Talk:4chan/Archive 9

Garbage
This is clearly Uncyclopedia material and not wikipedia material. It pasted and slopped together with no honest importance or information. I want to know what editor "ok'ed this article and erased several valid articles I wrote. This is why we will see the death of wiki.--68.112.54.12 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For example? InsaneZeroG (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The "caturday nap"
There needs to be something about 4chan's down time, especially the recent off line time that started this Saturday. I'd do it myself, but my account is only about three minutes old :( The ongoing conflict with lulznet and the whole soup fiasco should be put up here, as well as the fact that it caused almost every other *chan to go down.

Just a thought. also, signature

--Loanvital 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also do it, but I gotta go make some soup. William Ortiz 00:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I LOLed. Also, moot has apparently taken some time away from his soup to make a statement about the DDOS attack.. 71.203.209.0 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Links
Aside from 4chan itself, I think moot's blog about 4chan http://4chanstatus.blogspot.com/ (provided it is run by moot) and the 4chan archive site (since it archives threads and isn't something like a wiki) are worthy links. The rest might not be good links. Possibly, 4chanarchive may only be worth linking to as reference for histories of the site. Any thoughts? William Ortiz 03:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

this odd self revert edit of mine was because I thought someone removed the link and I didn't see they just moved it. William Ortiz 03:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's in "controversy", though since it's more of a history thing. William Ortiz 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just letting people know that 4chan is back online and I have edited the page to reflect this. If you want to reword it to seem more authoratative, feel free to. スミス ナサニアル 05:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if moot made this image free license so it can be put in this article. It is him holding up a can of a soup. http://img.4chan.org/b/src.cgi/1193202619061.jpg The link should last a while because the thread is stickied. William Ortiz 05:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Who removed the Wikichan link? It's a wiki dedicated to the *chans, I think it's relevant enough to include in this article. --M.W. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Pic?
It was here or uncyclopedia, I remember seeing a 'camwhore' regular, who seemed to be obsessed with Naruto. I'm sure this looks like a pervert looking for pornography, but really, would I use wiki for this? Can someone clarify if it was here or not, and any other information? Zeek Aran 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jokela school shooting
Should Pekka-Eric's posts on 4chan be mentioned? 90.231.13.132 13:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They weren't his. The post was made 2 hours after the shooting started. --daranz[ t ] 16:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand this obsession with linking every single psycho who goes on a shooting spree as being a /b/tard, but I do think it's somewhat inappropriate to put on the page about 4chan. This is about 4chan itself, not about someone who might've maybe used it but definately shot people up and killed himself. You can't really prove that he was a user. The guy who did the Dawson College shootings, he was for sure a VampireFreaks user, because he had a profile and so forth. 4chan's anon whatsit pretty much prevents the ability to ever prove anyone ever is a user of it, or what posts they do make, even if 4chan is in their bookmarks, like it is in mine.


 * I could go on /b/ right now, and post that I will go kill a Mexican man in NYC today. A Mexican man might very well die in that city on this day, but you'd have a hell of a time proving that my comment is in any way linked to said killing. Much like Cho Seung-hui. People saying he posted on /b/ about what he was going to do. Why? The guy went to NBC directly with his story, why in god's name would he bother with an anime imageboard that no one takes seriously anything said on? And with /b/'s atmosphere, you go and post "hey /b/, I'm gonna go and kill some people and then myself", you know what the reply will be? "DO IT FAGGET" I don't mean to be ranty, but I felt like throwing in my opinion on this matter. I would like to see an end to the constant psychos being considered for entry on this article. It's inappropriate and has nothing to do with the anime imageboard website 4chan. (The FoxNews article can stay, though, since it IS about *chans, and anon.) Howa0082 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do it faggot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.198.81 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Whose that girl, what's her name? is she totally insane?
In some 4chan related flashes, I've been seeing a girl with a W on her head an a T on her shirt, who is she?--24.141.132.24 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

