RationalWiki:Chicken coop

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Pommer's Law in action.

The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM). Despite the name, this tends to be serious business.

This page can be used for reporting cases of administrative abuse (abuse of sysop or moderator abilities such as blocking, page deletion, or user rights management), general abuse (such as trolling, wandalism, and personal attacks), and conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion (such as long-standing edit wars or article content disputes). Please be specific and include links to any relevant discussions, page edits or logs.

Please try to resolve conflicts with other editors directly through discussion on their user talk page before reporting them at the chicken coop. If you do report an editor's behaviour here, please leave a message on their talk page to alert them to this, so that they have a chance to discuss their actions here.

If the issue is not conflict resolution, but concerns RationalWiki policies, suggested changes to how things work around here, or similar matters of principle or general importance, please post on the Community Standards talk page instead.

All editors are welcome to comment on the cases raised here, and to try to reach a consensus on any action to be taken. If no consensus can be reached, and the HCM seems to be escalating, moderators are expected to take some action. However, any serious or permanent solution, such as removal of rights or lengthy ban, requires a community vote here according to the guidelines laid out in our Community Standards.

HuskyHarlot

I hate to be back here so soon, but as discussion had been going on at Talk:Gamergate tonight, I began to realize that HuskyHarlot has been ignoring my posts and responding to a third editor each time and above my own, making the talk page a bit of a mess to read. My attempt to make the page actually legible by placing the comments in the order they were originally posted (with various sub-threadings) seems to have struck a nerve with her, as she seems wont to accuse me of refactoring them when it's clear from the diff that barely any of them were even touched in my attempts to restore order to the page. She does not like this and is seeing fit to edit war with me about it. This is surely very wrong. What to do?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I see he has already filed a complaint. If someone chooses to respond to another editor and not you, perhaps the problem lies within. You can not force anyone to converse with you and you should not refactor comments to appear that they have. Sarah (HH) 06:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The one here who has refactored comments is yourself, as evident with the following diffs where each time you leave a comment on the page, it's to post yours directly above my own to respond to Player 03 rather than have the thread properly threaded: [1] [2] [3] Surely, RationalWiki doesn't condone such disingenuous discussion tactics. Not to mention that restoring a chronological order that you seem to have intentionally disrupted counts as refactoring. The only thing I've done to your comments is add a timestamp to that post you forgot to sign hours ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I note that with each revert HuskyHarlot has done, she has erased the comments I made calling out her disingenuous discussion tactics. It's hard enough to read some talk pages as it is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I added them above your comments with the proper indents, showing I'd replied to the poster, rather than your response to the poster.

I was previously offered (indirectly) admin tools but uninterested. As I said to the editor who suggested it, other than unblocking myself what would I do with them? Instead I'd rather not be blocked in the first place. Now I wish I had them. I don't know if this was the case here previously, that editors vied for power so they could use it against others but iit is certainly the case now. I will not be editing that page again in the near future. Sarah (HH) 07:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the way everything was formatted was getting out of hand such that anything I had said to you or Player 03 was being pushed all the way to the end of the page, making an ugly little crescent of the indents. It's clear you have nothing to say to me as you classify me as an anti-Gamer whatever and I already know how to blow all your hackneyed Gamergate conspiracy theory talking points out of the water. That's why Naqoyqatsi also hasn't really responded to how I pointed out that the stuff they posted has no real relevance to what Gamergate should be about, and that was met with having it reverted outright. The concern trolling from Gamergaters is getting tiring but it seems I'm only one of a few here who can ID that shit straight out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Looking through their edit history, it's very apparent they are only here to harass Ryulong. While I don't care for Ryulong on the sysop-level, Tielec put it best when he said that we should still continue to defend Ryulong from GG harassment. Therefore, I've gone ahead and wandal binned HH. While people are free to reverse this pending a discussion here, a simple look through HH's history shows that they are a one-trick pony and should be treated as such until they prove otherwise. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside the individuals involved in this dispute, is there an established practice about how replies should work? If A posts, and B posts a reply to A, and I wish to reply to A not B, where should I insert my reply? After B at the same indentation level? Before B at the same indentation level? Or does it not matter? If it matters, then refactoring a deviation from the rule to comply to it would be acceptable; conversely, if it does not matter, then doing that kind of refactoring is best avoided. If one can agree on what the rule is in general, then one can admonish the editors involved to follow that rule in the future. Zack Martin  07:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that the following

