Talk:Is Anybody Down?

Object of the article is a transitory phenomenon and the article simply advertises the site

There's no credible reason why this particularly unsavoury site needs to be included as anything more than a footnote on a more appropriate article page.

The primary matter of general interest to date is that the proprietors of the site are involved with some extremely unsavoury legal shenanigans, which will almost certainly culminate in extremely serious legal ramifications. Perhaps that would make the content suitable for inclusion from the legal aspects - after all, it's an almost textbook example of extortion, fraud, and human stupidity, not to mention potential libel as the owners spout off all kinds of conspiracy theories - but it doesn't appear to offer anything of lasting value apart from the train-wreck factor. Good news material, but hardly a WP article!

Realistically, it's a badly-thought-out, rather puerile imitation of more important examples of this morally questionable behaviour, which are better documented and therefore more appropriately targeted examples of this type of thing.

I have some concern, too, that the article is offering little in the way of information, while being potentially nothing more than an advertisement for the website in question.

I also realise this talk content is now longer than the actual article! Cephas Atheos (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The article as originally written was far, far from an advertisement. It was pretty close to being an attack page against the website in question. Shortly after I started the deletion discussion, the article was trimmed down to what you see now. As an indication of just how this is *not* an ad, the IP generally associated with the site itself has !voted in the deletion discussion to have it removed. The deletion discussion continues, and looks at this point to be highly likely to result in it being deleted. That said, if any mainstream sources pick up on the ongoing blog-war against the site, it may actually suddenly meet notability requirements, at which point a neutral article could return. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ars Technica article, reliable source?

Looks like we may have our first English, fully reliable source for this. [1] - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That looks to me to qualify. Ars Technica was qualified as an RS for news in the early days of WP:RSN. It appears to be an article rather than a journal entry (as met concern there); the story is currently listed on the Ars Technica front-page as an in-depth report, and the writer is a professional with a respectable list of credits. Looks good! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There is also an NPR interview, here: http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/nov/16/is-anybody-down/ Apologies for my not signing/possibly following protocol - new to wikipedia editing, and thought this was relevant but did not want to edit the actual page.199.101.131.75 (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Self Advertising

Many of the "sources" are from the site itself and considering the user's location, I am pretty sure this is a cry for attention. There is also little importance of this company as it hasn't really affected people on the scale that Hunter Moore did. But this is only my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyboy5525 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I also removed two sentences claiming that Craig Brittain was interviewed because the source didn't mention this at all and is therefore not a reliable source. Given the rules, "facts" without reliable sources backing it up are to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyboy5525 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The source has a recording of the interview. The remarks about the "liberal agenda" are at roughly 6:20, the "not really upset" remark is at 7:00, and the "not victims" remark is at about 7:25. I have re-added the sentences. Huon (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability and recentism tags

I have removed some just-added tags:

• The "recentism" tags is for articles or sections where the focus is too much on recent events rather than on the topic as a whole. As the website that is the subject here is less than a year old, there are only recent events; there is no deep historical context which is being overlooked.
• The question of whether the topic meets notability guidelines ha already been address - an AfD was raised for the question of whether the topic met notability guidelines, and the decision was a clear "keep", as sufficient outside coverage was found.

I have left the POV tag for now, awaiting the talk page comments of the tagger. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed my POV tag. I did not realize this had been to AfD. But just out of curiosity, did the person (non-admin) who closed the AfD give you or anyone else a valid rationale for doing so? Nevermind, just spoke to the closer. Carry on... §FreeRangeFrog 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Style

Okay, so the article is notable now. However, it needs a serious rewrite in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style - 75.70.221.14 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just reverted this edit by 75.70.221.14. There were multiple issues. Firstly, it went into far too much detail describing the site's content and the NPR interview with Brittain. Secondly, it claimed the "Takedown Hammer" is an "independent third party mediation service" - I'd really like to see an independent reliable source for that claim... Thirdly, several sources, including Ars Technica, fell on the wayside despite retaining content that should have been sourced to them.