She's called W.T. Snacks, more meme stuff. Wikipedia's not the place for this. InsaneZeroG 03:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. You're stupid. oops I forgot this is wikipedia. . . um. .. you are highly misinformed. That better? --Loanvital (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

W.T. Snacks was the former admin/coder of the site. The girl, W.T. Snacks-tan, is often used to represent him. --4.156.132.93 (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Second report
Fox11 issued a followup report on Myspace hacking on November 14  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.99.80 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Westroads shooting announcement?
Some topics on 4chan after the Wednesday shooting mentioned/linked to an archive of a 4chan /b/ post where the shooting plan was announced, two hours prior to the event. I don't have the archive link anymore, but it would be a good addition to this article if one could verify that that post was not retroactively made/a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.44.184 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, there were too many "an heros" lately, let's not encourage them. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Potential shootings should be prevented. all the more reason for cops to watch the Chans. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG! MOOT BOUGHT 7CHAN OUT!!111ONEONEONE
Shouldn't there be something in the article about NIGGERTITS's purchase of 7chan? If all of the stickies and the post on 7chan's news page turn out to be trolling on the part of the staff, disregard that, I suck cocks. Kinto Watanabe (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7chan is known for their modtrolls. --Philip Laurence (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it not painfully obvious that it's just the admin's way of mocking 4chan? - 72.94.202.203 (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ITT we show that we're fucking morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.99.253 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

misinformation about /b/
Anonymousb543 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC) /b/ discourages newcomers. first off unless you are a newfag you know that and there needs to be a way to tell the newcomers that they are called newfags. and people who have been around /b/ are called oldfags its not offensive and it also needs to mention things like the rules of the intarbutts and LURK MOAR

4chan has been turned into an Internet forum, "For The Lulz"
What happened?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * http://4chanstatus.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestiege23 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The domain registrar was hacked while moot was having soup. Damn soup. Every time he has it something bad happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.238.190 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blogspot reliability
Blogspot is not a reliable source, so don't add information to 4chan which is using it as a reference. Thank you.--Bestiege23 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case, I feel that the blogspot link may be permissible, per SELFPUB. An announcement on the current status of 4chan from the owner of the site as a source of information about the current status of 4chan seems appropriate to me (perhaps the 'presumed attackers' line should be removed). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" - there is no reliable source that the blogspot page is currently edited by the website owner. you edit conflictor--Bestiege23 (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting point. I'm 99% certain that the blogspot page was/is linked from the site itself - but with the site down, there's no way of checking... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too, so when the site does come back, we can add it back into the article and note it in the reference. For now, we must just wait.--Bestiege23 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, when the site comes back, the hacking probably won't even be worth mentioning. Ahh, as is WP... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the same reason down times and major errors are not notable, unless they last for long periods of time.--Bestiege23 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved here.--Bestiege23 (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blogspot is not a reliable source, so please stop adding information to 4chan which is using it as a reference. Thank you.--Bestiege23 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not using some mystical pool "Blogspot" as a reference, I'm using the site owner's own status blog as a source while the story is ongoing. I'll now un-revert the change, and add MORE sources, and will continue to add to this article as events warrant, in the true spirit of encyclopedic knowledge. Thanks for your interest. burnte (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable source indicates that the blog is in control of the sites owner, also wikipedia is not for breaking news, reliable sources are needed.--Bestiege23 (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * otakutimes.com is also just a blog, not an official news source. For example you can submit your own stories.--Bestiege23 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell do you have against expanding on a major disruption of a very popular website?burnte (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is likely to turn out to be a non-notable event, which is why there's no good sources on it yet. When a good source popups up, I'll add it back in. Quality > Quantity.--Bestiege23 (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Domain hijacking of a Top400 site is notable by definition. There are no sources because it is an ongoing event, which is also why I added th current event tag. More information > less information. This isn't a quantity argument, it's you disliking what several other people have deem notable. I'm not the only person who re-added the info, at that point you should have stopped reverting. I've reverted us both and I expect the appropriate punishment. I hope you do too. burnte (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, the OWNER'S BLOG is the most reputable source you can find, hence I followed rule 1, 2 and 3 at the top of this very talk page. You're declaring it an unreputable source is not valid. burnte (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's notable, there will be reliable sources on it in due time. How do you know it's the owners blog? You have no source on that, so you are making an assumption.--Bestiege23 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One, personal experience, it was linked from 4chan in October during server issues. He set it up as an off-site resource should 4chan be down. Second, you can review the posting history on the site to see how old it is. I think you have a personal bias here. burnte (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but personal experiences don't count as reliable sources.--Bestiege23 (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I posted the owner's blog, not my personal experience as the source for the information about the hijacking. I don't think you understand what blogspot it. Blogspot is a public blog HOST, they only serve the information created by it's users, such as moot, the owner of 4chan. If the owner is not a reliable source, what is a reliable source? Further, what is to keep you from requires a source for each source, ad infinitum? You're personally biased here, reverting edits by three different people. I've reported us both for violating the 3RR. burnte (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask you one more time, what evidence have you got that http://4chanstatus.blogspot.com/ belongs to the website owner? Without evidence, it is as reliable as my abc123.blogspot.com site.--Bestiege23 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to TELL you one more time, it has been linked from news and info pages AT 4CHAN numerous times. Since that site is currently down, I can't cite it. However, several people have TOLD you this, and you merely refuse to accept it. AFTER I told you I was reporting us both for violating the 3RR, you STILL reverted other people's edit, as well. If you have DOUBT as to the veracity of the source, READ IT, or you could have simply waited to see the cites when 4chan comes back up. Further, once 4chan is back, will you accept that as a source? Or will you insist that I cite a source for that, then a source for that, and a source for that? When does common sense come into play? You chose instead to be an obstruction in information because YOU don't feel it's notable. Last I checked, that's what the community was for, and so far THREE people feel this is notable compared to only you feeling it is not. You should have backed off a while ago, like I did. burnte (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't cite it while it's down, then you must wait until it is back then. The notability of the event is especially questionable with no good reliable sources. I find you to be a very unfriendly editor to discuss with, I feel in every message you leave for me you are assuming bad faith:


