User talk:Intelliname

April 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Epik (domain registrar), you may be blocked from editing.  Woerich   (talk)   17:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Epik (domain registrar) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Woerich   (talk)   17:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Woerich   (talk)   18:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Hello Intelliname. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Intelliname. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Ifnord (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC) This is also for your threats of outing as well. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And I see that you admit that this account is a shared account created by your PR agency, which is not permitted. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * is it possible to remove their ability to edit this talk page? I’m worried they will use it to carry out their outing threats, and the fact that they have stalked me down to a now-archived teahouse question is a disturbing indicator of what we might expect from this individual(s) later on.  Woerich   (talk)   18:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone else will review this. But you stated here that "This account was in fact set up by our Public Relations agency to handle and address this specific abuse report." 331dot (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to reviewing admin: please revoke TPA. --MrClog (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @331dot. I hope that beyond your analysis and assessment of my input and your use of it back towards me, that you find some validation in the points I have prior made as the justification for my change edits. As well as reasonable form for complaint as one of your administrator's has literally through their own self admittance advised they were concerned that their relativity to these transactions was getting ready to be made public. This is not in the good faith spirit of why Wikipedia was created. It is not in the good faith spirit of how it should be operated. It is not in the good faith spirit of how it should be managed. There are a million people in our community getting ready to be made aware of this particular thread. I am not threatening to out anyone. Or take advantage of a situation. Or see words used back at me out of minor convenience for the moment. Wrongs need to be righted. I am trying to do it the compassionate way with your consensus and awareness. This Epik page has a long history of having changes attempted to be made to it, and almost instant responses by the same individuals repeatedly.

Thank you for your continued consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelliname (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Any reviewing admin should just take a glance at the various edit summaries used in this person's edit war on Epik (domain registrar), which not only accuse Wikipedia editors (including myself) of an orchestrated campaign against Epik but make unfounded accusations and threats like "My recommendation again is to cease and desist your activities before their root benefitee is exposed into the light." Intelliname, I edit this page because it happens to sit at the overlap of two interests of mine: technology, and radical political groups. You'll notice I edit a handful of articles in both of those spaces. If you're wondering why myself and others "almost instant[ly] respon[d]" to changes to this page, it's because Wikipedia has a watchlist feature. I have been editing Wikipedia nearly daily since long before I created the article on Epik, and the first thing I do whenever I log on is check my watchlist. When articles I've edited or created (which are automatically added to my watchlist) are repeated targets for whitewashing and vandalism, it's natural that I show up often keeping the page accurate. The same is true for many active editors on Wikipedia and their respective areas of interest, and is not part of some conspiracy against Epik. I do the same thing at other articles that I have contributed to extensively; article outside of these topic areas such as Mary Jackson (engineer), and articles within them like Gab (social network) and Christopher Cantwell.


 * By the way, this is not the first time people associated with Epik have gotten fighty about their article. Indeed their founder and CEO has come after me on Twitter before . GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh, you and your Satanic world view, eh? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Instead of continuing your baseless accusations against Wikipedia editors, which would not justify edit warring anyways, maybe (just maybe) you should apologise, explain why your behaviour was wrong, etc. (read WP:GAB). --MrClog (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your name is literally GorillaWarfare, and one of two links you have on your page is The Satanic Bible. Plus you have remained on call within minutes of any direction to be a singular point to attack Epik repeatedly and help curate data. This is fact, and I am not judging you for it, but it will be made clear and illustrated to our fullest capacity. If you are asking me to provide an account for your curation, I will do so. I've already addressed and dealth with individuals ranging from the law firm that initiated this on behalf of the lobbyist, to getting their social media accounts re-established last week, to having redaction plans made from most of the tiers you used in your research and report. The input I have received though is far, far, far, removed from painting you as a passive reporting observer.

"This account was in fact set up by our Public Relations agency to handle and address this specific abuse report."

I'll clarify this as well in case it helps with review. This account was not setup by a public relations agency in support of Epik. This account was setup by a team of people that own a public relations agency, and felt it necessary to voluntarily help a company that has never paid us for media services, knowing that they have done more for others internationally in the last few months than most critics will do in their lives.

I am here because I have watched Epik give money to people to keep their domains active. I've watched them translate books into foreign languages to help the impoverished change and transform their lives. I've watched them show compassion and care to people across six continents, with no care of what their skin color or religious preferences are. I've watched as they have spent money and resources to introduce books, education, and access to the Internet in areas across the world that have no access to libraries or online resources. And I watched a great evil come forth and try and smite them down because they cracked decentralization in their technology offerings, and wanted to legitimately use it to help with more equality and opportunities for those who have been forgotten.

The concept of letting one more day pass as people of privilege let them be smeared across the world on every Google search, as the panel literally brands them as Neo-Nazis and a haven of wickedness? This CEO purchased technology so that he could help clean up the world, and maybe serve as a guiding light for lost folk who held hate in their heart. In turn the system is trying to eat him, and it will not stand. I'm coming with love in my heart but please understand that this situation has destroyed lives, harmed families, undermined incomes, prevented positive growth, and tainted individuals that had dedicated their entire lives to serve others.

