Talk:Doxing

Ruylong's last edits.

Can you please do something about the two non-sentences at the end of the paragraph. ("In the case of Sutton, her name and profession. In other cases, like for Sarkeesian, the email addresses she receives violent threats from."). Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I would if people didn't keep cutting it out because it's me who wrote it. I cut out the sentences presently because I'm shit at this, obviously.--Ryulong (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your idiotic persecution complex--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Then why is it always you and Arisboch?--Ryulong (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Also Aneris' additions were disingenuous bullshit. "I'm going to link to these cases of the liberal atheists doxing someone to show both sides are bad". Tu quoque, Balance fallacy, etc. So now there's a whole paragraph explaining how doxing can be used for a greater good. Like pointing out how our old friend Parogar is trying to say that people are doxing him on Twitter when he's using his own name on Twitter, admitted to having that name and screenname on multiple websites, including RationalWiki, and it's because he spends all his days on that website harassing and threatening multiple women who point out how fucked up he is.--Ryulong (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And, pray tell, do you think GGers are not also convinced they are doxing for the greater good? You've fought monsters too long Ryulong, and have become one. You are one of the reasons people say that anti-GG is as bad as GG.Tielec01 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We are a wiki whos goal is to document peoples bullshit, whether it be on sides we like or dislike.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck what you think about me or the fucking anti-Gamergate bogeyman. Someone else already wrote at length about Watson's doxing of "Skeptickle" and that's all Aneris added to the page. That and Margaret Pless saying she posted a photo of Mike Cernovich's house on her blog because that was the address he listed as his business address on whatever fucking list of California lawyers she pulled it from. Gamergaters are doxing people because they're 4chan trolls who want to drive people off of the Internet either for being women with opinions or for not agreeing with them. And also so the biggest assholes among them can send them dozens of unpaid pizzas, show up at these people's houses or workplaces with knives, or send the SWAT team at them on a false police call. Rebecca Watson saying "Eliza Sutton is using her medical background to slander PZ Myers" or Anita Sarkeesian posting unredacted emails of death threats she's received is a completely separate "monster". And now the content is integrated much better than just having it in a list of "see also" entries with citations pointing to shit completely out of context.--Ryulong (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Relax mate, we get it, doxxing is OK when it is done by people you agree with. Tielec01 (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that really all you're taking away from what I said?--Ryulong (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the only thing to take away. Well, that and the fact you seem to think that we shouldn't discuss the flaws of the people we support.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

All I see are men of straw. And maybe you could discuss the flaws rather than allowing some reactionary douche nugget just post shit out of context.--Ryulong (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing how important context becomes when it's your side that's doing the doxxing Ryloung. Tielec01 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I don't see any fucking reason in anyone knowing say Anita Sarkeesian's address because she hasn't fucking done anything malicious to deserve any of that while let's say our own User:Parogar apparently spends all his time on the Internet harassing women authors because he's made himself the personal attack dog of Anne Rice and all the other people who support the "Stop the GoodReads Bullies" blog who solely exist to dox and attack people who left negative reviews on books because the authors are total shitbags like Parogar himself, a man who posted his full name on RationalWiki and publishes books under his own name and then declares the's been doxxed when he's a shithead under his screenname while protecting his own books.—Ryulong (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

BUT NO, Aneris dumping these names with zero context and in many cases when there is no local page on the person responsible, posting the same entry twice and then adding someone else who doesn't have their own page because they admitted to doxing in that tweet, and I guess this definition you're trying to put on me are all perfectly fine additions to the article that shouldn't be challenged.—Ryulong (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention this page screams vulgar libertarian asshole.—Ryulong (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

So only people you dislike (with or without good reason) can dox and cause Aneris does purportedly holds a political opinion you dislike, his words are less worth?^{— Unsigned, by: Arisboch / talk / contribs}

Maybe if there was a reason other than "I hate this bitch" when it comes to Gamergate and their targets. Also Aneris just dumped a list of links and expected it to be fine.—Ryulong (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The paragraph in question reads like a thinly veiled apology for terrible behaviour. This is not a grey area. It is also very badly written. This needs a a major re-write or it will be repeatedly deleted. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not about the motives or otherwise of another editor. It's about pretty terrible content added to RW.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what's terrible content? Someone just dumping a list of names and links to say "THESE FILTHY SJWS DOX PEOPLE TOO". Watson explained herself. I wrote that explanation. If you want to rewrite it do it but don't just replace it with the list of bullshit Aneris dumped.—Ryulong (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The now-deleted paragraph reads like an eighth-grader wrote it, one giant sequence of "and this happened, and this happened." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's better than the link dump to just go "YOUR SACRED COWS DOXXED PEOPLE TO AND AREN'T RECALCITRANT ABOUT IT".—Ryulong (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it's in all-caps, it must be true. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's all Aneris did with the additions. And the only reason I don't have user rights is because I gave them up last night (and somehow got them back between then and when Gooniepunk removed them again). The "See also" section is generally shit. Not only did Aneris add content without context and just having sources to one person's comments on Freethought Blogs, but the rest of the section just lists people or websites responsible for doxing. So now I've cut out all of the content from the see also section other than articles that are specific terms related to doxing rather than individuals or groups that dox.—Ryulong (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, someone else already wrote about the Watson v. Sutton situation on another page. I'd be surprised if it's not on Rebecca Watson or PZ Myers either. Well it turns out it isn't because no one else has ever bothered to say that Watson only outed this person because she was slandering Myers and using her position as an MD to support her claims.—Ryulong (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I believed that fairy tales do come true; today I'm cold and I am shamed, lying naked on the floor (with apologies to the greatest song-writer of the 20th century). Tielec01 (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Boring bullshit. So now we have all of Aneris's attempt at tu quoque/balance fallacy kept in the article? When it's all specious and disingenuous bullshit?—Ryulong (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. This article shall cover dox from people you not like (for good reasons or not), too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't cover dox from people I don't like to begin with. It just describes the act of doxing and for whatever reason someone filled the see also with people who have doxxed, both liberal and conservative. None of that is really relevant which is why I had cut the list down to Doxbin, Internet crime, Pseudonym, SWATing, and Trolling. If RationalWiki was going to for some reason host the article List of notable doxing cases then fine, Watson & Myers vs. Sutton should be listed there. But right now it's just disingenuous link dumping for the sake of link dumping.