In the process I also removed links to articles on Chance Trahan, Craig Brittain (Web designer) and Paul Alan Levy, all of which were created by now-indef-blocked TheWesternWorld and are now up for deletion. Since they'll likely be gone in a few days I don't think we need these links; at best the articles on Brittain and Trahan could be turned into redirects to this article, which would leave a link especially pointless. Huon (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The major edit is written from neutral POV. POV must stay entirely neutral regardless of the opinions involved. -184.232.133.97 (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the edit was not written from a neutral POV. It accepted as fact improperly sourced claims regarding controversial matters. For that, and for the reasons described by Huon, it has been undone again. You clearly do not have consensus for this; if you wish to include all or part of these edits, raise them on the talk page and gain consensus before reinserting them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP 75.70.221.14 belongs to Craig Brittain. I see it has been blocked again. 91.125.219.10 (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have edited this page to reflect this subject better. I did not need to asl to have this changed. I am an expert in this field and I have already talked to staff about changig this through IRC. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChanceMFTrahan (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Chance Trahan

An editor has been repeatedly deleting any mention of Chance Trahan from the content, claiming that his involvement is "unsourced" and deleting it along with sourcing - specifically, the On the Media interview (transcript here) in which the host in the introduction (not the interviewee) describe's this article's subject as "the brainchild of two entrepreneurs named Craig Brittain and Chance Trahan".

On the Media, for those unfamiliar with it, is a National Public Radio broadcast out of WNYC. It has previously been accepted as a reliable secondary source in discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. It has won the Peabody award, the Murrow award, and others. As such, I'm missing how it can be claimed that this is not sourced, and reliably so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, than that one source can be re-inserted. I only intended removal of the sources that are blogs or otherwise non-reliable. This was discussed this morning on IRC and consensus was that these blogs are inappropriate on this article. Pinging the other involved party in that discussion on IRC: TOS. There was also an IP editor who wishes to remain anonymous that went by the handle of "Cloakless" on IRC. Technical 13 (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You have once again deleted the sourced information on Chance Trahan. Why? (And with whom were you discussing this on IRC? Not, it would appear, the editors of this article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Adding: Also, you have deleted as a source The Daily Dot, which has previously passed through the RSN here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no sourced information on Chance Trahan that I can see. The link that I followed that claimed to be The Daily Dot took me to an article "The Daily Dot teen" that I could edit without even signing in (I don't have an account to sign in). That is not reliable. Technical 13 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

By relying on the summary of the On The Media piece, you are ignoring both the audio of the NPR piece (which is on the page in the reference, Chance is named at 0:42) and the NPR transcript of the piece, which is also linked to in the reference. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Named but not call a founder at 0:42... Being a "brainchild" does not a founder make. Technical 13 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But "entrepreneur" does. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And going by the revision of the article before you started editing, the link to the Daily Dot is working just fine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies Nat. It was the Huff Post teen link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-benton/whos-to-blame-for-isanyon_b_1459042.html) I was referring to and not The Daily Dot. Feel free to restore The Daily Dot. Technical 13 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Another source on Trahan's involvement, the Colorado Springs Independent, calling him Brittain's "partner". --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

      Nat Gertler, you are clearly ignoring my comments on that CSInde post. 

I asked Chet to correct it publicly. I addressed him publicly.

     You also seem pretty determined and biased on this matter, why?

  This site doesn't even exist anymore, why do these people cling to it so hard then? 

ChanceMFTrahan (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We have multiple (I count at least 2) reliable sources that say you're affiliated with this organization/company/website. Thus, you'll need multiple equally reliable sources that explicitly say you aren't involved in order to be able to remove that, or say that it's controversial in the least. If you'd like to come back to the help channel as you were before, we can talk more in detail in live time, but if not I'm fine with replying here. Charmlet (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments on newspaper website articles are not considered reliable sources (per WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SPS), so yes, I'm ignoring the comments. As for my involvement being as it is: I'm a Wikipedia editor of a reasonable amount of experience. Once I was drawn into editing the article, my goal is to make it meet the guidelines, to make it a properly sourced article. The question of whether the website being discussed is notable enough to merit an article has already been raised and addressed in a deletion discussion. By Wikipedia standards, notability does not end simply because the subject itself ends. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Marc Randazza, Kyle Bristow and Adam Steignbaugh have conflicts of interest in this matter. They are listed here as revenge porn activists and lawyers working against the content of said IAD site. Major conflict of interest and this nullifies and voids their refs in this subject http://www.endrevengeporn.com/lawyers-helping-victims.html ChanceMFTrahan (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A reference having a conflict of interest means nothing. It is Wikipedia editors that have conflicts of interest. Regardless, since the references from Mr. Steignbaugh are cited for his opinion, they are perfectly valid. The others have no reason to be unreliable, thus are treated as reliable since the Daily Dot has also reported the information. Charmlet (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: User:ChanceMFTrahan has been blocked due to being a sockpuppet account of a blocked user, per WP:EVADE. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Bickering aside

What we have here is a dispute about what the sources say, with WP:BLP concerns being raised on one side of the issue. I've been in contact with Mr. Trahan over IRC, and while I certainly don't condone his legal threats and sockpuppetry (though, remember that he is a newbie, and don't be a DOLT), he's claiming significant negative effects on his personal life. As you see in the final few seconds of this video, he appears to have a legitimate challenge to the idea that he created the website (I mean, imagine if the MediaWiki developers were blamed for every inaccuracy that falls through the cracks here), which, coupled with the BLP issues, is more than enough to warrant removal of his name from this article until this dispute can be settled.