Please I am asking you humbly and with all kindness in my heart, help make the right decisions here.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/open-letter-to-namepros-community.1180391/
 * What does my username and a completely unrelated Wikipedia article about the Satanic Bible have to do with anything? I'm intrigued to see that you are focused on the Satanism thing, as I just edit conflicted with you to mention that Epik's founder and CEO has also made weird accusations against me to do with Satanism. Strange coincidence, maybe.I am not "on call", nor do I attack Epik–I write the article to reflect what is said about Epik in reliable, third party sources. I do curate data; indeed that is what all Wikipedians do. I absolutely curate the Epik article, you don't need to prove that -- it's all in the public page history. It is both common and acceptable for Wikipedians to have areas of interest where they are particularly active. It's fine with me if you are working with the publishers of the various sources used in the article about Epik to have their articles amended–in fact, if that succeeds I would ask you to let us know so we can adjust any information that might be based on things that are retracted. It seems odd that these sources would publish articles critical of Epik and then retract them as soon as Epik complains, as surely any article they publish critical of a company would result in a complaint from that company and not end in a retraction, but hey, not my circus. I am not sure what the last part of your first paragraph means, and would appreciate you clarifying. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not here to play trade off games GorillaWarfare. I am here to expose the bias. Many people are now watching this thread. One literally just commented: "Wikipedia is the bolshevik's dream come true. What a nightmare. I commend all who battle this one out." They are prepping forums, they are prepping emails, they are prepping video highlights. Websites.org and others have confirmed they have made redundant copies. I have come in love and peace to rectify wrong. The every correspondence here and the embedded change notations in the logs will not lie.

For those who would know:

This is Epik winning the best registrar of the year award two week ago, in a vote that included technology executives from GoDaddy, Dynadot, NameCheap, NameSilo, Escrow, and 900+ other technology leaders. Recognizing Epik's CEO for his help, service, recognition, care for others, dedication to people, his investments in technology, and even in persevering for this past year after an army of paid editorial warriors tried to associate him to platforms he literally purchased to ensure they could be retooled and used as tools for greater good. Instead of harming others.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/epik-wins-the-namepros-2020-best-registrar.1183404/

This is Epik's CEO telling everyone humbly how he will ensure he continues in his work to help others and put the needs of those who can be empowered to first through the innovation of their company.

https://twitter.com/robmonster/status/1245025748995444737

Can you imagine what it would take to keep pressing forward, knowing that when anyone searches for your company name on Google, Wikipedia has made it so the only words that come up next to your name are that you are a Neo-Nazi and an extremist?

https://www.google.com/search?q=epik+holdings+inc.&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS787US787&oq=epik+holdings&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l4j69i60.3690j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You did this. Repeatedly over and over and over and over. You changed text. Adjusted narrative, and crafted this messaging so that it could be used contextually down to the word count, then helped to defend and propagate it at every junction of contact and communications. Now you reference fighting battles with others like Epik with no regard to the consequences?

This is an unequivocal and disgusting abuse of power. If you can't see it I will show you. I implore you - do everything in your respective powers to make this right.


 * The Epik Wikipedia article reflects what has been written about the company in reliable, third-party sources–not what has been written about the company in forum posts, its own press releases, and its CEO's tweets. If you are upset that Wikipedia will not write puff pieces based on Epik's PR, I'm afraid I can't help you there. Dig all you like through the edit history, and you will see a careful adherence to Wikipedia policies on reliability and neutrality. This is not my first day on this website, and I am well aware of how encyclopedia articles are written here–they are neither meant to be hit pieces on a company, nor are they meant to be promotional. Epik's article is neither, and nor will it be allowed to become a whitewashed puff piece. If Epik would like its Wikipedia article to stop saying that they are known for providing services to various objectional groups, then perhaps it ought to focus on not making headlines for doing just that. Wikipedia will continue to reflect what is said about Epik in external sources, as we do with any other company.


 * As for what comes up next to Epik's name on Google searches, anyone who actually reads the results will see that the Wikipedia article says nothing about Epik or its people being Neo-Nazis or extremists. As far as I am aware they are not. But they have provided services to those who are, which has been covered widely in the press, and so is discussed in their Wikipedia article as well. I guess I don't know if you're referring to search results which include websites that are not Wikipedia that call Epik or its people neo-Nazis or extremists—my search results primarily show press releases and websites that aggregate company data. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You - @GorillaWarfare - are not Wikipedia. The arrogance it would take to even conflate your representation as being one and the same is astounding. It is not your responsibility to judge between "puff pieces" or non-biased authenticity. Especially as the only thing I published was the CEO's name, their headquarters address, and eight words saying they were a domain name registrar and a hosting company. You have already displayed and demonstrated where your bias exists, as well as your clear inability to handle this professionally or with any sense of dignity. Your colleagues can jump all over these statements and take offense to them all they want. They are not the ones that Wikipedia is portraying as a Nazi or a sympathizer for murderers.