And Paravant, you're the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to spreading apologism.—Ryulong (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain that last comment Ryulong? Genuinely curious how you came to that conclusion. Tielec01 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

inb4 the Israel/Palestine and GG streams cross |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Wryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!} 03:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Because Paravant blocked me for apologism when I spent a week calling him an apologist.

Meanwhile, all the shit about Watson could fit in the paragraph above the see also section rather than just context-less links to their pages which don't discuss anything they did which could be considered doxxing.—Ryulong (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, My Little Pony, sorry that was obvious. Tielec01 (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Notice, how strongly SJWs always make it about the alleged character and how much dust they kick up, combined with their smearing and gish galloping. That's very effective these days, but reasonable people ough to find ways to deal with it, just as we dealt with creationists and other conspiracy nutters that attacked the community. I never was a libertarian, and couldn't be farther away from paleo-libertarianism (which is what Americans understand under libertarianism, I think). I however openly despise social justice warriors, for exactly the reasons we see here. They are fascistic ideologues who are into Entarte Kunst, book burnings and no-platforming and fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-pluralistic, intolerant (you're not tolerant if you you only accept views you 100% agree with) propagandists. I'm for consistency here, and since the SJWs already add the people and sites they want to smear, can only add in what they left out. You can see below how SJWs operate. First they want to "name names", then I add names, then they are suddenly against it. Okay, then, let's remove all of them. Then they find they only want to add in sites. And so on. These should strike everyone as obvious games that have nothing to do with reason and rationality, but ideology Aneris (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the links currently on the list are communities that are almost defined by near-constant doxing, and the only mentions of any one-off doxings is the mention of PZ myers, a prominent member of the "rational community", and the fake doxing/counter doxing that happened there.

It's blinkeringly obvious that placing any individual persons or cases in that list would imply that they are equivalent in scope, which is not even remotely true, whether their doxings were "justified" (I don't believe that's possible, personally), or not.

You're rant about SJWs is also starkly lacking in any relevant points, and is really just serving to illustrate the quality of faith you're editing in.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

False. Again. At the time various individuals and places were mentioned. Of course that was totally fine then. Now that "beloved" SJWs are being added (by the exact same principle), it magically becomes an issue. Fool somebody else. Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"the links currently on the list". I used English to write that, not ancient Hebrefornian. You had said "I'm for consistency here, and since the SJWs already add the people and sites they want to smear, can only add in what they left out." As I explained above, the list at the time of you're writing that does not have an appropriate place for cases of one-off doxing.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Known Doxers"

Is there anyone who thinks that accusing specific people of doxing is a good idea? Hipocrite (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Why the change of heart now? Because I included the social justice warriors, right? Disingenuous as always. How come that the reverts only affect such individuals? Why is it not relevant that mainstream figures in the A/S movement, with their own articles on RW, who doxed openly and even defended it are now suddenly "disappeared". Disingenuous as always. Colour me surprised. The section should rather place a spotlight on this practice of disappearing evidence. Aneris (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What's this "change of heart." My first edit to this document was to revert your addition of "Known Doxers." I've never supported having a list of "Known Doxers." I wasn't even aware this article existed until you started hacking at it. Trying to cram behind-the-scenes you being GatorTrash into the article is going to go the same way it always goes for Gators - you'll get bored and leave. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You selectively removed known doxers from the A/S movement. Did I remove 8chan? Or did I remove Cathy Brennan or some other name of the list? No, I didn't. To make it more bizarre, you removed the ONLY names that were properly sourced. How funny is that. The unsourced remain, the sourced ones get thrown out. I'm not a gator, but note the ad hominem. I actually agree that games have a sexism problem. I just disagree strongly with social justice warrior fascists for exactly the reason demonstrated here, disingenious propagandist as you are. How come the sourced examples go "missing" but the others aren't, when the format was exactly the same? You list names. Then list names. You list sites, then list sites. No, you want to portray a selective version of the truth, as usual. Aneris (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted your Gatoring. You'll probably need to get used to that, because it's going to happen a lot. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I now removed all names or sites, consistently. This should be okay then, right? Aneris (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's keep the list and make it as you say. Added examples of sites. Consistency, right? Bring on the mental gymnastics Aneris (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No. You added an individual and a site that doesn't have a connection to doxing except in your fevered gator brain. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you're lying. My entries were entirely sourced. Rebecca Watson is listed on this wiki as "Skepchick" go click it. That's a site. The site also made a dox tweet from the official account. Freethought Blogs might have several bloggers, but many then-high profile ones were involved, and PZ Myers is also the co-founder and now solely responsible for it. The facts, once again, don't agree with you, Social Justice Warriors. Must be hard to be an ideologue at war with reality. You can only come up with elaborate mental gymnastics now which will invariably be moving the goalpost as usual (introducing rules and demands that previously didn't count). It's also notable that, other than what the article claims, some people think doxing is entirely justified sometimes. And not just anyone...