• A
  • B
    • A
      • B
        • A
          • B
            • A
              • B
          • C
      • C
  • C

Is not the right way to do things (if all indent levels are to be assumed to be related to each other).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? What does it matter? As long as the indents differ from each other so you can easily see where one user's comment ends and the next begins, I don't see the harm. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a point where it begins to be disingenuous when any response is just pushed a printed page away from its original context.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Posts don't need to be in chronological order. As long as replies are below the thing they reply to with an extra indentation things should be fine. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Except it turned into that weird curve above.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as it's clear which is replying to what, I don't see a problem. If you think that looks messy, you haven't seen some of the messier saloon bar discussions, with outdents added in the middle obfuscating what is what and who is talking to who. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My issue was that it was intentionally disrupting the flow of the discussion in that every comment I had made was being pushed further and further down just so they wouldn't be in her way of talking to the other participant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, I think you are being overly sensitive here. I've never seen anyone complain about the order of replies before. It is generally a haphazard thing. If your insistence on reordering them is contributing to comotion, just leave the order as-is. Zack Martin  11:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate

I'm unsure how the process works here. Can someone stop Ryulong from refactoring my comments on the Talk:Gamergate page please? Thank you. Sarah (HH) 06:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I literally made a thread right above this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that HH has been removing comment from the talk page on GG. By the looks of it the comments removed were Ryulong. I guess it is about ethics in talk pages for HH? --Aile Dhoo (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's hard for me to break my ethics on talkpages here, but I feel since that page has been nothing but a troll magnet, we should consider a community vote on some measure of long-term protection of that talk page. It would have to be a community vote (since it would be an exception to one of our rules), but it should at least be put to one in hopes of getting the trolls to lose interest for a bit. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me but the only comments I removed were ones he added while refactoring. If he'd allowed my revert to remain long enough I would have re-added his comments but the edits were too complex to do both simultaneously. This editor re-organized my comments to make it appear I was responding to him when I was not, re-formatted one because line breaks are apparently an aesthetic offense. I have gone out of my way not to interact with Ryulong, ignoring him can not be considered "harassment" by any definition. Sarah (HH) 07:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I refactored. Finished, then added additional comments. And I was not refactoring the comments so it looked like you were responding to me. I was reording the comments to show that I was responding to you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Untrue. There is no need to argue, one can simply compare the page previous to your refactoring [4] and post [5]. Your goal seems to be to "win" fights on the internet and for that you need to pick fights, as you did when you blocked me for my userpage, as you did months later when you deleted my user page, as you did when you hid revisions from my restored userpage and as you've done tonight. What you fail to realize your harassment is a direct results of that. I am not interested in fighting. Sarah (HH) 08:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Corrected links Sarah (HH) 08:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You're a Gamergater coming to a liberal website trying to convince people that the group isn't as it's described by the 300 citations being used to describe it. I'd say you're the one here itching for a fight.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

HH, you came here to pick fights, as you did when you decided to "win" the internet fight on GG's behalf, as you did when you turned your userpage into a parody of Ryulong's userpage on Wikipedia, as you did when you fought tooth-an-nail to be able to continue to mock Ryulong, as you did now when you engaged in a revert war with him. And now you even go full victim blaming on Ryulong, because he apparently deserves all the harassment from you and other gators just because he refuses to be silenced and chased away from the internet? You, HH, are only interested in fighting. Typhoon (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate is a stupid waste of time. But Ryulong seems extremely wound up. HH is doing tiny little insignificant things - no doubt in the hope that Ryulong will react negatively - and Ryulong is delivering on the hope. If he just chose to ignore what HH says or does - then if HH is only here to bother Ryulong, HH will go away; if HH has something more useful to contribute, HH might do that. Zack Martin  11:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