To be clear, if someone can find sources that thoroughly refute Trahan's claims (e.g. evidence of his acting on behalf of the site while it was running), I've got no problem with reïncluding his name. But when we have a legitimate dispute between sources, with real-world harms on one side, BLP is fairly clear that we should default to the position that protects the living person. So, I'm provisionally removing Trahan's name per BLP, until or unless sources can be found showing that he was actually involved in the site in anything other than a technical manner. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If we must provide more source, here - Colorado Springs Independent Daily Dot The Observer (tech section) Interview However, the interviewER is the one who says Trahan is involved, in his role as a reporter, not as an interviewer.

That's just a few, there's probably more if I don't just scratch the surface. I'll leave it to you. By the way, "technical manner" is kinda being involved - if you ask the WMF developers if they're involved in Wikipedia they're involved. As much as I hate it, if he was involved he was involved. There's sources, do with them what you will :) Charmlet (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a violation of WP:BLP since we have multiple reliable sources linking Trahan to the site. If those sources are wrong, that is a different matter, but not one that can be as easily addressed. My advice for the subject is to contact the WMF and ask them to intervene here, but this blog post and others like it suggest that the situation is not as simple as it might appear. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand has added a note which reads "Trahan has objected to being characterized as the site's creator or owner, stating that he was only involved from a web design perspective". If there is to be such a note, I would prefer that it reflects the source more accurately (something like "Trahan told Inside Edition that he was the site's designer and did not run the site"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In the CBS interview, for over 20 minutes, Brittain consistently says "us" and "we" when speaking about the website. In the second segment, at about 1:25, the interviewer asks "Who is 'we'?". Brittain replies, "We is me and Chance -- Chance Trahan -- that's my background partner. He's also the graphic designer for the website". I don't think there's any way to interpret that other than Trahan was, as reported in reliable sources, the co-owner. I'll be removing the weasel words now. Please don't reinsert them without a strong consensus here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So, your solution to disagreement is to revert twice to the version that BLP complaints have been raised about? Huh? Now, first of all, Trahan's claim (whether or not you believe it; I'm undecided myself) is that Brittain misrepresented his involvement. Secondly, and more importantly: If you think my note was weasely, then fucking re-phrase it, DC. If someone has an objection to a claim that's been made about them (and the objection can be verified through reliable sources), we traditionally include that objection, both for encyclopedic reasons and because we have an ethical obligation to be especially neutral when it comes to material about living people. Anwyays, I'm no fan of edit warring, but I've reverted you for the reasons outlined here. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand, I have examined the sources and come to the inescapable conclusion that we have multiple reliable sources connecting Trahan to the website, including a video where Brittain explicitly identifies Trahan as his partner. It is certainly possible that those sources are wrong, but we generally try to avoid original research and rely on what the sources say. It is certainly not normal to have "notes" which contradict the sources. After my edits to this article, I started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard to get some feedback. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DC here, this is a reliable source stating something. We include what reliable sources say. We dont have to, but thats a content discussion for here, not a BLP violating issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we have sufficient sourcing for inclusion of CT as being involved in the development of the site, and that that should remain. However, given that we include material on CB's stated reasons for developing the site, and assuming that Inside Edition can be counted as a WP:RS (and given CT's protestations here and elsewhere, I reckon it can be counted as reliable that CT made that statement), it does not seem out of balance to include that CT sought to distance himself from the management of the site, stating that his involvement was only "[whatever he said]". --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Continued removal of Chance Trahan references

There seems clear consensus raised among the editors of this article to include Trahan. An IP editor has sought to remove sourced references to him, which he seems unlikely to achieve when faced with the existing editors. Let me recommend that, if he feels he has evidence that our guidelines of biographical information about living persons have been violated, he take the issue to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Brittain also tweeted about his intention to write an autobiography, with silent partner Chance Trahan, about his experiences." [2] Maybe change opening sentence to "IsAnybodyDown? was a controversial revenge porn website founded by Craig Brittain and silent partner Chance Trahan"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional material

i don't have time at the moment, but there is an Ars Technica piece this week on Brittain trying to get Google to quas links to coverage if his FTC settlement. Might be worth a sentence. -Nat Gertler (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Also covered by Washington Post. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dryvyng