 * "What the hell do you have against expanding on a major disruption of a very popular website?"
 * "This isn't a quantity argument, it's you disliking what several other people have deem notable"
 * "I think you have a personal bias here."
 * Well I think you are an unfriendly editor...--Bestiege23 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm merely frustrated by your obstructionism. You've been editing for less than a month with this account, but you have no problem forcing your edits against now what seems to be 5 other people. You're not interested in any kind of consensus, you're right, we're wrong, the end. burnte (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bestiege23 is right. It is quite possible this is all a publicity stunt. Without a reputable source, there's not much to document. However, do you think the attempt at making people feel like a hijacking occurred (whether sincerely or not) is notable? It would add to the reputation/reliability of the site. It's quite a change from normal operation that's effecting a large community. Additionally, in perhaps the last two hours, the current controllers of the site have placed google advertisements on the site. Money making scandal? Seems notable. Teimu.tm (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The hijackers are making use of the traffic they've stoled for google cash, indeed. 4chan isn't eligible for google ads due to adult content on their site, the hijackers, no doubt, will find their adsense account closed shortly, for abuse, too. It doesn't make sense to do this for some Google ads when 4chan already has plenty of ads on the site under normal operations. Further, 4chan is huge, they don't need stunts for notoriety. burnte (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The blogspot link was instated around a month or two ago by moot, the site owner, after the site went down inexplicably for two weeks or so. The link to the blogspot website was part of every single page of 4chan prior to this new downtime and was the first auxiliary site to be redirected by the address 4chan.org to when the site initially went down (approx. 2:30 AM EST).  Take my word for it or not, I'll just see if archive.org has a page with the link on it.LanceHeart (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Blogspot page in question could also be found at status.4chan.org when it was up. You can verify that it's the official one by the fact that all of the original 4chan servers currently redirect to 4chanstatus.blogspot.com when accessed via their IP (obviously not by their domain, since they were hijacked and whatnot). --Guess Who (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Example: 66.207.165.166 currently redirects to the Blogspot, and a Whois on that IP will confirm that it's the proper IP for what should be www.4chan.org. --Guess Who (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm a little confused as well on how you expect a source to be sourced, Bestiege. Ok, so you'd like to see a link to the blog from 4chan.org's normal frontpage. That's understandable, but at the same time, this isn't some new blog. It's been up since October. Almost two months now of just reporting on random server issues 4chan suffers. It's fairly obvious that this blog is run by moot. We could ask moot to post to YouTube saying the blog is his, but then you would want sourcing to prove it really is moot and not, say, W.T. Snacks. And then sourcing on that to prove the proof is authentic, and... Howa0082 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 66.207.165.166 is the real IP of 4chan. as you can see, it redirects to the blog.  perhaps that can be sourced? UOSSReiska (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the power vested in me by Anonymous, I certify that 4chanstatus.blogspot.com is in fact official. (It was status.4chan.org, but for obvious reasons we can't use that at the moment.)MrVacBob (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So do we have consensus that 4chanstatus.blogspot.com is from the site owner?R00m c (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it's moot's. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 10:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Moot point (no pun intended).
None of this matters because there's no reason to believe the hijacking is notable. If a news outlet picks it up we can bring it back, but until there's a Wired headline that says "/b/tards Driven Out Into The Cold," there's no reason to even include this in the article. In a month, two months, a year, is this going to be worth mentioning? Let's wait until we know it is before even bothering to have this (heated!) discussion. JDoorjam    JDiscourse 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not notable to you, it's VERY notable to anyone looking into 4chan or the 4chan community. Remember, notability isn't global, it's with respect to the topic. If we were to talk about global notability most of WP would be gone. Further, this does not detract from teh article on 4chan, more information is better than less information. Please allow WP to grow, rather than trying to stunt the growth of articles in all likelyhood you don't even care about. If it's important in the history of 4chan, it's notable. burnte (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're wrong - notability is not subjective, it IS global, because this is a general-purpose encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if Restaurant X is notable in my hometown if it's not notable in a general sense. Wikipedia is not a news site, if it turns out to be a big deal then add it when it is. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet if there was an article ON your home town that restaurant may be notable within such an article despite not being notable if it had it's own article. Given how many people are impacted by this it's probably a lot more notable than a lot of other articles or sub-sections on various events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.239.232 (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument makes no sense. So if that restaurant had a Wikipedia article, and was closed down by a health organisation. It wouldn't deserve a mention? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because 1. plenty of restaurants are closed due to health inspections. If this was an especially notable closing (perhaps the town only has one restaurant), surely someone would write about it independent of the newspaper in a reliable publication, and 2. where your analogy falls apart is that moot can just go "okay, I emailed Network Solutions, got the DNS stuff back, we're all good to go now" and a week later the event will be completely forgotten about. If it leads to 4chan going down forever (lol), it IS notable. If someone writes about the horrible downtime in somewhere reliable, it IS notable. Just give it a week or so, as I'm not too concerned about the sourcing issue. If 4chan is still down, go ahead and make it a sub-section or stick it in the prose somewhere. For now, leave it out - let's wait until it settles down. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This may turn out to be unnotable, indeed. But until that time which proves it to be such, it should be treated as notable. I point you to various "breaking news" articles that crop up constantly, which noone moves to squelch at all, such as the Virginia Tech shooting, which was up and running within a disgustingly short time after the event began, and is only sticking around because certain people think that some guy going bugnuts and killing people is globally notable. Notability, no matter how hard you try to say is global, is still a POV of the event. Your POV is that such and such a thing is or is not globally notable. To further illustrate my point, let's go and put every anime article up for deletion, because starving kids in Africa don't give a rat's ass about Naruto and his mastery of jutsu, and if they don't care, it's not globally notable, is it? For 4chan users, this is important now. It may turn out to be not so notable in a week, in which case it can be removed. For now, it stays. Howa0082 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "But until that time which proves it to be such, it should be treated as notable." - "x is notable, prove me wrong" might be an effective troll technique on /b/ but it does not apply here on WP. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you, so I'm a troll? Fuck off and die, asswipe. Howa0082 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wooty, he was talking about a restaurant that already had a Wikipedia article. Its closure would clearly be notable, and as such, should be included in the article. As for my opinion on the topic, I would say we should wait and see what happens, and then document it if or when sufficient sources prove it to be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.165.180 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The website is already back up, just as I predicted. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your prediction sucked, because it's still having issues and still recovering. But don't let me stop you from being another wiki-obstructionist! burnte (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