1. Freethought Blogs, Ophelia Benson
2. Freethought Blogs, PZ Myers
3. Freethought Blogs, Stephanie Zvan
4. SkepChicks, Rebecca Watson
5. SkekChicks, official account

Popcorn. Aneris (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, go fuck yourself. Best wishes! Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly controversial opinion: I'm somewhat in agreement with Aneris here. We should have a bit talking about how some people believe doxxing is justified (kind of an inverse stopped clock thing in the case of prominent skeptics) -- that's why I added in the "Racists Getting Fired" article ages ago, which discusses how dangerous and counter-productive self-righteous/"justified" doxxing can be. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're not really, because Aneris never suggested that. What they want to do is add Rebecca Watson to the LIST OF KNOWN DOXXERS. Want to have a discussion about how some people thing doxxing is justified - go crazy. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I thout it was kinda along the same theme as his accusations, 'least, considering how much he's been going on about how all them ESS JAY DUBLEYUS have double standards. I'll pop in a section when I get a chance. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Aneris: as I indicated above, Hypocrite did not say "Freethoughtblogs did not dox", he said that the site does not have a connection with doxing. Perhaps that could have been worded better, but it's pretty clear that Freethoughtblogs is not a site about doxing and does not make a habit of doxing, while sites like 8chan's baphomet exist almost solely for that purpose. It's like...comparing a guy who shot the bank teller in an armed robbery with Pol Pot. Sure, they both did something bad, but it's ridiculous to treat them as similar.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

At the time, the "see also" list effectively meant "known doxxers", and listed individuals like Cathy Brennan. This was the state as I found it. What I did, I added cases I knew about and sourced them properly. Normally, people would say "yay, sourced content". But of course with SJWs in the room (you can bet on it), it becomes this disingenious game. They made a ton of stealthy edits to only remove individuals they approve of (they're right wing authoritarians, cf Altemeyer) and when it was clear that this would look like a double standard, the article was re-arranged. I know already how this goes. We settle exactly on some kind of "definition" that nicely excludes the social justice doxxers, but includes other people, because reasons. I know that you are dishonest, you know that I know that, but we can of course pretend we play fairly. I just wonder who is fooled by it. I would be far happier when people here would come right out of the gate and declare that this is the Editorial POV and we're good. It's all about honesty, which many people I see on these pages sorely lack (obviously!).Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

...dude, I fucking hate doxers and I've called out social justice advocates on it when I've seen it, whether or not I agree with them on the "moral rightness" of their crusade. I also run wikis as my main hobby, so I have to plan for how mere organization of information can communicate misinformation beyond just their plain words. Your conspiracy theory that I'm saying your proposal is bad because I'm trying to sweep stuff under the rug is...well, a paranoid conspiracy theory, especially since I've specifically pointed out this shit before. So, to reiterate, the version of the page that you are currently warring with Hipocrite over (not this "at the time" nonsense that Hipocrite already pointed out was irrelevant to you two's interaction) is a dishonest, shitty version of the page that is pretty recognizably disingenuous.

And for fuck's sake, don't pull this whole "I wonder who is fooled by all these not-Me-people's dishonesty" when you've admitted to bad faith, pointy editing above.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

...waaaaait a second. I went back and looked at this fabled "shitty name-dropping version of the page" from before you edited, and everyone that was on it was also a prominent doxing site or habitual doxer. Which you attempted to make comprehensive by adding several links about the single pharyngula episode, as well as an AGG person admitting but not approving of the dox they had committed. WTF, dude. How can you even pretend that that is proportional in the least? Find a leftwing site that does dox habitually, I'm sure they exist. Not this stupid bullshit where you're swamping the page to try to highlight a specific episode you hold a grudge about.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Arisboch, AgingHippie, and Paravant -- sure Ryulong's arguments were basically useless, but what the hell point were y'all trying to prove by forcing such obviously disproportionate, pointy edits? You of all people should know it's a bad idea to revert edits simply because of who made them.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't give less of a fuck, whether Ryulong, you or my right ass cheek did the editing. Either any doxxer comes on the list or none., cause anything else is just double standards.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The list of names did not contain an explanation that "habitual doxers" were meant only. This is a rationalization you made up in hindsight. I wonder what your problem is. You could establish what kind of content should go in there, transparent and clear. All you did, along with the other gang was redefining the list because you didn't like that your Dear Leaders were now mentioned, too. As long as they weren't listed, you were completely fine with the list (despite that they have doxed from official accounts, and even defended the practice). Aneris ✻ (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Brennan is known to out gay and transgender activists or allies because they disagreed with her on her horribly transphobic remarks, as in it happens more than once. Paul Elam owns a website where people post personally identifying information of people that have slighted the MRA movement and has offered a cash reward for dox on certain people. Gamergate's bread and butter is doxing people they disagree with. Encyclopædia Dramatica hosts dox. Meanwhile, the single instance of PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, Stephanie Zvan, and Ophelia Benson to collectively dox someone who was libeling Myers and the entire Skepchick organization is not on the same level of recognition or severity as anything else listed. Your addition of this debacle to this article is cherry picking and tu quoque. The fact you have to scrounge so deep in "SJW" shit to find this and Margaret Pless's admission to (unintentionally) doxing Mike Cernovich is just poor on your part. Were they in the wrong? Yeah. But your obsession with adding them to the article is really only telling of your personal biases and agenda. Not that your user page doesn't make that fact abundantly clear.—Ryulong (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

