SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DECISION – 'aristarchus':
Introduction:
Actions have consequences. This is not a matter of free speech or censorship.
Doxing "Doxing or doxxing is the act of publicly revealing previously private personal information about an individual or organization, usually via the internet." This is the definition upon which we are basing this decision. Legally, the term does not appear to be well-defined in the US but doxing is also covered by laws relating to harassment, threats, and abuse. Elsewhere in the world, the definitions are sometimes more clearly defined but might cover a broader interpretation than the US definitions. Which interpretation is applicable could depend on the location of the perpetrator.
Background:
We first noticed that something was amiss in late 2020. Submissions from 'aristarchus' would contain certain words, phrases and names which were apparently unconnected with the rest of the content. We were unable to understand their significance at that time, but they would be meaningful to the intended victim. (Story submissions by 'aristarchus' often contain additional material that he has inserted himself.) In almost all cases we removed them prior to posting the submission as a story because they had no bearing on the rest of the submission.
In late 2021 the doxing became more blatant both in comments that were made to stories and as well as on IRC. We also contacted the victim (by now it was obvious to us who it was) who responded and explained what had been published, where and when. We also discovered additional material that had not been seen by the victim. He had been suffering this abuse for a considerable time.
Please Note:
This investigation is not something that has been carried out purely on a whim by the admins on this site. During it we have consulted with and taken advice from a representative of the board of directors. (As an aside, SoylentNews PBC has never been 'run' by 'TheMightyBuzzard' or any of the current admin staff whose names you know well.) This is a serious matter and the investigation was conducted with utmost discretion by a very small team.
To ensure that 'aristarchus' is aware of this Decision he will receive an Admin-to-User message and an email to the address associated with his username drawing his attention to it.
Publishing Personal Information:
It is now apparent that 'aristarchus' has doxed at least one person in our community, and possibly others who may have left the site rather than suffer the harassment. This is not a single act, but has taken place repeatedly over a significant period of time.
'aristarchus' has published the victim's full name, where the victim lives, and the victim's employer. Presumably he believes this information to be accurate. We have seen additional comments that contain threats and state very personal information, such that posting them here would likely do further damage. We are trying to be discreet. If it were you, would you want us to air all the information that has been revealed? This action might also have placed other members of the victim's family at risk from abuse or embarrassment.
It is obvious that 'aristarchus' has conducted research away from this site. SoylentNews PBC does not hold such information nor has it been ever been declared in any comments.
We can only guess at the true reason behind these disclosures: at the very least it appears to be a smear campaign.
What We Have Done So Far:
- The victim has a full copy of all the evidence that we have been able to trace to date. The evidence was all publicly accessible. We are not aware of a compromise of any other community members' information. We are not going to indicate where this information might be found.
- We have made a separate backup of the database to ensure that evidence should not be lost.
- We have removed personal information from database comments and IRC logs where possible.
- It is entirely for the victim to decide whether to seek legal redress in this matter.
Options:
There are 2 options open to us.
(1) Permanent Ban
- 'aristarchus' will face a full and permanent ban from this community.
- His account(s) will be completely disabled.
- Any further posting he may make to the site will be treated as Spam.
(2) Temporary Ban
- 'aristarchus' will face a temporary ban of 3 months where his account(s) will be disabled. He will be able to restore his 'aristarchus' account when his ban ends. His conduct during this time will be taken into consideration before his account is reactivated.
- During the ban 'aristarchus' may still post on the site as an 'Anonymous Coward', with all the limitations that are associated with that i.e. no journal, no ability to moderate, etc. Whether he wishes to make his identity known in his AC posts is entirely up to him.
- During and subsequent to the ban he is to act as we would expect any other member of this community to act. He is not to disrupt other discussions nor is he to continue to complain about his treatment. The ban is entirely a consequence of his own actions. We will not discuss this matter publicly. If he has complaints he may contact us via email as usual.
- He is to refrain immediately and completely from harassing other members of this community.
- Any serious future abuses by 'aristarchus' can result in a permanent ban being imposed without further warning.
We acknowledge that 'aristarchus' regularly makes insightful and interesting observations and we recognize that he has many supporters on this site. That is why we have offered the option of a conditional Temporary ban.
Action/Conclusion:
'aristarchus' must now decide which ban he wishes to accept. This is not negotiable – there are no other options open to him. If he does not respond either by commenting here or by email within 48 hours of the release of this Decision then we will assume that he has chosen the Temporary Ban and he is bound by the conditions stated within it. He may elect to change to a Permanent ban at any time.
