We need to clarify what is doxxing

[SearchVoat]

What if it's not alleged? Maybe you have arrest/court records proving he's a shit IRL. Scammer, sex trafficker, etc. AND THEY DOXXED THEMESELVES. Yet they're now asking for donations and trying to involve innocent people in potentially criminal enterprise or something that will allow them to be publicly smeared due to future guilt by association. I can't warn anyone on this site to protect a criminal's identity?

Sure you can. Post stuff saying "this guy's been convicted in the past, PM me for details." There's no prohibition on doxing in PMs. (It would be considerate to add a note to your PMs warning people against posting the info publicly to avoid a ban.)

What happens if the info has already been posted on Voat? You're saying you'll host the info, but we can't link to it?

Yes. I don't want to remove anything from the archive and probably never will (unless legally required to). I will only delete archive records if I'm requested to by goats who can prove who they are.

[Savesequim]

@SearchVoat I appreciate the directness, though we disagree.

I have one additional question based on your responses, but it's deserving of its own post.

[antiliberalsociety]

Thanks for posting this and giving me the opportunity to explain my actions in redacting your chat messages, and my interpretation of the no-dox rule.

I explained my general position on doxxing in the "Dox drama" post: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=10092

As I re-read it, I realise once more that I have allowed ambiguity. I said "anything that can personally identify a user".

...the voat username was not explicitly referenced...

As you say in your post, your message didn't mention the user's username and therefore - maybe - it doesn't "personally identify" that particular user. If we were going to split hairs I might try to argue that their legal name surely does identify them... even if no one knows which username you're talking about.

Or I could simply restate the rule as it was phrased at Voat 1.0: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity... which doesn't seem to require that both real world and online identities are shared. (Others here have challenged the definition of the sensitive qualifier in that sentence.)

Let me take another shot at it: "You mustn't post publicly on this site any personally identifying information about a user of this site".

What's personally identifying information? Anything you could "reasonably reliably" use to find that person IRL. Photo, full name, home or work address etc. But where to draw the line?

What about just the name of the street they live on? That doesn't identify them, does it? Could be anyone on that street. Ok, so anything that might assist in personally identifying them. But that might include the fact that they are male or female - removing half the population from the pool of possible candidates would certainly assist in identifying them.

However carefully a rule or law is constructed it is almost always possible to imagine a hypothetical example for which its literal permission/prohibition differs from the "spirit" of the rule. Unfortunately there are plenty of website users here and elsewhere who take pleasure in imagining these hypothetical examples and presenting them as a "test" of an admin's "consistency" in applying the rules. It's tiresome.

...the moderator in question has not asked for the information to be removed...

Not necessary according to my interpretation. The fact that the user doesn't know (or maybe even doesn't care) that he has been doxxed doesn't affect the rule.

...the information is easily found (it became a meme on voat)...

Some online definitions of "doxxing", including Wikipedia's, state that the personal information must be previously private for it to constitute a true dox. Others do not. I don't.

...the moderator himself has repeatedly claimed that the dox information is incorrect.

Again, hard to use this is a justification. Many people claim many things. It doesn't mean the information is necessarily incorrect.

I wasn't reposting it to dox anyone, but show the hypocrisy of B4A.

Motive is irrelevant. I cannot judge motivation.

Nonetheless, it exposes the still blurry boundaries of what constitutes a dox. Essentially SV is now removing an alleged dox w/out any proof one way or the other. I'm assuming this is done to show zero tolerance and discourage doxxing behavior, but it cuts to the core of 'What is doxxing?'

This is exactly right. The boundaries of doxxing are blurry. I will interpret the rule broadly because I think it is more important to ban a dox when maybe it should have been permissible than to permit a dox when maybe it should have been banned.

The username/alleged dox in question purports that the user used an abbreviated version of their legal name as their username. If this were true, under the current rules, a user could make a username that is their legal name. While it wouldn't be doxxing to tag their handle, it would be to type the same screenname without the "@"

This is one of those tricky hypotheticals I mentioned earlier. In fact it's probably covered by something below...

Ultimately this demonstrates the self-dox standard should be the guideline determining whether a dox is actually a dox or self-promotion.

I cover self-doxxing briefly in the Dox drama post and provide more of my reasoning in this comment below it. I haven't seen anyone here agree with my position on self-doxxing. I'm still not sure why it's so important for people to be allowed to post someone else's self-dox info. I think it might be a kind of impotence - I hate that guy and I'm frustrated that no one knows who he is, I want the Real World to know what a shit he is. But maybe he's only a shit online and he's a respectable family man IRL? Maybe your belief in his "criminality" is mistaken? ALS accuses everyone of being a pedophile. I know for a fact that he can be mistaken.

Another example that I'm not posting until rules are clarified is a user that has a screenname that they share with a youtube acct they've cross promoted that prominantly bears their legal name. They also repeatedly linked their personal blog and stated they were the author of said blog.

Whether the user explicitly stated they are comfortable with their info being shared, that was the clear purpose of their account. Yet to do a post about this user and their criminal activity would be a "dox" under current admin's policies.

Now this will really blow your mind: if the rule is You mustn't post publicly on this site any personally identifying information about a user of this site, as it is currently, and it's strictly enforced, then you can't even post identifying information about yourself. The only way this guy can cross promote a site that reveals his real name is to post the self-doxing declaration that I describe in the Dox drama post.

...this user and their criminal activity...

You can post about the user and his alleged criminal activity, but you can't post his real name or anything else that identifies him. That may be frustrating but it's the rule. If you want him punished for his behaviour send the evidence to the cops.

EDIT: All of this remains open to debate. I have no difficulty in admitting I am wrong if I can be so convinced. See for example the recent rule change.

Never go full Blume

ALS accuses everyone of being a pedophile

I think you hit every point in that Jewish pedo's playbook. You threatened anti pedos, called pedo hate "bs", you asked if we should blame them "if they can't help it", called anti pedos pedos themselves, called me "obsessed with pedos", almost as if he's coaching you on his troll tactics.

Tell me, Mr. I know for a fact he can be mistaken, as long and loud as my clash with @TexasVet was, did I ever once accuse him of being a pedo?