...which is still doxxing. Case closed.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The names can be listed, I never had an objection to this. I believe the situations around them should even be explained (for each). I would also like to see who was doxed by GamerGate, and would include notable cases in the A/S community as well, including the recent controversy over Laughing Witch. But I have no trust in that you would do it honestly. All I've seen so far was redefining context, deciding what goes in, and what should be kept out along fairly arbitrary and obviously self serving rules. Tu Quoque reminds me of the porcupine days, when rapey-insults were fashionable by the good SJWs (before they were born again). Tu Quoque was always the lamest excuse ever and as usually nothing but a Thought Terminating Cliché. Of course I detest social justice warriors. I also detest fascists and postmodernists. SJW are a blend of the two things. Social justice activists, however, are great. I was more involved in environmentalism back then but social justice enthusiasts were often there, too (including feminists). Good people, and good discussions. SJWs however, are just Nazi by another name. Aneris ✻ (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I could list people Gamergate has doxxed but then you might come up with some flimsy excuse that says it wasn't Gamergate supporters who were responsible. And to the rest of what you're saying about social justice, your red pill is showing.—Ryulong (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

brb, firing up the SJW crematorium ovens --Ymir (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

...that the "See Also" section contains links to other articles strongly related to the current topic is how every see also section has worked ever. It's not a fucking "hindsight rationalization", you tool. Wikipedia even takes the time to explain how "see also" works, if you've really never seen a section like that before:

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. It is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section, although some featured articles like 1740 Batavia massacre and Mary, Queen of Scots include this section.

And for fuck's sake, quit talking about my "Dear Leaders". I vote Republican, can't fucking stand Pharyngula, and as I just stated, hate doxing. The reason I'm arguing with you (as I just found out this page fucking existed) is that I also hate disingenuous liars, you fucking liar.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You call him disingenuous, cause he doesn't want only add doxxers he dislikes and wants to remove references about doxxers he likes like Ryulong did?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No as I said before...it's because he added four links for the same incident, by someone who doxed once, and is claiming that it is "just making the list (of people and communities who do so habitually) consistent". Oh, and the fact that he's fucking admitted above that his edits have been bad faith attempts to make a point about how "SJWs are fascists". Yes, that's pretty fucking disingenuous. Oh wait, I explained exactly all this above (so if you have read any of it or checked the edit history you must have seen these points made already, and if you haven't, then that's a habit you should pick up), and even told him who would be good candidates for him to add to the list -- any left-leaning person or group who dox habitually (i.e., Gawker, or hell, Cathy Brennan). I think Pharyngula's a prick, and if this wasn't a "Murder, Arson, and Jaywalking" comparison, I'd absolutely be cheering for adding him to the list and taking him down a notch -- but he and the skepchick haven't committed the scope of crime that Aneris is implying they have. Partisan politics have to come second to telling the gotdamn truth, or this site has no fucking point.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The additional links showed sources of various notable people of the A/S community who support the position that doxing was okay. Yes, they are all associated with the SJ faction, and that's the reason it gets "disappeared". How do you demonstrate it otherwise that they -- indeed officially! -- condone doxing? And why do you believe this is irrelevant? The wiki records in painstaking detail that someone was wrong on a YouTube video, but you want to keep this off and you invent reasons. Also, why ignore the many accusations leveled against me? "CTRL+Gamergate" (a smear word of course) and see what's going on. No wonder this looks all fishy and loopy here. It IS that one sided. A constructive approach below Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The seven links showed sources of people involved in a single incident. I can't speak for Ryulong's personal reasons for removing them, but it's a good thing they were, because that's a fucking stupid addition, especially for a see also. If they're all contributors to the same blog, and it's evident that the blog supports an atmosphere of doxing, that would justify one link for the blog itself, with coverage of the events necessary on the article the link targets.

"How do you demonstrate it otherwise"...Ryulong wrote up a fucking paragraph explaining why. There's also the one I just now proposed. Even if you disagree with the tone of that paragraph, that's a completely plausible way to demonstrate what you're trying to, without being dishonest and putting seven members of one group who had one incident alongside a list of many different groups who make doxing your bread and butter. If you went to college, which sure, may not have happened, you definitely had to answer "X is Y as A is to ?" questions at some point in your life, so this shouldn't be a hard concept for you.

I don't give a fuck what's happening on other articles about whatever stupid-ass youtube videos. You're being dishonest here in the discussion I'm actually a part of, and I think that's fucking shitty. I don't have to excuse bad behavior in other discussions (I can call it out quite easily), because I was not part of those discussions.

