Wikipediocracy

.... better known, er, notorious as Vox Day (T-H-L), and perhaps as Xday (T-C-L). At least, that's what this edit claims. Discussion commences.

There is a fundamental conflict between the obsession with anonymity and the obsession to stop people with a COI from editing. Sometimes things go too far towards preserving anonymity. I think that this might go too far the other way.

Well, if it is Vox Day, he's violating WP:COI by editing the Sad Puppies (T-H-L) article. He started the darn movement!

Indeed, his edits have twice been reverted on grounds of COI. As if that article was of the slightest importance!

The Joy wrote:Well, if it is Vox Day, he's violating WP:COI by editing the Sad Puppies (T-H-L) article. He started the darn movement!

No. His outfit is Rabid Puppies.

eppur si muove wrote:

The Joy wrote:Well, if it is Vox Day, he's violating WP:COI by editing the Sad Puppies (T-H-L) article. He started the darn movement!

No. His outfit is Rabid Puppies.

Yes; it doesn't have its own article but Hugo Award (T-H-L) says "In 2015, two groups of science fiction writers, the "Sad Puppies (T-H-L)" led by Brad R. Torgersen and Larry Correia, and the "Rabid Puppies" led by Vox Day..." You can't expect Wikipedia editors to appreciate these subtleties. In any case the whole thing is a demonstration of why genuine experts are reluctant to edit Wikipedia.

The original version of the article sounds interesting, but it has been revdel'led.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:The original version of the article sounds interesting, but it has been revdel'led.

It looks complicated. There was an article, probably a very stupid one, and it was deleted. A new article was created. Its history was merged with the old article's and then the old history was hidden. Why not just leave the old article deleted?

Michaeldsuarez wrote:The original version of the article sounds interesting, but it has been revdel'led.

Somebody screwed up by restoring the deleted article previously at the title, and then someone else screwed up by hiding the revisions ("RevDel") instead of deleting the article and selectively restoring the content of the current article. I've now done that. The old one was whimsical nonsense.

It has been decreed that there will be no outing, by an account which after some initial activity has only posted about every two years.

Ming wrote:It has been decreed that there will be no outing, by an account which after some initial activity has only posted about every two years.

And undone, with edit summary "Undid revision 706123111 by Daimanta (talk) When it comes to potential conflicts of interest, this is a valid concern to be discussed". There needs to be a better way to resolve the conflict between anonymity and preventing COI.

Oh, and then re-done: "Undid revision 706163760 by PeterTheFourth (talk) Read WP:OUTING, there is no COI exception. Contact the relevant people if needed. As is, the edits on the page will remain deleted."

Poetlister wrote:Indeed, his edits have twice been reverted on grounds of COI. As if that article was of the slightest importance!

And restored again (giving the exact words Gallo used: "unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic" and "right-wing to neo-Nazi" instead of racism, sexism, and homophobia). After which DragonflySixtyseven (T-C-L) (the administrator who did the "outing" mentioned in the opening post) added the word "respectively", writing in the edit summary: 'respectively' is an important word.

she described the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies as being "unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic" and "extreme right-wing to neo-Nazi (...) respectively".

Not sure if that's an improvement, could be misinterpreted (if you don't pay attention to the double quotes). What Gallo wrote on her facepage was:

There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end to social justice in science fiction and fantasy. They are repentantly racist, misogynist and homophobic"

Poetlister wrote:Oh, and then re-done: "Undid revision 706163760 by PeterTheFourth (talk) Read WP:OUTING, there is no COI exception. Contact the relevant people if needed. As is, the edits on the page will remain deleted." :popcorn:

Nihonjoe's comments to the removed discussion are interesting:

Based on their edits and how they are acting, it is extremely likely this is who they are. Even their wording of things is very similar to how Day words things on his blog posts. How do you know it isn't? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 06:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Does "innocent until proven guilty" not exist on Wikipedia? The burden should fall on the accuser, not the accused. The correct question to ask is, "How do you [Nihonjoe] know it's him?" Nihonjoe's "How do you [Kelly] know it isn't [him]?" question would be invalid if the "innocent until proven guilty" principle is to be accepted. Xday could simply be a Vox Day fanboy. Why assume that they're the same person? Why assume that Vox Day is the only person in the world who speaks as he does?

Just fancy that: Oliver Keyes is involved with this somehow.

Hex wrote:Just fancy that: Oliver Keyes is involved with this somehow.

When Day first blogged about Ironholds, he linked directly to Ironhold's blog; when Day blogged about Ironholds a second time, he used the "t.co" URL shortener, so Ironhold's blog entry provoked a change in Day's behavior. To be fair, though, Day is helping to keep the reading habits of his readers private from an individual who seeks to shame them.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Does "innocent until proven guilty" not exist on Wikipedia?

You know perfectly well that it doesn't, not if you are "not of the body".