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 5 days ago | parent [-]

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 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 3 days ago | parent [-]

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 2 days ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

howenterprisey 2 days ago | parent [-]

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

	▲	NoMoreNicksLeft 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Says the guy who's telling us "check for ourselves, no one doxxed anyone!" as if it means anything.

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]