I am making no threat when I tell you clearly: this is shortly going to become a national issue. Then a legal watchdog issue. Then a platform accountability issue. Facts don't lie. Truth will be exposed. I am asking you again to reconsider your positions, to let those who know Epik and can speak to their service levels and heart be able to access and adjust the Wiki page on them accordingly. This again is one of the worst singular examples of tailored targeted that I have ever seen, and I promise you that I will not be standing alone in my views of this.

Reference part of your "neutral curation" efforts"

Monica, with all due respect, if Epik is a “haven for right-wing extremism”, then so are CSC (the domain registrar for Twitter) and RegistrarSafe, LLC (the registrar for Facebook and Instagram). I find it very curious that Epik is blacklisted for serving as the domain registrar for 8chan (although, as Taylor Soper’s more recent blog pointed out, Rob’s other company, Bitmitigate, will no longer host 8chan), but I rarely, if ever, do I see Facebook, Twitter or their respective domain registrars being described as havens for all kinds of extremism be it black racism (Louis “I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite” Farrakhan) or white supremecy ("Does Twitter Have a White Supremacist Problem? Seth Rogen Sure Thinks So" -- Fortune, July 4, 2018). Mein Kampf is available on Amazon, so is Amazon now a haven for Nazis?

If you knew Rob Monster or read his posts on Gab, which I would encourage you to do, you would know that his support of free speech—whether it comes from racists, liberals, conservatives, atheists or even. . . born again Christians—does not translate into support for “right-wing extremism”. You would earn more credibility as a journalist/blogger if you did a little due diligence on Rob Monster. Sadly, it’s headlines like this one that give credence to the term, “fake news.”

I’m proud to have to have my domain name registered with Epik.

Please do the right thing.


 * No, I am not Wikipedia. But I am very familiar with how Wikipedia works, more than you I think, and am comfortable speaking on behalf of other Wikipedia editors when making such non-controversial statements as "Wikipedia does not host puff pieces".


 * Anyone who takes one second to glance at your editing history will see that you did not only publish those eight factual words on the company—you removed enormous swaths of text to try to hide any mention of the criticism that Epik has received.


 * If you think you can intimidate me into whitewashing this article for you, you are wrong. I very much doubt this will become a "national issue" like you threaten, but if it does, my conscience is clear—I have written and helped maintain a neutral article, which has seen its fair share of editors such as yourself trying to remove all mention of controversy. I'm afraid that saying "I am making no threat" does not mean you are not being threatening, and I have no interest in being threatened. I also think I have said all I can say to try to explain this issue to you. With that I will take my leave of this talk page. Best of luck with... whatever it is you are doing here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This type of response is exactly what is wrong here. This isn't about your feelings or your personal validation of yourself. You are making it about you which is absolutely crazy. Hiding behind the name GorillaWarfare, as you believe it is righteous and your responsibility to destroy people you do not know and will never meet. One more organization and individual who non-declared bias and relationships using the words "racist", "nazi", and "extremist" to destroy lives. Shame on you and your sense of entitlement and arrogance. I am expectating that input ranging from the SPLC through to Taylor Soper will shortly be a massive help to others who have also found themselves becoming the victims of Wikipedia targets.

Within a week everyone will know of your correspondence with Taylor Soper, Monica, the coordination by the Southern

I am archiving for this thread again the changes I attempted to post today, and the reasons why:

- Epik was the victim of a coordinated attack to conflate purchase of server resiliency tools as support for racism. The containment has been largely reversed, including restoration of Facebook and other article redactions and public apologies. They just won Best Registrar of 2020. A group wanting media exposure targeted them to maximize media exposure. The same precedent elsewhere, every shooter that announced intentions on social media would see those tech suppliers branded the same.

- Restoring basic information per prior adjustment justification. Historical summary under preparation per legal guidance as third party review and re-orientation source.

- We have already confirmed that the original posting actions of the unverified comments and paid actors who wrote the pieces were not only invalid, but part of an orchestrated effort against Epik due to their progress in designing a full stack technology service to enhance server resiliency. If you progress your true nature and allegiances will be published. Please be kind here.

- Now as your team members converge, you are revealing the participation levels of the orchestration against Epik Holdings, Inc. in a public format. You are welcome to email me for the coming change citations being made, but we would rather not have to publish them in the open clear. Especially with the degree of accountability and exposure happening due to global issues.

- As per my prior notations, this thread contains information that was intentionally produced, curated, and published in a concerted effort to harm an organization intentionally so that the value of this placement could be positioned nationally in support of targeted media concentration as part of a TI program. One of the gatekeepers is literally called GorillaWarfare. My recommendation again is to cease and desist your activities before their root benefitee is exposed into the light.

- Revisions made with the notation you have threatened to block from Wikipedia, refused engagement by declaring an offline status on the basis you are battling COVID19, that members of your team have been paid with specific intent to harm Epik, and that this degree of narrative control and disinformation is coordinated and needs to stop. I am working to revert back to original status. You are hiding behind Wikipedia policy that is being weaponized by paying parties. This backfires badly for you.

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Cabayi (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)