Talk:Epik

@Amigao: There have been a few edits recently to remove Dan Keen as the "owner" of Epik. I have no strong opinion on the edits trying to remove a portion of a sentence that Keen owns Registered Agents Inc. (which seems easily verified by RS, though maybe isn't necessary to mention in the lead), but it does seem weird to list Keen as Epik's "owner" when he is in fact the owner of a company that provides a registered agents service. It seems likely, as is supported by the sources, that the actual new owner of Epik is a client of Registered Agents, rather than Keen himself. I think listing him as the owner in the infobox is potentially misleading to readers. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Since Registered Agents Inc. is the owner of Epik (press release), Keen would technically be an ultimate beneficial owner of Epik, which I have seen the infobox 'owner' field serve as. - Amigao (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems like it would be clearer to just omit the field from the IBX and address it in-text, since operationally he likely has nothing to do with Epik. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

It's fairly common that an owner is separate from the operational management. I would think that operational management tends to go in the infobox as 'Key People' and the 'Owner' is, well, the owner. - Amigao (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Amigao:: I read the Wired articles you're using as citations, and it clearly states that Registered Agents Inc acquired assets from Epik (technically, RA Inc. formed an LLC called Epik LLC to acquire the assets from Epik Inc.--I know it's confusing--and the original Epik Inc. entity may no longer exist. This source while not as notable as Wired, explains the ownership chain, I think, clearer: https://www.techradar.com/pro/the-worlds-most-controversial-domain-registrar-has-a-new-owner-and-apparently-it-is-forging-a-new-path)

It seems odd you're fixed on listing an individual as owner, even though in the first Wired article, the company says that Dan Keen is not the owner of Registered Agents Inc. In the second one, he's listed as "founder," and you say he's "beneficial owner." After reading through that story and all the aliases, I'm not even sure if Dan Keen is real :) If he's an alias, then he'd be a key person, but seems like speculation/ambiguity around beneficial ownership, however, there's no ambiguity around legal ownership. So why not list Registered Agents Inc. as owner? Dunkinidaho (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

According to the Feb 8th Wired article, "[T]he founder and owner of Registered Agents...is a man named Dan Keen." The March 5th Wired article is a more in-depth investigation of Dan Keen and the company he founded, Registered Agents Inc. - Amigao (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Fair. Hey, I came in on this page way too hot and didn’t understand the ramifications of my initial edit that kicked this off. That was foolish. My apologies. That said, the additional fields you mentioned in your reply led me to look more so into the company template infobox parameters and I now understand the full context of what @GuerillaWarfare was saying in her initial comment (also thanks to @grayfell for prompting me to the talk page). Albeit a noob, I think for reader clarity it’s cleaner to update the pages' infobox with parent company being Registered Agents Inc., in accordance with the "owner" fields' parameter where it states: "If the company is majority-owned by a single entity and as such is a subsidiary or division, omit the owner field and use the parent field instead. Do not use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent."

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_company#:~:text=equity%20also%20supplied.-,owner,-(or%20owners) Dunkinidaho (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Grayfell: I see now that I've improperly tagged you in my thanks above, but all the same, I was hoping for additional clarity on your most recent IBX revert? Dunkinidaho (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

After reading the sources, I think User:GorillaWarfare is right and that listing Dan Keen in the infobox is likely misleading. The Wired articles do not appear to establish that he is the current owner of the company, and Wired quotes the company attorney saying Keen is neither the owner nor an employee. I see that the company's About page discloses that its ownership is held in both a trust and a foundation. While a primary source cannot be the sole reference, the description aligns with the attorney's statement in Wired. The Epik article currently states that the company is beneficially owned by Keen, which appears to be a stretch as none of the articles cited state this - I believe this may fall under WP:NOR and the writer of the sentence seems to telegraph that they are themselves insecure about it with their citation overkill. I believe the info box should report that Registered Agents is the parent company without mentioning an owner, as it did earlier.

As a tangent, it feels like there is a related campaign to try to make the Registered Agents company look bad, or worse than facts represent, because the company acquired the controversial Epik registrar (which provided platforms to awful hate groups). I don't have any issue with facts presented neutrally, nor with articles that merit inclusion, but there is an effort to intimidate me from calling into question the Registered Agents article's notability and insisting upon balance, accuracy, and neutrality. I'm not particularly convinced there is sufficient notability for there to be an article about Registered Agents - that article likely ought to be replaced with a paragraph here on the Epik page as it is too thin currently. (See: Talk:Registered Agents Inc.) CapnPhantasm (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]