I'm not ignoring that you've been accused of being a Gamergator, although if you don't want Ryulong and his friends to accuse you of it, you should probably make less edits fact defending gamergate's reputation and criticizing their enemies. He jumps on that shit like catnip. However, Ryulong's fallacious othering approach to discussion doesn't excuse your own -- in your post below, you are still accusing me of trying to "defend Pharyngula because he's my friend". You, sir, are a fucking dishonest prick who is transparently guilty of all the same crimes you accuse your enemies of. Shape the fuck up.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is it in slo-motion, just for you: there --- were --- no --- criteria --- established. There were no criteria established. It was a list of people. It was not clear that "only users who dox X times or dox as their major hobby shall be mentioned here". This was only introduced when names showed up the SJ didn't like. That's the whole point. Do you get it now? Also look at the history of the article. I had nothing to do with whatever happened in between. Aneris ✻ (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

(1) Again, criteria were established by it being a see also section. Don't try to pull this, especially since recognizing the implied meaning of adding a member to a list is a game children can complete, and even Ryulong pointed out why your additions didn't fit after your initial edits. Ryulong is wrong, dead wrong, about doxing ever being justified, but he hit that nail on the head. (2) Your initial ignorance of "criteria" is in no way a rational reason for continuing to try to ram through the same proposal now. It's been explained several times why your version of the page would be disingenuous, even assuming that you didn't intend it to be that way in the first place, and I've even pointed out several ways you could still accomplish your desired name-naming without shitting up the page. Stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a sycophant of Pharyngula, and start contributing in good faith.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Reporting

Since this causes a lot of confusion, here are a few standards that could be considered. There are no “sides” here. If someone did it, it can be included. I never did, nor do I now propose some people be taken off the list. As I understood it, the POV of the wiki is that “doxing is bad” – which is a good position to take – and not It's Okay When They Do It™ where “they” stands for a beloved team or faction in an internet flame war. If these assumptons are correct...

1. Dox did either happen, or did not. This should be uncontroversial. If it happen, there will be a source of some sorts and you can point to it. Be careful about the favourite SJ tactic of adding labels based on idiosyncratic definitions, then only refer to the label "person is a doxer" while building on it that everyone assumes a common (and not the idiosyncratic) definition of the term.
2. Someone did something. If a person did it, it should be easy in principle to show where they did such a thing. Then, this person is known as a doxer. However...
3. Group did something. Wait a minute. Who's the group? How do you establish what the group does? Here it gets interesting. The social justice ideologues like to accuse elastic groups like GamerGate of the thing. Then, they esablish that X is doxing. Then they go around and assign people, with othering, to the evil label they have created. By their Insane Troll Logic you are thus a doxer. They really believe this. But either the group officially announces their doxing (like Anonymous Ops), or there is just somebody who doxed, who is associated with a group. Here you have to again – sorry SJ ideologues – truthfully report about it. Are people of this group in favour of it? Did they protest? When you point to some specific instance and it turns out RandomBob1337 did it, then he might not be notable enough. You cannot inflate such cases in notability by simply claiming “the Republicans” did it, or “the Social justice Warriors” did it, or “the GamerGaters” did it. This is simply lazy thinking, and you know this to be true. Then, why are you doing it on this wiki in such articles?

Notoriety and Notability

People have introduced, later, the arbitrary standard between “habitual doxers” and “one time doxers” and did so because they didn't like that their friends were mentioned. The argument should not not be “OMG!! They aren't on the same level of notoriety. Revert!!” but you would point out that there are two sets of notoriety if you will, and that they could be properly sorted. Or we could discuss what to do about it. That's what intellectually honest people would do. Invariably, people will dispute what is notable to keep their friends off the list, or to place the Other Evil Team onto the list. Hence we need some more common sense standards:

1. Notability of Doxer or Target: either cases might be worth jotting down.
2. Notable is someone with an article here or on the Other Wiki.
3. Nobody is mentioned at all. Nobody (whatever it is, just make it consistent!)

Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Your Opinions

Moved comment:

...if a member of the group did it, thinking they were fighting "for the group", and the group congratulates them on it? Yeah, they fucking took responsibility for it, even if they didn't say it in those exact words. "You can only blame the group if the group literally says 'I'm a bad person who did this thing'" is moronic.

It's definitely worth covering and probably rebutting Rebecca Watson's "doxing is okay" article in prose, but you did not do that. Instead, you saw a list of people or communities who dox definitively (as in, that's why the community exists -- and yes, they're sourced as doing such on the pages the see also links to, since it's against their purpose for see alsos to have footnotes, so your allegations (1) and (2) are without merit), and you inserted four SEVEN links covering the same single incident of when someone thought a single dox was justified.

Rebecca Watson's argument is shit, and we should explain that -- it is beyond irresponsible to sic the internet hate mob on anyone, as the internet hate mob is notoriously shit at proportional response, avoiding collateral damage, or even making sure they got the right target in the first place. Pointy editing of the see also list with the obvious goal of "you fuckers do it too" (especially when, as demonstrated multiple times on this talk page, you're making the same gotdamn mistake of "Othering" anyone who disagrees with you as SJWs and strawmanning them to shit no matter how many times they remind you you're mislabeling them and their argument) is not a constructive way to improve the article.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Pharyngula isn't my fucking friend, and I already explained that it was an issue of being honest with the implications we're making, you dishonest prick.