'''IP addresses KNOWN to be of the 4chan servers *POINT TO THE BLOGSPOT BLOG*. There, your proof.''' 85.217.35.224 (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong, that's original research Lengthy Cat (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're only half right yourself. What the anon said was accurate, but, yeah, it was original research. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Original research only applies to content in the article itself. We don't need to prove in the article that the source is reliable – if we know it is, then it can be used. Grace notes T § 17:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The first part of that doesn't even make any sense. But no matter; I merely misunderstood his post, because it wasn't even a sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lengthy Cat (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All I can say, is that I came here looking for information on the current status of 4chan, and got nothing. There was a little bit earlier, but now the article is locked. I had to actually go through the history and discussions to find what I was looking for. Reading through this one, I can see why: One of the editors here is a jackass unwilling to admit he was wrong, and as a result this wikipedia page has become completely outdated. The blogspot being talked about here IS Moot's, and was put up the last time 4chan went down for a significant amount of time. [The link to the blogspot was what I was looking for.] As an aside, I would also like to add that the behavior of Wooty, JDoorjam and Bestiege23 have shown me that what everyone's been saying about rampant corruption of the ideals behind wikipedia are entirely true. You people disgust me. Thanks to your actions and behavior in this discussion page I can pretty much say I will never again support wikipedia in any way. Can you guys at least suck it up and admit you were wrong? No? Didn't think so. Great job ruining the site, guys. - Disillusioned wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.191.254 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An addendum to the above: I imagine you'll delete my previous post for 'trolling' I'm not trolling, I'm giving you a highly critical overview of the way I see your actions and the way they're affecting this site. But hey, don't take my word for it! Delete the posting and prove me right!