I've added some material on Dryvyng, Brittain & Trahain's new venture, as well as giving a redirect for that term here, as it is getting coverage and that coverage is largely within the context of IsAnybodyDown; beyond the example used as reference, you can also see that this Business Insider article both opens and ends with invocation of that website. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion that Dryvyng is not notable in its own right, and that the only notability it has is that it was created by the same people who created IsAnybodyDown. It has been suggested that a page be created for Craig Brittain and that Dryvyng be included on that, but that page is currently under an AfD discussion and may not survive. Although editorial best practice would suggest that this entry should be about one website alone, I believe that Dryvyng is actually relevant in this context.. especially if Craig Brittain (entrepreneur) is deleted. Shritwod (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that Dryvyng does not pass our notability standard for getting its own article at this point. However, we have multiple articles talking about IsAnybodyDown having an ongoing impact in terms of interfering with another venture. It is, to some extent, the "legacy" portion of this article, and I feel it should be restored (and I am not the only one to have restored it.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that one of two things will happen with Dryvyng - either it will become notable in its own right and will merit an article in its own right, or it will vanish completely and be forgotten in which case it can be excised from this entry. I don't think we are quite there with either of those options yet, so it does seem to me that mentioning it here [or on Craig Brittain (entrepreneur)‎ if it survives AfD] is appropriate. Shritwod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Source Material

Potential source material for the article includes:

-- Jreferee (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited.

Any future articles regarding the subject Craig Brittain should either be assigned to a new entry under his name or to separate entities in accordance with policy as he is individually notable. His new venture does not inherit notability from this entry. WP:INHERITORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.201.185 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2016 * Note: I have replaced the way that INHERITORG was invoked in the previous comment, because it had been placed as a template rather than a link, flooding the entire page onto this one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about the redirect to this page for Dryvyng. Notability is the standard for what gets its own article, it is not required for a redirect. Since this page is where we have some information on Dryvyng (at least, when you're not trying to delete the sourced information), barring Dryvyng qualifying for its own article, this is a reasonable target for it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please merge and move all future edits and discussion to Craig Brittain (entrepreneur). Thank you. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No; this is a page about IsAnybodyDown?, it passed through an AFD with suffiicient notability, and it should not be merged. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I nominated Craig Brittain (entrepreneur) for deletion as discussed on the AfD page. From my knowledge of the subject, Mr Brittain has in the past denied involvement in the website. Although the article does a good job at citing evidence of a connection, if Mr Brittain denies it then he has very little to make him notable. Certainly Dryvyng is not notable in its own right, therefore there is potentially nothing to infer notability on Mr Brittain. A matter for discussion though. Shritwod (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Heads up

Someone from Dryvyng has sent a DMCA request to Google requesting that this page be delisted. While that request seems unlikely to succeed, it may be a portent of other attempts to remove material here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Brittain more due for their own article?

Currently, Craig Brittain (businessperson) redirects here. However, he has continued to gain attention, both for his candidacy and for his legal actions. As such, it may be time to consider restoring his own article - the prior version of which was deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_November_6#Craig_Brittain_(entrepreneur) here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

The people who created this article are trying to create articles about themselves or their friends for promotional purposes and have somehow convinced the editors of this Wikipedia page that everyone and every article citation here are encyclopedically notable, which I regret to inform you, are not. Most people who create articles about themselves or their friends are not encyclopedically notable, and this page should be regulated with this in mind. It is also imperative to note that the articles linked to are libel, and are only posted on here as forms of abuse and harassment, and as a way of hijacking search engine results about someone they are claiming is encyclopedically notable enough to have this article written about in such a fashion that portrays hatred and disgust, and is intended to spread fear about a certain person or people mentioned here. This article should be removed by its moderator effective immediately. Silverscure (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You will find the old discussion of this article at Talk:IsAnybodyDown? -- for some reason, when this article was moved for title spacing, that page was not moved with it.

This page has no "moderator" per se. If you wish to see this article deleted for lack of notability, you are welcome to try the Articles for Deletion process. However, I should note that such deletion has been requested not just once (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IsAnybodyDown?) but twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IsAnybodyDown? (2nd nomination)), both ending with strong editor support for keeping the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

And now one of our many helpful editors has combined the old Talk page with this current one, so you should see more of the old discussions above. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)