How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by JuiceBeetle » Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:39 am

boredbird wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:38 am
So yes, if someone doxes pedophiles you will block them…starting to get a feel for where your Wikipediocracy ban was coming from…

There is no rule here against doxing. Check my thread I am a bored bird. It's why I'm here. That's how this bird does criticism. Site owners seemed fine with it. Maybe you're confusing Sucks with your and JuiceBeetle's rules on Discord.
This forum has no rule against doxing. It's already considered a "doxing site", therefore there would be no point in ruling it out now.
You won't be blocked for doing it. Knowing your contributions I can't imagine there would be a reason to block you, ever.

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 395 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Strelnikov » Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:03 am

JuiceBeetle wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:39 am
boredbird wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:38 am
So yes, if someone doxes pedophiles you will block them…starting to get a feel for where your Wikipediocracy ban was coming from…

There is no rule here against doxing. Check my thread I am a bored bird. It's why I'm here. That's how this bird does criticism. Site owners seemed fine with it. Maybe you're confusing Sucks with your and JuiceBeetle's rules on Discord.
This forum has no rule against doxing. It's already considered a "doxing site", therefore there would be no point in ruling it out now.
You won't be blocked for doing it. Knowing your contributions I can't imagine there would be a reason to block you, ever.
It may have no rule against doxing, but I have removed telephone numbers when certain things have "magically appeared" on this board. I don't want to give the crank callers and the perpetually angry fuel for their fun.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Abd » Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:12 pm

boredbird wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:38 am
Abd wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:20 pm
boredbird wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:55 am
So your ban from Wikipediocracy was about pedophilia. You said in another thread that on offwiki.org you were confronting doxers. If I dox pedophiles will you block me?
In any case, on this forum there is an explicit no-doxxing rule, and so the question here really is, "If I violate rules here, will you block me?"
If I feel like it.
So yes, if someone doxes pedophiles you will block them…starting to get a feel for where your Wikipediocracy ban was coming from…

There is no rule here against doxing. Check my thread I am a bored bird. It's why I'm here. That's how this bird does criticism. Site owners seemed fine with it. Maybe you're confusing Sucks with your and JuiceBeetle's rules on Discord.
I checked the Rules before writing that, and I was apparently incorrect, I must have misread something. This question was designed for trolling. Watch out for that, but this is not a formal warning, though others commented (elsewhere) on this post as trolling. What I have clearly declared is that I will not block without a violated warning. I will not state in advance the situations for which I would block, and moderation in general is not "rule-based." It is discretionary.

Further, I am only a moderator, I have no absolute authority, merely the power to act, which is subject to review by other moderators and administrators. Site policy is ultimately up to the Owners, who are not bound by rules, but who may issue rules so that users can know what to expect.

(and I never blocked anyone for doxxing, and very few, aside from spammers and blatant trolls, for any reason. So this is all insane.)

No more arguing with trolls.

User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by JuiceBeetle » Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:22 pm

Abd wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:12 pm
I checked the Rules before writing that, and I was apparently incorrect, I must have misread something. This question was designed for trolling.
Thanks for clarifying. This misunderstanding escalated a bit more than necessary, but I don't have the impression that anyone was trolling. It's understandable, that BoredBird reacted strongly to the new possibility that he'll be blocked. Please accept that, as it is; the disagreement hinged on misreading the rules, so please don't put the blame on Bird.

Now that this misunderstanding is cleared up, I hope we can move on. Regarding sharing information about wikipedians that would be considered off-wiki personal information on wikipedia and result in an indef block:
I have the impression that the purpose on this board is to understand the personality behind the virtual identity, not to share (dox) information that could enable some misguided reader to harass or contact that person in real life. The rules express this as "for GOOD PURPOSE".
The practice of Strelnikov to remove for ex. phone numbers serves this purpose. As moderators, we should do the same. I should note here that posting that phone number was without bad intent and blocking that user was not even considered.

User avatar
Stanistani

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Stanistani » Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:54 pm

Moderation is a difficult task, and if you ban or even quiet someone, you're always wrong in someone's eyes. Good luck.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Abd » Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:22 pm

Stanistani wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:54 pm
Moderation is a difficult task, and if you ban or even quiet someone, you're always wrong in someone's eyes. Good luck.
Thanks.