 * Wikipedia is not a news source. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Complaints about what you came here looking for mean little. If you didn't find it here, that's because you're looking in the wrong place! Editors make the "this is what people come here expecting to see, so we should add it!" argument all the time, but it's irrelevant. Policies trump personal feelings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Lengthy Cat (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't let the door hit you on the way out, 70.69. Wikipedia isn't a repository of breaking news on websites, hyperbole to the contrary. You might find the attack site below more to your liking. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 03:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "I came here looking for information on the current status of 4chan, and got nothing" - EncyclopediaDramatica.com had several updates throughout the event. You might consider checking there if this happens again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.88.5 (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we please lay out reasons for and against covering the takeover?
All I've seen so far is bickering about technicalities. I personally believe that the burden of proof is on the detractors of coverage. They must address that I and thousands of 4chan users know that the blogspot site was and still linked to m00t and the original 4chan IP addresses. Therefore, it is a reliable source. --Starks (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the source is reliable, but I do not think the issue should be covered until something happens, such as 4chan coming back up, or more information about the issue being posted on the Blogspot account. Right now, I don't see much point in covering the event unless issues such as "The Caturday Nap" are also addressed, which seems to be part of the same issue. --Muna (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't a link to the actual site itself be considered source? (4chan.org) Obviously, it's not currently in its healthiest state. -- DeviantSolution (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. The only blog on Blogspot which could be a reliable source is the Googleblog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources

The burden of citing sources is on the people adding the content, not those removing it. See the note at the top of the page. Highly speculative or dubious claims should be removed aggressively Lengthy Cat (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with the notion that an official 4chan status blog is not reliable about the status of 4chan (and indeed the notion that no blogs can be used as citation), I do agree that this hijacking doesn't need to be covered on Wikipedia, at least not yet. --Guess Who (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look farther down the page you linked to, Lengthy Cat. It says self-published or questionable sources can be used, so long as they meet certain criteria, such as "no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" (moot) and "does not involve claims not directly related to the subject" (it doesn't). Thanks for helping prove that the status blog is valid. Howa0082 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

4Chan is down
Starting since Dec. 14th, I can't access fourchan. The status blog said the domain was being compromised or something, but now it redirects to some Glexia thing. Concrete Complex (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glaxia are the domain-register company, from where 4chan.org was bought. They have closed 4chan.org because the domain account was hacked and stolen. Glaxia are working with the 4chan administrators and the FBI on what actions should be taken. I expect 4chan.org to be up again soon. It has not yet been decided if this is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. --Kuckzul (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Glexia is the hosting company that the hackers used. A domain is just a name that points at an IP address (see: Domain name), and when the hackers compromised the 4chan admins' account at the registrar (not Glexia), they pointed the domain at a different IP address: The hosting account on Glexia. See for yourself. Use your favorite DNS or ping tool, etc, to find the IP of "diditforthelulz.com", then do a reverse DNS request on that IP. You'll end up at Glexia, the hosting company. Lengthy Cat (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Im with lengthy cat on this one, diditforthelulz.com just redirected 4chan.org to their own site. Thats why the Glexia page came up when people went to 4chan.org. Tirus (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Back up
Only /b/ has nameserver problems. Now start the mighty gathering of "reliable sources" so that this important event will actually be mentioned someday in this article! 85.217.35.224 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead... again
I don't really know enough to write about it, but I will write what I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaZero Alpha (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the48:00 PM EST ~ 15/12/2007):

Glexia is in constant contact with Moot and other 4chan executives and we are working both with them and the FBI to resolve this situation as soon as possible.

(Last Edit: 15/12/2007 @ 1:48 PM Eastern)

There needs to be an article written about this at once. Date is 15 dec 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.182.254 (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason we need to wait on this one is because this could be just a temporary fix. Since the main boards are now up it could be not long before the main page is restored. We need to just wait and see what happens.R00m c (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 4chan, being helped by the FBI. Wait, what? --Conradical247 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

ALSO: It's been linked to Goons.net, which I presume is a bit naughty. --Conradical247 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

4chan was taken over by FortheLulz.com on Friday, December 14th, and returned to the control of the admins sometime around Sunday, December 16th. There was a forum posted briefly by the hackers, which was then taken down and a post from the hackers was put up, with a list of online handles of those who participated in the take over. If anyone has more info, it would be helpful. And it does need to be added to the 4chan main article as an event. It's not everyday that someone else is able to take over 4chan, and handle the traffic load of 4chan for any amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.36.54 (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-important basement-dwelling script kiddies and trolls are not noteworthy. Please take a few weeks to review Wikipedia content guidelines before making any more suggestions Lengthy Cat (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Insult to 4chan
This supposedly neutral and free online encyclopedia has placed Image:4chan121507.jpg, a clearly non-representative screenshot of 4chan.org, at the top of this article, treating it as if this is the normal state of 4chan, not worthy of mention in the article text. I would correct the problem myself, but it has been "semi-protected" to prevent members of the public from improving on your violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, among other rules.

I'm sure I'll be banned for saying this, but the image should either depict 4chan in its former glory, or the article should include an explanation of recent events. Pedantic &#39;Pedian (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia didn't do it, a USER did it. Stop generalizing, and it's been fixed. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's back again, and now the article has been protected, so only an admin can remove it Lengthy Cat (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it. JDoorjam     JDiscourse 00:00 (hey, cool, a posting at 00:00) ), 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Place Image:4chan.jpg back on, please. Will (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. JDoorjam    JDiscourse 00:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)