The guidelines you're proposing would, carried to their natural conclusion, have a list of 451,000 links. You want to be "intellectually honest", then when you're trying to make a list "comprehensive", actually make it fucking comprehensive instead of transparently spamming an issue you have a grudge about. Oooor, use your gotdamn head and create a comprehensive list of relevant, proportionate topics for the see also to cover. There's plenty of left-wing groups and persons who dox habitually to add to the see also if you get your head out of your ass and contribute in good faith. Gawker, for one. Fucking add Gawker. I would be surprised if you couldn't find umpteen cases from Jezebel, either.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, "I never did, nor do I now propose some people be taken off the list." You massively dishonest prick.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The list changed when Hipocrite above claimed that no such things should be mentioned. I then made it consistent to that standard. I also explained that, completely transparently several times on this very page. Since you seem to be especially challenged: NO STANDARD WAS ESTABLISHED! Aneris ✻ (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

None of that blather sounds like "oh, I'm sorry I lied about not proposing that names were removed. I won't try to deny my past behavior." At least commit to some of your principles.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I know you are information-challenged by now. Here is my entry: "(cur | prev) 15:03, 6 November 2015‎ Aneris (Talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (-115)‎ . . (Okay, lets not name names, as demanded, then let's make it consistent. I removed all names and sites from "see also" then.) (undo)". Completely transparent and completely consistent. Your point is what? Aneris ✻ (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Your tu quoque is showing.—Ryulong (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

...

"Okay, lets not name names, as demanded, then let's make it consistent. I removed all names and sites from "see also" then."

let's:

Used to form the first-person plural imperative of verbs.

propose:

To suggest a plan, course of action, etc.

English, motherfucker. Do you speak it.

At best, you're lying about making a specific proposal. At worst, you're admitting that you were completely disingenuous and editing in bad faith when you made those edits and made those proposals, and were never sincere about them in the first place, and then lying about having made that proposal.

Again: there are several avenues to accomplish your anti-Pharyngula/anti-"SJW" goals without being a dishonest shit. They've been pointed out. If someone tries to "disappear" them then, I'll even help fight to reinstate them! But fucking try some of those, instead of doubling down on the dishonesty.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>Implying Anti-"SJW"'s are even capable of honesty

I mean, I appreciate the optimism, but every example I've seen suggests it's wasted effort. Kitsunelaine (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about. I explain it a last time. The article had an unspecifc list of names, on an article called doxing. The implicit meaning of the list was "people who dox". I then added, with sources, cases that were missing. I also added paragraphs about edge cases and other things that are still in the article and apparently found useful. From a discussion in another article, I caught a Goldfish Poop Gang of SJWs who then started to remove things from this article again. No reason or explanation was given. This happened a few times (I wasn't even there, see the records), and apparently the direction was to not name names, which I then adjusted to that standard again, and SAID SO. There is zero disingenious about it. Either you do name names, or you don't. It transpired later that some names should be listed, because they were habitual doxers, which was HOWEVER nowhere clear in the article and nowhere established. If you still don't get, you might be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect and claiming I was disingenious when I argue on this TALK PAGE and MAKE A BIG PROPOSAL of how we could resolve the matter only shows what a collosal liar and bullshit artist you are. You even have the temerity to pull it off underneath it. Aneris ✻ (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You do know TvTropes should have no place in an actual argument, right? Kitsunelaine (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cause they utterly castrated the article about Saddam Hussein?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Does this count as the modern equivalent of being godwin'd? Kitsunelaine (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No, this counts as me being pissed at TV Tropes for being complete and utter PUSSIES (and banning me for a short period of time for posting that on the talk page of the article in question ).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"I have no idea what you are on about." -- it's pretty gotdamn clear. You're making a claim that you never supported removing names from the list. In the past, you have made both edits and arguments suggesting that names should be removed from the list, which I linked. By claiming that you never supported that, you are either claiming that those Linked. Revisions. are just a mass hallucination, which is dishonesty, or that you did indeed make them, but did not support them, which means you were disingenuously editing in bad faith then. The links are there in black and white -- there's not an "I'm sinless!" option of getting out of this.

A simple solution to this, instead of doubling down and repeatedly trying to call me an SJW, or mentally challenged, or claim that I'm in league with Pharyngula, or any of the assorted other ad hominems you have flung around to continuously defend your edits then as if that would even justify re-making them now, is to simply say "oh, yeah, I was wrong about that. I did support it, halfheartedly, but I'm gonna stop trying to play "gotcha" with Ryulong/SJWs/goldfish poop and focus on writing a quality article. In fact, I like your suggestion about writing several paragraphs condemning Pharyngula, making the article much more vocal in criticizing someone who we both think is an asshole than a few mere links would achieve, and so I propose, sincerely, that we do just that." Fuck, copy-paste what I just put, and you can even tell yourself that you were just humoring me, and keep chortling to your friends about how I'm dunning-krugered or information-challenged or whatever the fuck you need to believe.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the name calling, I was too quickly adapting what people did (immediately) with me. Sorry about that. But you are mistaken. I have at all times explained what I did, and have at all times made an effort to keep things consistent according to what I believed was the purpose of the article. You cannot smear me and accuse me of things because I did not divine correctly that the names listed there were habitual doxers and that the "habitual" was the important criterion, and not that they were doxers. This was not explained in the article, and I did not know the cases so that I would be apparent to me. When this was later introduced, I found this disingenious and believe this was a still a reasonable assessment, since all too often (evidence: everywhere) this is the case in such topics. Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, it much appreciated. Some clarifications, though:

Unless I have misspoken (and if so, point it out), I haven't criticized you for not recognizing the pattern in the original article; I have criticized the idea that there was no pattern, and that it was added retroactively to justify protectionism.