And if you do nothing, wrong. I don't care about "right" or "wrong," I care about the effect of actions, what are the effects? What actually happened and what can be expected? Interpretations are evanescent, but fact is fact, and right and wrong are not facts, they are opinions and judgments, often based on unstated assumptions and so people argue endlessly with no foundation.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:37 pm

JuiceBeetle wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:39 am
This forum has no rule against doxing. It's already considered a "doxing site", therefore there would be no point in ruling it out now.
You won't be blocked for doing it. Knowing your contributions I can't imagine there would be a reason to block you, ever.
Sounds good to me. Abd, as you know it's VERY difficult to sue someone for "defamation" in the United States. I suspect that the tighter libel laws in the UK were a major reason for Jimbo's changeover to British subject, if it matters. Loads of Wikipedia critics were created by Wikipedia's inside-pool tendency to brutally/incompetently silence criticisms. Remember all the times Fae tried to shriek that someone who criticized him was "doxxing and stalking" him? Once you get on THAT crazy train, you can't get off easily.

Addresses and esp. phone numbers are a bit different and should be dealt with case-to-case. For the record I have ZERO sympathy for Emperor after Bird doxxed him--he's been an invisible pest since 2007 at least. Anonymity as a weapon and all that rubbish.

Besides: I want to see what else the Bird can scrape up. Might be useful info. Never know.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Abd » Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:29 am

I am more concerned about doxxing as irrelevant personal attack, and I'm not willing to define rules in advance, not alone; rather, it's all case-by-case, and the basic cause for a block on a forum like this is disregarding moderator warning, not the specific offense, as if the moderator were a robot following a fixed program.

The point for users here: if a moderator warns you not to do something, you won't go to jail for doing it -- probably! -- but you might be blocked if you do it, and all fora are like this, nothing special here about this. I'm telegraphing that the no-holds-barred flame wars that were allowed to rage for a time here are not a precedent that this will still be allowed. And I'm confident that if I err, if I deviate from the intentions of the site owners, they will, in turn, warn me or remove the mod status.

Far more serious than a block or ban, in my book, speaking as someone who has experienced both, is the deletion of content without warning or opportunity to recover it, particularly if the content cannot be recovered. If it was just trolling, not a big loss, but to a writer, it's like the death penalty to destroy what is written.

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Kumioko » Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:49 pm

I'll be honest here. I couldn't care less about doxing Wikipediots. I would live to confirm the identities of Fram, Bbb23 and several others. After they tried to get me fired from my job, I have Zero sympathy. So I say if someone identifies a pedophile who is editing, go for it.
#BbbGate

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Abd » Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:10 pm

Pedophile is a convenient accusation. Did a pedophile try to get you fired from your job? Look, I had five children and two more adopted. But I also saw how accusations of pedophilia ruined lives, and some of those were innocent, or not a danger to children. It didn't matter. The label is a killer. The label used to be "Jew" or "queer," used as hate speech. When I was growing up in a suburb of Los Angeles, it was "ni**er" or "ni**er-lover."

If one is actually a pedophile (which is fairly rare), acting on the impulses that would presumably arise is illegal everywhere, is even a capital offense in some places. But condemning people as "pedophiles" because they touched an article, and particularly doing that from behind an anonymous account?

There are points of view and "favorite facts" that may be common among pedophiles. Some of them are actually fact. (Facts do not require conclusions). An example would be that Emil Kirkegaard pointed out that "simulated child porn" is not illegal in many places. (i.e, animations, not involving an actual child in the production.) Simply stating a fact is not advocacy of behavior.

At the time he was writing, I think that was true in the U.S., I don't know if it still is. After all, not my favorite topic! So this was supposedly evidence that he was defending "pedophilia," which is actually a different topic. (But see this legal advice about California. It is apparently not entirely clear.)

My strong advice, warning even: stay completely away from animated child porn, not to mention actual sexual video of children. And if you have trouble doing that, you have a problem that could be fatal (suicide becoming a high risk for someone charged with certain offenses). Get help. It is possible to handle 'philias and other sexual obsessions (same as any addiction).

And here, speculating about a real person being a "pedophile" is something I will not condone, when there is no plausible and significant risk to the public through the person having freedom of expression. If they are presenting falsehoods, confront the falsehoods! But tossing mud at them will not do that; it will, in fact, harden them in their beliefs.

Post Reply