For legal reasons we do not intend to comment further. The community can now see why several of the site admins have been putting in long working days, sometimes in excess of 12 hours since just before Christmas. We are exhausted and need to have a period of normal activity so that we can recover. We urge the community to be circumspect and restrained in the discussions to this Decision – there is little to be gained from inflaming the current situation any further. We ask you not to speculate about the identity of the victim.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:04PM (21 children)
Do you, the admins, know what does the victim wants? I ask the admins, as I don't think an anonymous coward's word should be trusted nor do I want the victim to have to sign their name to it. In any case, it seems like that is pertinent in any community decision. In fact, if this is a future problem I'd hope that there is no "default rule" but rather a community discussion like this one with information regarding the victim's feelings.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:22PM (2 children)
https://soylentnews.org/meta/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=47504&page=1&cid=1218246#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
Admins can confirm that this AC is the target of ari's ire.
Forgot to mention that a significant financial contribution to SN might assuage some hurt feelzies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:52PM (1 child)
ari went about it the wrong way, but now that the cat's out of the bag and the editors defence of @we can't take action because of section 230" has been brown by their own actions, let the conversion begin. Or not. I've wasted enough time on this bs today. But it's always fun to watch a dumpster fire or a train wreck. So many of us just come for the hubris and the schadenfreude. Cuz we told you so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @05:00PM
"hate speech" (whatever that means this week): not against the rules
"lies": not against the rules
"right wing snowflakery": not against the rules
Creating legal liabilities: against the rules.
Yeah, doxxing creates legal liabilities, in a variety of ugly ways, depending on jurisdiction. So try looking for a true equivalence rather than a false one.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by looorg on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:25PM (15 children)
Why should Aristarchus get to decide his own punishment? Shouldn't the person he doxxed then get to decide, or at least that makes a lot more sense. If he doesn't want to then it should be up to someone else, not Aristarchus, such as the BoD or the community in general. But it's a bit odd that he would get to chose his own punishment.
While not related I have been banned from modding a few times. While not the same and this is not a gripe or anything. But I didn't get to pick and chose. I just got it and I took it. I think it was six months of modding suspension last time (it's the last time since I just turned off the modding now and I don't really plan on turning it back on anytime soon; clearly I can't be trusted with it for some reason) To many posts that from the same user that apparently turned into a modbomb or something, it was upvotes not downvotes.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday February 03 2022, @09:41PM (4 children)
Choice? The choice he has available is to accept his sentence or to ask for a worse one.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Thursday February 03 2022, @11:03PM (3 children)
I guess the question is why should Aristarchus get to pick at all? It seems like something not having been offered to anyone else. Also three months is not a very long time. I guess depending on personal preference it could be an eternity but it could also be over in a flash.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday February 05 2022, @05:58PM (2 children)
He got a six-month ban. The choice he was offered is to make the ban permanent. Of course he could do this himself by leaving without anyone offering him a choice.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday February 05 2022, @08:48PM (1 child)
Says three in the article/story. Did they double down somehow or did Arist decide to give himself three extra months for bad behavior?
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday February 06 2022, @03:52AM
I seem to have made a mistake and typed six when I meant three
-- hendrik
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:13PM (4 children)
A person claiming to be the target, posting as AC, has indicated a preference for an apology and that things go back the way they were before. That person is being exceptionally reasonable.
Giving Aristarchus the choice is an elegant solution to a tricky problem. SN is admin'd and moderated with a very light hand and is one of the few forums that still permits anonymous discourse. Offering that choice allows the admins to continue that extremely light touch philosophy and simultaneously removes any glee the offender would take from evading a nonconsensual permaban.
Clever.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:59PM (3 children)
If that is the case then I am fine with that, I don't really have any issue with it.
While I might not be friends, or foe, with Aristarchus, or agree with him of much of anything based on what he finds interesting in his submissions. I have no general desire, or getting filled with glee, to see him permanently banned. That said for what he apparently did something had or has to be done and I'm just less certain that he should get to pick which "punishment" should be handed out or which one he will accept. If anything three months seem light by all standards.
That said I'm less certain about the elegance of the matter, if it will work or not or the whole pick your own punishment aspect. As noted it might be a blunt tool either way as any user could in theory register multiple accounts and just swap around if one was so inclined. Stories can still be submitted, AC comments could be made. In that regard it's not much of a punishment. If one can really be handed out. I guess the punishment is that you are not allowed to have a named account. But the punishment might not be enforceable beyond that, I guess if one wanted to just register Ar1starchus or any multitude of similar names on a daily or hourly basis. While frowned upon unless you want to namecheck and ban that way it could be moot point.