More specifically, I am directly accusing you of saying you have not done something that you have, in words, previously done. It is important for us to be sincere in what we're proposing (if we're not giving the proposal the effort of considering it seriously, why should anyone else?), and also important for us to admit when we have fallen short of this in the past. If you can demonstrate that you're coming to this discussion in good faith by disavowing previous bad faith behavior, I'm certain we'd be on the same anti-doxing side here.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Righteous doxing?

The question has arisen as to whether we should include a section about cases where some or many have considered a doxing to be merited. That brings to mind a situation I was marginally involved in. A Tor developer and coder I follow on Twitter, Andrea, doxed a Twitter troll who'd had at least seven accounts which were directed at harassing her, another female Tor developer, as well as many others in the "net freedom movement" (of which I am a strong supporter), male and female alike. This troll also spewed bullshit at me, but I was mostly just amused and enjoyed getting him riled up. (Trolls frequently say things that one can make come back and bite them.)

When I learned of this doxing -- almost as soon as it happened -- opinions were divided about it within our community. I ultimately decided it was righteous, but was disturbed that several people also contacted the troll's place of employment (he was a pharmacist tweeting from work). Tho I've not seen this confirmed, there are claims he was fired. That bothers me. He didn't do anything criminal and didn't really ever deploy sexual bullshit in his harassment, rape threats, or odious things like that.

While it seems this case might make a good addition to the article, I'm not sure about the ethics or protocol for stating the doxed person's name. It's no secret at this point, and is written about quite widely. But I'd like to know what the community thinks about this case in general, and about including it in our article. (Andrea's explanation and list of harassing tweets are here.)---Mona- (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Doxxing somebody just for being a massive prick is never ok, but doxxing people who do break laws is perfectly acceptable because that's how the law functions in finding criminals. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a reasonable opinion, Paravant. My experience watching this play out in real time was that reasonable people were divided. ---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the line, though? At what point do you call harassment being an asshole, and at what point is it a crime? Why is Internet harassment given more leeway? I don't think it's black and white at all. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometime, doxxing may be sometimes perceived as "righteous" (I agree to that), but it is doxxing nevertheless.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, maybe you'd like it better if you knew the troll is a waaay out anti-Zionist who think GG is actually a Zionist and acting at the directions of Mossad. Or so he claimed to believe. He was a troll, so who knows -- he opined that if Snowden were the real deal he'd have released documents showing CIA and Mossad joint perfidy.---Mona- (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, in english? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a rather lame attempt at trolling, even for you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here goes: this troll was a "more radical than thou," keeper of the Who is Really on the Side of the People tablets. In his (purported) view, both Edward Snowden, and the primary journalist bequeathed with Snowden's NSA documents, Glenn Greenwald, are Mossad/CIA agents running a "psyops." AKA, "limited hangouts." Some of the "evidence" for this is that no NSA stories have revealed the CIA/Mossad's masterminding of All Evil.---Mona- (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

---

1. Doxing is always disreputable, except in a very specific, highly unlikely cases of averting immediate harm. I have an extremely dim view on people who do it. “Righteous” makes me cringe inside. Virtually every heinous act ever was done by cocksure “righteous” people. And of course, I know the current brand of “righteous” people, who are distortionists and rationalizers and motivated reasoners.
2. the medieval “outlawed” principle where someone forgos their rights to privacy when they do some actions (e.g. doxing themselves) is also morally questionable. One of the reasons are edge cases and interpretations (which would lead to sides outlawing each other eventually). I believe the tools people have, banning and blocking are suffienct. If someone is Mabus-level disturbed, you need to contact the authorities.
3. When you are beig doxed, you, and you alone, have obviously good reason to make matters personal. I still don't think you doxing “back” is acceptable, since you cannot know the consequences, which can be most severe (people can lose families, everything, in some countries people are hacked to death for their views). “They shouldn't have doxed then” is not a good argument. I dont't see human actions as a force of nature, which does unlike them punish stupidity at the wrong places indiscriminately and harshly. Hence, I come out with with a complete “no”. But obviously when you are harmed by this, and you see that the other people get away, might do it again, and knowing that the internet often has no good recourse, I am not sure what someone can do. I'll make up my mind about victims who retaliate rather on a case-by-case basis. I have sympathy, but will not outright grant that they can do whatever they want in retaliation.
4. A special case is when someone releases hateful unsolcited mail correspondence where the hater gave their name. I believe you shouldn't — per se — release private correspondence, but in keeping the proportions it might be okay to do so in extreme cases. After all, the person writing clear treats and hatemail violate common decency and cannot except then that their abuse is protected by the goodwill of keeping things private. Aneris ✻ (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

---

...bullshit "doxxing people who break laws is perfectly acceptable". The core thing that makes doxxing doxxing is that you're setting a pack of bloodthirsty hounds free (not on a target, but free) with absolutely no due diligence or effort to keep them on target. Pretending that the internet mob can be controlled is purposeful ignorance to the level of doublethink, and the fact that every single time the doxing leads to harassment of the victims of the original crime.

