[howenterprisey]

Hi. I was an arbitrator who voted to suspend that arbitrator. There was no doxxing involved, which anyone can verify. Barely anything else in your comment is correct either. Doxxing is an issue but from where I sit it's much worse from people outside Wikipedia.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

This comment is farcical. Supposing you are right and that there was "no doxxing involved", it's still impossible for an outsider like most of us here, to verify it. Especially if there is such a thing as non-public discourse of any kind.

It is not a transparent organization, and it does not even pay lip service to the effort of transparency. It is large enough of an organization that it is an absurd claim, on its face, that there are not cliques and factions who would do such things if it were at all possible.

You investigated yourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

[howenterprisey]

When I said anyone can verify it, I meant it; go make an account on wikipediocracy, go to the "Wikimedian Folks Too Embarrassing for Public Viewing" forums, and go through the posts by that user.

Quite to the contrary, it's a very transparent organization because edit histories are public. It would be trivial to link to any instances of doxxing on the project, unless they don't exist, which they don't. Wikipediocracy doesn't count when talking about Wikipedia doxxing.

[zahlman]

> It would be trivial to link to any instances of doxxing on the project, unless they don't exist

Please don't pretend as if people having a discussion at this level are unaware of the facilities available for permanent deletion on Wikipedia (the so-called "oversight").

> Wikipediocracy doesn't count when talking about Wikipedia doxxing.

"Wikipedia doxxing" clearly means doxxing performed by and/or against Wikipedians, not necessarily on Wikipedia's actual domains. Especially if you're using the term to refer to GP, which states:

> The article criticizes doxxing but well-known Wikipedia editors doxx each other all the time...

So unless you can demonstrate that these Wikipedia editors don't post on Wikipediocracy, then yes it obviously does count. "Wikipedia editors doxxing each other" doesn't stop being "Wikipedia editors doxxing each other" just because of where it's posted.

> When I said anyone can verify it, I meant it; go make an account on wikipediocracy, go to the "Wikimedian Folks Too Embarrassing for Public Viewing" forums, and go through the posts by that user.

It looks to me like the top-level commenter already did exactly this, and found the exact opposite of what you imply we'd find.

[howenterprisey]

My thesis is that Wikipedianon's comment implies Wikipedia editors (specifically, "well-known" editors and "admins") doxx each other all the time, but that's hilariously wrong. Doxxing mostly comes from assholes outside the community, such as those who post on Wikipediocracy.

Yes, on-project doxxing gets OS'd but it also results in discussions and bans which can be reviewed. And from those you can easily determine that it's truly rare.

When I said to go to the forums, that was unfortunately unclear wording; I meant it's trivial to verify that Beeblebrox didn't doxx anyone in his postings.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

This is like claiming that you didn't key someone's car, because the scratches weren't signed with your signature.

No one doxxing others in that particular clique is going to do it from anything other than a burner account.

[Wikipedianon]

"No one doxxing others in that particular clique is going to do it from anything other than a burner account."

This is incorrect.

many do it with accounts linked to their real onwiki profiles. jps is an example and I provided a link to unambiguous doxxing:

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=14172

They've been doing it since 2016 when they started an" alt-right identification thread":

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=8031

Others use accounts linked to their onwiki personas to ask for doxx. e.g. AndyTheGrump is a well-known user who posts in the "alt-right identification thread" about someone they dislike and getting a quick response. Here's AndyTheGrump asking for doxx on a user named "BlueGraf".

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=8031&p...

Quickly followed up with that individuals full name and employment.

And many editors/admins participate in those doxxing threads to gawk or have fun under their real usernames.

[howenterprisey]

Okay, but now that's an unfalsifiable statement. What makes you think the burners are tied to the well-known accounts?

[IAmBroom]

Also, the poster "Wikipedianon" makes Tu Quoque fallacies. The fact that some Wikipedia editors have engaged in doxxing of others doesn't make it less of a problem for the government to do so.

Unsurprisingly, "Wikipedianon" is a hit-and-run profile created just for this post, AFAICT.

[Wikipedianon]

it's a hit-and-run because I don't want to get doxxed.

I dont want a world in which Trump regulates Wikipedia but pretending it's sunshine and rainbows is a joke at this point.

And the person you're replying to is strawmanning. I never said Beeblebrox doxxed anyone, just that they leaked secret information on a doxxing forum in violation of Wikipolicy and possibly privacy law.

[justiciar9]

Wikipediocracy is hardly a doxxing forum…

[Wikipedianon]

Beeblebrox leaked internal mailing list messages to a forum known for doxxing in violation of the NDA they signed.

i know that Beeblebrox did not doxx anyone and I said that in my comment. my point is leaking information to a doxxing forum sends the wrong message and is dangerous.

Maybe you should create an account and look at the "Wikimedian Folks Too Embarrassing for Public Viewing" forum and get back to me. Or do something about it before the Trump administration uses this as an excuse to censor enwiki. Either way here are some excerpts if you don't want to.

From the first page, here's an active editor (iii, known as jps or ජපස) doxxing someone about UFOs. I took out the names to be polite but it's all there:

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=14172

"Is [username 1] (T-C-L) an alt account of [username 2] (T-C-L)?

For those who are not aware, [username2] is the name of an account used by one [redacted] on various platforms up until about 2024 when he more or less abandoned them. That account also was involved in the ongoing game of accusing [redacted] (T-H-L) of being [redacted] (T-C-L) which is about as fairly ludicrous an attempt at matching a Wikipedia username as I've ever seen.

Anyway, I feel like maybe he thought "If [__] can do it, so can I." And maybe that's the origin of the VPP.

Oh, this is about UFOs. Yeah, I'm in the shit. Maybe someone can link to some other stuff for you to read, but I just want to drop this here because I have nowhere else I get to speculate on these matters and everyone loves a good conspiracy theory data dump from time to time "

Here's the thread "Who is Wikipedia editor i.am.qwerty"

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=13821

"I.am.a.qwerty (T-C-L) gathered up a bunch of those articles and some earlier material to create Wikipedia and antisemitism..."

It goes on:

"But who is I.am.a.qwerty? Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that I.a.am.a.qwerty is a PhD student named [real name]. Specifically, this [real name]:"

    "[real name] is a PhD candidate [major] at [university name]. He received his BA (Hons) in [major] from [university]. Previously [real name] received his rabbinical ordination from the [other school] in [location] in [year]. [real name] is also the [job title] at [organization]."

I can't imagine any other community tolerating its members going on KiwiFarms and encouraging doxxing of other community members, so long as they didn't technically engage in it. But Wikipedia does.

[justiciar9]

That’s hardly doxxing. Asking if two publicly visible usernames might be related is hardly alarming.

[zahlman]

To be absolutely, 100% clear: your position is that someone who writes on the Internet, a statement of the form:

> Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that [username] is a PhD student named [real name]. Specifically, this [real name]:"

> "[real name] is a PhD candidate [major] at [university name]. He received his BA (Hons) in [major] from [university]. Previously [real name] received his rabbinical ordination from the [other school] in [location] in [year]. [real name] is also the [job title] at [organization]."

is not "doxxing"?

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that I find that patently absurd.

[Wikipedianon]

What about the part where they revealed the full name of the person allegedly behind the two usernames?