With that in mind if they could stop him why can't they stop all the jew-shit-posting that seems to be happening with some frequency these days.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Friday February 04 2022, @01:21AM (2 children)
I'm neither friend nor foe with ari, but I would like to categorically state that imbecile behaviour like doxxing is not acceptable. Seriously dude, grow up, or get some professional counseling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @08:55AM (1 child)
No one seems to know anything about who was doxxed, or what was doxxed about them, so this is a very undoxxing! I suspect fowls playing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @08:50PM
The story makes it sound otherwise. At a minimum there seems to have been names, locations and employer.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 04 2022, @04:13AM (4 children)
Huh. How many upvotes equals a modbomb? Occasionally I find myself following someone around and upvoting 'em a bunch of times in a row, but it's because they kept saying interesting things, nothing personal about it.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @07:26AM (1 child)
Mod Bombs
A 'mod bomb' is simply when a user, 'A', uses 5 or more of their moderation points to 'down mod' comments posted by a single user, 'B'. Would you want someone who has a vendetta to use all a bunch of their mod points on your comments? It works both ways -- don't use all a bunch of your mod points on a single user. When this is detected, all moderations making up the mod bomb are reversed and the mod points are not returned. We would like to make the code automatically prevent a mod bomb from occurring, but this is not yet in place. The focus is on the quality of the comments on the site, not on who posts them. Remember that there are other users on the site who have mod points. If you have used all that are permitted, do not fret as someone else will likely come along later.
Sock Bombs
Much like a 'mod bomb', a 'sock bomb' is when a user, 'A', use 4 or more of their moderation points to 'up mod' comments posted by a single user, 'B'. (The name is taken from the idea of a "sockpuppet" account.) Again, our intention is to update the code to automatically prevent this from happening. We realize that this can happen unintentionally when, say, a subject-matter expert provides supporting information in comments to a story. Excess 'up mods' beyond 4 per day are subject to being reversed. A repeated pattern of user 'A' upmodding user 'B' may be subject to further action. In short, please do not try to 'game' the system.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 04 2022, @05:00PM
Thanks. I know I've spent more than four points on a single user at once, but nothing seems to have come of it. Maybe they just revert, and since I don't go back to check, I wouldn't notice.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday February 04 2022, @12:22PM (1 child)
Right. That is the same. I don't think I pay that much attention to the name of the person but the content of the post. I think it's around four or five points given towards the same user. So if you don't pay attention it can sort of happen by accident. I think it's also an issue or remnant from when you only had 5 mod points in a day and to then blow all or nearly all on the same was somewhat harder I guess then compared to when you have 10 points. It become sort of twice as easy to hang yourself and it could or should happen more frequent.
That said you don't actually get any kind of explanation or notification it just goes into effect, one day it was fine and then next it just said you are banned from modding for 180 days. It had happened a few times before so it wasn't like it had never happened before to 180 days. But you don't even really know know why it happens as you don't really get told why and how. I don't even know if there is a review or if it's manual or if it's just automatic. It has passed now but I just turned it off. Clearly there are issues that I don't really feel like dealing with.
While this is offtopic and I don't really have a gripe about it or anything I just found it odd that Arist was offered three months of not logging in with his account but you can apparently get six months of not modding for just upvoting a few to many comments. Still it was just blocking from modding and not blocking from logging in it's not quite the same but the time was twice as long.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 04 2022, @05:23PM
Same here. Most of the time I notice the name after the mod is done. And with extremely rare exceptions (five now?) I only mod up. Unless it's truly egregious (and not just dumbass spew) I've got better uses for my mod points.
A few days back I was amused to note that I'd made 3 or 4 upmods in a row on someone who normally I vehemently disagree with (by now I don't even remember who) but on the topic of the moment, evidently had something salient to contribute.
I've never had a mod ban. Rather the reverse over on the Green Site, where I've occasionally had perpetual mod points (spend 'em all and immediately have more). First time that happened, it went on for about six months. Started somewhere around the same time as buckfeta.
Agreed on the relative punishment, but it might reflect a bigger problem with sock accounts than most of us are aware of.
Me, I just have the one account, always logged in and never post AC.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday February 04 2022, @05:13AM (1 child)
I respect that, but there's a downside. It's the reason crime victims don't get to pick the sentence. It also puts the target on the spot. It's the moderators who should take the heat for a ban, not the person who didn't sign up for moderation decisions.
It does sound like the staff here have carefully heard out what the target thinks, and I'm glad of that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:56PM
Also, last I looked, there's the whole "community aervice" in lieu of jail or fines. So even criminals can in many cases choose their punishment.