure. Expect things to come back online within 24-48 hours. If actual downtime exceeds the estimate, temporary boards will be put up. THANKS BYE." This was put in that area where the link to /con/ was just a few days ago, I don't remember what that area's called, but it's a message seen globally across every board and appears before the first thread displayed on each page. You'll be able to find it in the boards that aren't down. (Steampowered 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Quite unsurprisingly, its called the "global message". (See "RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE" on the front-page) CABAL 11:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

References and Sources
Um, outside of the site itself, I find this policy near impossible and somewhat unfair to abide by, due to the nature of the subject. They should have a different policy for internet culture related articles (as they aren't often reported on the news or written about(though they are starting to now)), but I don't control how wikipedia works, so all I can really say about this is "meh." --Dch111 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A couple good references (subjective, though) that come to mind would be EncyclopediaDamatica and the 4chan Livejournal group at http://community.livejournal.com/4chan/ - both of these support the retaliatory DDOS chain of events --70.108.68.32 08:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thing is, though, is that both sources probably cannot verify such claims in any way, shape, or form. Also, I believe in some earlier discussion we decided not to use Encyclopedia Damatica as a source, citation, or reference, as it is much much more of a joke site than a reputable source. However, the livejournal group MIGHT be passable. I have no idea, honestly. (Steampowered 08:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)).
 * This also a good source for the whole recent stuff in /b/ http://trendpedia.elwiki.com/4chan and http://trendpedia.elwiki.com/7chan Playingviolin1 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Other Wikis are no more reliable sources than Wikipedia itself. Ryūlóng 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why I removed the long list of memes from the article. If they became as popular as All Your Base, say, they'd be notable, but as is the article should just describe the site itself, without attempting to analyze its culture. Ashi b aka tock 18:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

plus4chan
It has recently been pushed that plus4chan should not be included on the 4chan article. I disagree with this user, as plus4chan has been linked on one of the newer image boards within a week of its creation. Even though none of the 4chan team works on plus4chan, it has been linked from one of the newere 4chan boards since mid-April. This, alone, should merit its inclusion. Ryūlóng 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Related projects is made for stuff that is somewhat more related then just having 4chan's name in it. The lolikon boards on not4chan was on 4chan but then changed to not4chan. (see the article) And world4ch is managed by 4chan staff. Anyways plus4chan has nothing to do with 4chan except that they actually archive some stuff, and the mods have stickied it for a while. If we would add all "Related" projects which are not run by Team 4chan the article would look shitty. --Slushq 03:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * plus4chan is still a related project to 4chan, not just because it has "4chan" in its name. And the mods haven't stickied it "for a while", it's been stickied since its creation on the /po/ board, for four months, long past any threads' lifetime on 4chan. While both not4chan and world4ch were born of 4chan, so was plus4chan, although not from the 4chan team. It's not like every single other imageboard is listed under "related projects", it's just one additional site that has gained some form of notability on 4chan. Ryūlóng 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The mods want people not to request all crappy stuff over and over again, Thats why they stickied it. Still it's not a related project, it's a site that they linked and stickied. Lot's of sites has been linked in a sticky post and even if it's not 4months it doesn't fucking count as a related project JUST because it's not run by Team 4chan, the 4chan article is about 4chan. And like the other "projects" they've are/been managed by Team 4chan. But plus4chan has not. --Slushq 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any sort of purpose behind the inclusion of the link at the /po/ board, it still is a related project, regardless of the fact that it is not run by anyone who runs 4chan. It was created by the users of 4chan and has been linked from 4chan much longer than anything else. It's not like /b/radio, which is something created in one night; plus4chan has been up for a while, it's been repeatedly updated, and it has been continually connected to 4chan's /po/ board since a little after its creation. Also, please try to be civil in your posts. Ryūlóng 03:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok lets use examples instead then? /po/ the smallest board on 4chan is like a "flash page" on lets say CNN's homepage, and that flash page has a link saying "hey this site is good too". Thats pretty much what the plus4chan link is. And you're saying that we should add that as a related project, just because you think it's relevant enough to add on wikipedia? (Or atleast keep it on wikipedia)Would you add that "link" on that "newspage" on wikipedia as a related project? I mean it's just a archive of the site. Why does it need a whole bunch of text and not just a link saying "Arvhive of /po/" Not that that would be anything valuable to add but just as an example. --Slushq 03:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ryulong: plus4chan should be included in the article because of it is explicitly designed to archive 4chan material and is endorsed by those who run 4chan (so it's not some random fansite). Also, Slush, please review WP:CIV. The tone of your rebuttals borders on uncivil. Thank you. Xuanwu 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I get no 4chan content clicking on any of the menu bar. Why don't you wait with including it in the article until you've got something that's actually usable? Also, making a 4chan-archive site flashplayer-dependent is absurd. - Ados 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)