If he just chose to ignore what HH says or does - then if HH is only here to bother Ryulong, HH will go away that's wildly optimistic.--Miekal 12:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Has he tried? Why doesn't he? If he does, and HH still causes problems - then he has only strengthened his case. Zack Martin  12:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Zack, stop talking completely fatuous idiocy - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Gators never stop. It's like asking 8chan not to troll; ain't going to happen, it's just their nature. --Castaigne (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Since coming here the only thing I've done, which could reasonably been seen as "wrong" is maintain a user page which Ryulong disapproves of. I maintain it on principle. He blocked me for that and I complained; recently he deleted it and I complained; he restored it disingenuously (hiding revisions) and I complained. Then yesterday he refactored my comments to make it appear I was responding to him when I was not (without changing their relative indentation which had been appropriate) and I complained.

When you say I'm doing "tiny little things" to wind up Ryulong, what are they? I have been hounded by Ryulong since day 1. Every response and criticism was the result of his instigation. I want nothing to do with him and he's gone out of his way to make that impossible.

And can someone please remove whatever restriction is in place. I had to wait half an hour to correct typos in my last post.

EDIT: Thank you. Sarah (HH) 17:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You signed up here to concern troll over Gamergate and a month ago decided to reformat your userpage in the same way that Cobbsaladin and a bunch of other Gamergaters who think they're edgy as fuck did at Wikipedia. You know what you're doing and feigning innocence with "it wasn't me, it was Ryulong" is bullshit and you know it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering that I refactor comments myself because people make mistakes in indenting (or do not know how to indent properly), I fail to see the problem here. --Castaigne (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have sometimes removed one or two indentation colons because some bizarre obsession I have and because seriously people what the fuck is indenting ONE colon more than the comment you are responding to so damn hard but yeah I don't give a shit about chronological order feel free to comment before or after me just use the RIGHT INDENTATION LEVEL jesus christ |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{This taste... it's of a liar!} 15:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

^^^This. --Castaigne (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Alli thix over indentation? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently. --Castaigne (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Indentation is SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS ya cheeky twat did you know wars have been started over proper indentation |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Now I'm not tense anymore, I'm just miserable. Hooray!} 17:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Naqoyqatsi BLP indefinite block

RW is not a platform for outing people. FuzzyCatPotato, what the fuck were you thinking undeleting these revisions.

And the rest of you. What the fuck do you think you're doing enabling these people. - David Gerard (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If they were outing people, then they deserve worse than a permablock. Conversely, I found the thing that got them blocked and added it to a filter to prevent it from being re-posted. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Come now, David, you're no stranger to RW. It's no secret it has a culture that likes to boast of how it doesn't ban people for the views they hold and allows the nutters to argue their points. Exactly how much leeway should be given to these... people with questionable viewpoints can sometimes get pretty murky. In addition, in a global culture where personal information is increasingly becoming less private, exactly when people's doxxing alarm bells should be going off can be kind of unclear as well. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the place to be posting, re-posting or whatever, personal information. However, the sheer volume of bitching and fighting, from both sides, around the whole GG area has completely eroded by ability to give the tiniest crap about the detail of what happens. Probably not a good thing, but I simply filter it all out. Worm (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Outing"? Is that what mentioning someone's IRL name is? Where do we draw the line, David?

Further, it's pretty fucking clear that Naqoyqatsi, if he doxxed, did so unintentionally.