I agree completely with Aneris on his point 1, and to an extent point 4. I distrust the police as much as the next person, but turning over evidence-gathering and punishment to the mob is an abomination of justice, and it's obscene for someone to pretend that it's okay to dox "as long as we're pretty sure the person we're doxing did something bad."KrytenKoro (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I did a whole section on accountability because of the MRAs who think Gawker is a doxing site. Aleksandra96 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Violentacrez is not the first time they've doxed. They definitely dox habitually, support the practice, and do not even have the fig leaf of "self defense to reveal abuse" like Anita or Pharyngula did.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That Gawker thing, when they revealed what they did about Tim Geithner's brother, was almost universally (and rightly) condemned. After that, the guy who owns Gawker said he was changing the direction of the publication. I guess we'll see. The issue of whether doxing is ever justified, well,I feel so ambivalent. No one would ever accuse me of being a fence-sitter on most issues, but this one just ties me up in knots. On the one hand, arguments like Aneris makes do make moral sense to me. On the other, when Andrea doxed the Twitter troll I pretty quickly went along with it; she and another Tor developer truly felt stalked and harassed on Twitter and blocking didn't work because the guy just kept creating ever-more accounts. That made moral sense to me, but I was very horrified by some people calling his employer, and then hearing reports he'd been fired. As has been pointed out, once you dox someone the mob you unleash can't be controlled.---Mona- (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I can understand being a fence-sitter about whether the counter-harassment is "deserved" if the right person is hit by it. The problem with that, the thing that makes doxing never okay, is that...the chance that only the "right" person is hit by it is so negligible that you basically have a guarantee that there will be "collateral damage".

From a personal example -- I have had trouble getting jobs because of the arguments and litigation someone with the same first and last name as me got into online. I had cops show up at my mother's place of business while customers were there. I have had to clearly state to each interviewer "this person is not me, please make absolutely sure that your background check is aware of this", and it still doesn't always take. That's just from someone being involved in a loud argument, not even true controversy, the likes of which get you death threats or jail time.

With everything Violentacrez did, a quick search on facebook shows at least three people with his first and last name, and several others that are only a letter or inflection mark off. You want to tell me what measures Gawker instituted to make sure that none of these people's friends or employers would mistake them with the guy in the article? How they made sure the grapevine didn't mess up any details along the way, and accidentally impugn the wrong name? 'cause if they sent out some sort of global brainware patch to biologically restrict us from getting mistakes, I wasn't aware of it.

The Boston bombing should be the prime example of why the belief in the efficacy of doxing, like torture, should absolutely not be given the time of day at rationalwiki -- the mob, esp. the internet mob, is so prone to going off half-cocked, of not verifying things themselves, and of reacting viciously and violently on an absence of actual evidence that it must be taken as a given when enacting such a campaign. There is no excuse for people who perpetrate this, no matter how villainous they think the person is -- not Gawker, not Gjoni, nada. The most that would be acceptable is something like...maybe linking a tweet so that others can see it, but doing it in a way that can absolutely verify that the tweet wasn't altered. Even then, you're running the risk of people getting things mixed up.

And I know we can't rely on the government or traditional media to always catch the bad guy, and assume there is no corruption there...but this isn't a good alternative. There has to be a better solution than a method that has consistently resulted in worse outcomes than if nothing had been done at all.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

KrytenKoro, your arguments are quite persuasive. The pharmacist Andrea doxed has a reasonably common name, and this comparatively minor bullshit is now going to follow him for years when prospective employers google him. Personally, I now have no need for anonymity -- I'm retired and don't care who knows I am me. But I very strongly support Internet anonymity. It's critical for intellectual exploration and self-expression. And, as you argue, and as I saw in the case of the pharmacist Andrea doxed, the mob just cannot be controlled. An asshole dropped out of Twitter and has almost completely stopped blogging after Andrea's doxing of his troll pal. He'a a total prick (who detests me), but so what? He's pseudonymous and he feared being next. That's just not how I want the Internet to be.---Mona- (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

At the same time, giving them free reign to harass individuals can't be the moral position either. Large websites like Twitter do nothing to prevent harassment and stalking, so if the people choose to do something about it instead, in order to defend themselves, it's hardly immoral. The way I see it, nobody made them stop. They had equal amounts of free speech as everyone else. But, you have to be responsible for your speech. If you choose to say hateful things, it may come back to bite you, and I think that's good. I'd rather more bigots keep their mouths shut out of fear than quite likely ruin lives with their harassment, and possibly cause suicides. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Question

Do people 'reverse dox' as is sometimes done with 'spam nuisances'?

'Someone I knew' when filling out forms at events etc would put in 'one minor difference' to know where the junk mail was coming from - would it be feasible to do something similar to confuse the doxers? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

Sorry, but 'doxxing' is simply an incorrect spelling. Nobody in the communities where the term originated would spell it that way. The spelling with one 'x' is the original and correct way to spell the word. I don't want to argue so just keep the incorrect spelling without a disclaimer if you want to. 83.7.36.252 (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I generally spell it with two xx's because I like the letter x. However, Wikipedia and all major dictionaries that I checked present both spellings as options without qualification. It doesn't seem to me that doxxing is an incorrect spelling, unless some prescriptivists invented a pedantic rule I am not aware of saying so. — Dysk (contribs) 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Both spellings are certainly widely used. Maybe we could include the idea that it's spelt with one x as a prescriptivist myth? Even if we can find evidence that doxing is the original spelling, which hasn't yet been provided, the original spelling of a word is (despite prescriptivist fallacies) not necessarily the correct spelling. Otherwise we would still be using archaic French, Latin, Italian, or German spellings for many English words ("fisch" not "fish", "raisun" not "reason", etc), and certainly wouldn't use American English spellings like "color". --Annanoon (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)