Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Doxing

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Doxing | Result: Snowkeep[edit]

Doxing (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


  1. This is called "conversation" in ordinary circles. This is nothing remarkable or missional; just talking about someone. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Normal conversation doesn't typically involve name dropping private information about somebody to incite things against them, which is what doxxing is. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    So is the intention to incite st00f the distinguishing factor? Because discussing people's past/present/c. is pretty normal... and honestly, trying to make people mad at others is too, so I'm confused. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    It also involves private information which has not been freely given. Just because I might discuss that you live at blah blah blah street in real life or work at location y doesn't mean I should be the one to reveal said information online, usually in the effort to make sure bad things happen somehow. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


  1. This is called "a crime" in ordinary circles, this is on mission. Only someone who believes that "I know where you live" isn't a threat would call it "just talking about someone". SolPyre (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Deletion argument shows a complete misunderstanding of what doxing is, so even if it isn't missional that shouldn't be the reason to delete it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. A bleeding obvious keep. I am not sure the VFD originator knows what doxing is.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. A lot of this wiki is about politics, which is similarly "conversation". Hertzy (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. It's very often used as a tool of oppression and for silencing dissent, which makes it missional. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. FFS, this one stays. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. SNOW keep. BicyclewheelModerator 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. If I'm allowed to vote, then keep, with the caveat that the article needs to be held to a higher standard and focus on condemning bad behavior from a rational standpoint, rather than leaving itself open for factionalism.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


  • Only, if it's ensured, that no-one will delete information about doxxers he likes (yes, I'm looking at you, Ryulong).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    You do realize the reason I had removed them because they were added in a shitty bad faith attempt at tu quoque right?—Ryulong (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    Really? Can you prove that? And even if you can, why should I even give a fuck?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    From the horse's mouth, sooo...yeah, Aneris has admitted he was adding them as a "you do it too!" at his hated, Pharyngula-loving, SJW opponents, which he has accused everyone who disagrees with his edits of being. Why anyone is humoring incredibly, blatantly, bad faith edits is beyond me. (Humoring him and debating him, fine, but pretending that his edits were anything but trolling intended to disrupt the article? WTF).KrytenKoro (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    Again, why should anyone give a flying kurwa (swearing in Polish is fun) about his motives, when the stuff he inserted into that article was legit (the dox happened)??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    Were they accurate? If so, I can't be bothered to care why they were added. WalkerWalkerWalker 22:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    They were added to the effect of the message "YOU SJWS DO BAD THINGS TOO" because PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson outed someone who was slandering them pseudonymously.—Ryulong (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    I can honestly say I don't see why that isn't called doxxing. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    The entire rest of the list was people or sites who make a habit of doxing. The only way it makes sense to include four links to a single one-off cases of someone who admitted to doxing but did not encourage a climate of continuing it is if we're including several links to every single instance of doxing. Which...if you guys want to do that, fine, I hate doxers more than the next guy, someone who edits wikis, I'll tell you now it's gonna turn into a more gigantic page ten times the size of gamergate. The criteria you're setting up for inclusion is unlikely to exclude a single one of the 451,000 results that google brings up for doxing.
    Honestly, and with all due respect to him, despite the fact that I thought Ryulong's specific arguments (though not actions) were made extremely poorly on that page, the counter-argument to keep all instances so long as they include doxing is pants-on-head stupidity clearly meant as pointy editing to spite Ryulong. Y'all's whole "don't feed the troll, instead debate with them so that you can develop better arguments to put in the articles" doesn't fucking work if you just let the trolls have free reign to write the pages...or to make demands about what should be kept on the pages.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    how about that WHOLE discussion is had at Talk:Doxing where it belongs? This is a VFD.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)