And way to go for emotion over argument, David. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 11:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That was no doxxing, the stuff was already in the open. --Arisboch (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You two are so fucking pigheaded. Her legal name is not something "in the open" or just an "IRL" name. Why can't the both of you acknowledge that it is only known from having been harassed nonstop for 10 fucking months?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Which still doesn't change the fact, that Naqoyqatsi didn't dox her, since that was done by someone else. If you want to block someone out of ideological considerations, then at the very least have more balls than Andy and say so.--Arisboch (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cernovich doxxed her, yes. Cernovich is also a noted vile individual. But Zoe's legal name is not open information; it is not banded about; any material that was doxxed on her (or anyone else) is not tolerated here and never has been. FCP and you should already know this.

And if you think that is a problem, think on this: what if I doxxed you, Arisboch, and then posted it on the internet, and then a month later, posted it here? Would you have no problem with your bank account info being plastered on a talk page on RW, because hey, it's "out in the open"? Would FCP be OK with having his current high school + yearbook picture being posted here? That information too, is out in the open, if one cares to look.

Keep in mind that I'm a person who considers doxxing to be a valid tactic. But it isn't allowed here; the rules on that need to be stringently abided by. --Castaigne (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It became open information the minute it hit the net and was picked up by a ton of people. You can't force the genie back in the bottle and if you want to indulge in "what if"-scenarios ("if my grandmother'd have balls, she'd be my grandfather", right?), then, well, here's my answer: I wouldn't give a shit about one site more with this crap (you see, you can't prove or disprove, that this answer to this "what if"-scenario was true or false). It was no doxing by Naqoyqatsi, they wanna block him because of his views (which are not mine, btw. I'm neither pro- nor anti-GG. If even 4chan exiled this mess from their servers, that's something).--Arisboch (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RW is not a storage site for doxxing info even if it came from another location originally. FCP seems to like to have those things in black and white to solve ambiguity. This is an old rule that has been stated numerous times even to FCP. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Storage? Wasn't that more of a link than storage?--Arisboch (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Aren't references to the information pretty much the same thing? We use link repositories in the articles to store justifications for statements, opinions, and snark. FCP has been here longer then I have and gone through the rules of the site to improve them. I know this so he should be more well versed then I am. The fact this is such an issue confuses me. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

1. We do not post doxxed information here.
2. We do not link to doxxed information here.
3. We do not allow doxxing here, no matter how "open" the information has become.
4. Don't post celebrity nudes either.
5. Don't advocate for genocide.
6. Don't advocate for pedophilia.

Follow these rules and you will not be perma-banned. It's really that simple. --Castaigne (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

if I remeber correctly, the events preceding exiled being banned (through a coop vote) for whatever years I gave him was linking to information about David, so I'd sat we already have a precedent for this from the mob. --Miekal 17:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, unblocking Naqnaq isn't gonna happen. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost. --Castaigne (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and desysopped FuzzyCatPotato for unblocking. Do not fuck with this shit. You were told this first time around the BLP tree - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

is this really an argument?

Are we really arguing whether it's ok to repost information that was posted in a previous dox? REALLY guys? --Miekal 17:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently this is a thing. Which surprises me, as I always thought everyone was pretty dang clear on the subject. --Castaigne (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fuzzy's argument seems to be that he doesn't consider real-name-revealing as doxxing, or at least not the kind of doxxing that's severe or malignant enough to justify a permaban. Why Arisboch is arguing that doxxing is somehow legitimized by it having successfully publicised information is beyond me. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Doxxing is revealing someone's identity online. In case of Zoe Quinn, the cat was out of the bag already.--Arisboch (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If you really feel like sticking to this line of reasoning, don't let me stop you. But I don't think it's a good idea. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Though let me stop you if you ever feel like acting on it. "The door was already unlocked" is a pretty sorry excuse to begin with. Tacking on "Because of the last robber who came through broke the lock" makes it worse. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The metaphor is shit, find a better one.--Arisboch (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a simple guideline to follow: Did the person in question reveal the private information themselves? If no, then don't post. --Castaigne (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the failed parallel here. Excusing shitty behavior that could make things worse because someone already did the same bad thing. That's exactly what you're doing. And since you've got so much contempt for its harm, I think you need to be warned: don't dox anyone for any reasons here. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't doxx anyone, even if I wanted to. I'm not a hacker or something.--Arisboch (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As someone who can hack at the "yeah I know how to actually program and how software works(or doesn't)" level, you don't need to hack anything to doxx people. It's almost never a part of the process. Digging into "public" records and combining that with a dash of e-stalking to get, collate, and publicize information people would nominally keep private is all it takes.

I mean hell, I'm not on any social media, and a dedicated person with a will could find my name and home address online within the hour. I'm not gonna give hints on how, but they could, entirely through legally mandatory records. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That people don't understand this officially boggles me. It's been like this for over a decade now. --Castaigne (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. I, for instance, had no idea that Zoe Quinn was not her real name and I have never seen this real name published anywhere. I'm not surprised Cernovich doxxed her and put it on his not-much-visited website; this is the same guy who rooted for War Machine as "manly" when said MMA fighter beat the shit out of Christy Mack. (Though he later tried retracting, natch.) So, no, the cat is not out of the bag already. I've no doubt the 8channers know it, though.

Still doesn't matter, though, because we still don't post doxxed info here. --Castaigne (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

From the banned tuber

Here's the situation as I see it:

Naqoyqatsi, while arguing, posted a link to a blog post about the restraining order(s) on Eron Gjoni that also mentioned Zoe Quinn's full legal name. This is the diff in question. I initially revdelled it, on Ryulong's advice; after Naqoyqatsi appealed, I decided that the name alone didn't qualify for doxxing, due to (a) her near-public figure status, (b) the information's previous wide-spread nature, and (c) the relatively harmless nature of someone's name, and unrevdelled it. Wehpudicabok disagreed, and, as discussed, revdelled it, which I did not protest.

And then David Gerard blocked Naqoyqatsi indefinitely. This is dually problematic:

• It's likely that he did not intend to dox; the point he was making was about Gjoni's restraining order, not about Quinn's name. Blocking him for this is comparable to blocking someone on the Saloon Bar because they posted a link that, unbeknownst to them, had personal information.
• It's questionable whether Naqoyqatsi's post was doxxing; even if it was, it was relatively low-level doxxing, and the "doxxing" was not the intent of the link -- it was an unfortunate byproduct of trying to prove a point. (Don't believe me? Read the conversation.)

Keep the diff revdelled and unban Naqoyqatsi. It solves for any doxx but doesn't punish Naqoyqatsi for what he didn't do.

I understand desysopping me, since you didn't want me to unblock Naqoyqatsi again. (That said, this is NOT a BLP issue; what B are we writing?) I don't understand blocking me. What could I possibly have done as an autopatrolled? Is allowing me to comment here unacceptable? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I take off for a few days and return to see that GG nonsense is still taking up space in the Coop. From what I can gather, what N-I-can't-be-bothered-to-learn-to-spell-his-name-i did was post a link to a blog post/article in which Zoe Quinn's real name was revealed? Given that I have edited the shit out of the RW Gamergate article and that I had no fucking idea that "Zoe Quinn" was a nom de plume, then, yeah, that's linking to dox, which is doxing. FCP, there is no argument to be had here, and N-I-can't-be-bothered-to-learn-to-spell-his-name-i will remain banned for it. I will give you your rights back, as you are generally are a decent contributor, but if you unban N-I-can't-be-bothered-to-learn-to-spell-his-name-i or revert the deleted passage, you are done here, as far as I'm concerned. Clear? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have to disagree; Naqoyqatsi knew exactly what he was doing by linking to Cernovich's site. There is no possible way, with his supposed of knowledge of GamerGate, that he could not have know that Cernovich deliberately doxxed Quinn in retaliation for a supposed doxxing of himself, supposedly by Quinn. Which actually turned out that he was not doxxed at all and that Quinn had nothing to do with it. You are presuming that Naqoyqatsi is editing in good faith; his behavior since his arrival here has shown otherwise.
• AgingHippies, frankly, has the right of the matter. He expresses what else I think quite concisely. --Castaigne (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

[EC] I want nothing more to do with David's power plays, so you're quite clear.

Naqoyqatsi did not intend to dox, should not be held accountable, and should not be banned. We're banning him not least because of his ideology, not his action. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's walk through this. How do you know he did not intend to dox? How do you know he made the faith in good edit, when he has had similar violations previously? --Castaigne (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Naqoyqatsi is not in good faith? He's been opposed to out gamergate stance at every step, but he's not been a vandal.

What "similar violations"? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I call bullshit. There's a lot I take objection to when it comes to Gerard's behavior on the wiki, but at the end of the day, if he wanted to ban that guy for ideological reasons, he would have done it weeks or months ago. And I don't care about "intent," only "foreseeable outcomes." And in this case, posting a link to a GIANT UNSPOKEN FACT ABOUT A KEY FIGURE IN A CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLE had the foreseeable outcome of doxxing a real human being at risk from an angry mob. End of story, move on. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Gerard has binned him before and has supported Ryulong's many attempts to block him.

Again: Keep the revdel, remove the block. Unintentional doxxing isn't bannable; I think it's reasonable that the doxxing was unintentional .FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How the fuck was it not intentional? The entire point of the blog post he linked to was to reveal a person's real name. Don't make the same mistake here you made with your constant pushing-of-buttons re: the libel issue. It was doxing, there is nothing more to be said. Move on to something else and write yourself back into my good books. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

On intent: His point, as I read it in the diff, was that Quinn had lied. Why would he want to reveal her name? What possible gain did he get?

On libel: Y'know, the subject that started that all was created by another user with almost no dissent, even after I brought it up. <_< FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, FCP, not to put to fine a point to it, you do know that the doxxing of Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian and the spreading of that information for purposes of harassment is an actual part of...let's say the agenda of certain influential people within that controversy? --Castaigne (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

But that's because they want people to harass QWS for their heresies against manly man mankind, not just for the hell of it. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And you honestly believe Nacraycray is not part of that? --Castaigne (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to post links to stolen copies of Zoe's suicidegirls photo shoots is an excellent example, IMHO. --Castaigne (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way

The dox is still up in another diff. [6] FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Then I would highly reccomend a RevDel. --Castaigne (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sysop at the time. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You can only dox people who it's okay to dox

Probably my first argument on this site was on this exact topic. Apparently it's okay to refer to Karajou as Brian McDonald; Conservative as Ken DeMyer (indeed, Ken DeMyer of Buffalo), TK as Terry Koeckritz, Jpatt as John Patti, etc, etc. But other people can't be outed regardless of the distribution of that information on the Internet. I've never claimed to be able to understand that rule. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

CPspace is special and can never be touched lest we anger the old timers. that said, We use the real names of people besides ken?--Miekal 22:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

But you see, those people are ideologically opposed and are thus valid dox targets. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Miekal, click on each of those links. The real names are in the first sentence of each article. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. When I get home tonight I will deal with that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I know they're there, was just saying. Also, supposedly ken put his real name online, though whether he did it in a way you can link between the international possible-group of mystery and Ken Demyer is unknown at my glance. I would say we can get rid of most of the things that reference where he lives if not his name, as that's a bit sketchy. --Miekal 22:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Ken is the only one who was "doxxed" in any sense of the term. The others used their real names publicly when interviewed about CP in its early days, or in other forums. In some cases it may have taken a a bit work to match up names with usernames, but very little. They basically outed themselves. Except for Ken. DickTurpis (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm raising this as a question/notification over at WIGO:CP so people who watch cp but maybe not here can actually be aware of something that might actually be a problem with our ethics and would effect them. --Miekal 22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)