Wow, you really need this, don't you? XD
I gave you my reasons. Accept them or don't.
"TC doesn't have spite for anyone on this forum. XD"
TC's intent to annoy Pink by doing what he did for his own personal amusement (which was obvious to anyone with a brain) seemed pretty spiteful to me.
"Tony is saying he would have taken it down in spite of this. Which would have meant going against the rules the community agreed upon."
Where is the rule that talks about doxxing and how it should be handled? Show me because I sure as shit can't see any rules related to that at all.
You can't break a rule that doesn't exist.
I remember some of this! It was a while ago. I remember I said Turncoat shouldn't have posted the contents of his/pink's private channel. This controversy was a long time ago, to the point where I'd say you'd be hard pressed to evaluate the Turncoat of now(time of this post) based on his actions back then. He has changed, as many of us have; he has had to use priv a few times since then, so experience has likely made him a little better at this job. If I had to pick to decide, I'm not sure if I think a new mod would do us good in practice. Fortunately I don't have to decide. I suppose if he wasn't so constantly occupied, I would maybe want Michael Prey as a mod? That said, he doesn't have the time, and even if he did, he lacks Turncoat's familiarity with the communal/social politics of this site. So in practice he isn't an option. I wonder how Turncoat would feel about working with automated sub-administrative options. We already have stuff like that in place, for example the auto time out for spamming in the chat, that thing works reasonably well(with a few exceptions). Maybe it would prove beneficial to explore more down that road. For example, we could give a human mod off-on control of an automated administrative program, like a bot designed to fulfill certain tasks. Now the bot cannot be bought; not even the human moderator can cause it to do things it normally wouldn't. But because the mod has off-on control, they can abort the program/undo specific changes it made and logged, should it fuck up in the way that bot admins all to often do. I dunno, I'm rambling at this point, but if I'm putting thoughts on paper, may as well show said thoughts to you guys.
Rasseranata: "A mod could take down a dox if they feel like it, with or without the cry of pain of the doxee. There is no loss in it."
Deleting posts without cause is pretty terrible. If they can take those down, why not any other posts they happen to not like as well?
There needs to be a firmly established line so that it's not just whimsy.
Reaper: "Apparently, crow wouldn't care if her own personal information was exposed on the forum, if she happens to get doxxed. After all, she seems to be against deleting personal information that can be abused and exploited."
Actually, she'd be able to request it be taken down once it'd be confirmed to be her info, just the same as everyone else here. What made the Pink story different was her unwillingness to say it was her info. There's been other users that have requested other people's info be taken down and I've said "No" to them in the same way, following that having who it did belong to come forward and confirm that it shouldn't be up.
It's a pretty straight forward system, so I don't see why people are confused over this.
Rasserenata: "Maybe you should get over the fact that Tony would act a different way than a lynch-rule. Keeping dox up until someone steps forward is silly. It is not a set rule, therefore, he could take it down with sympathy."
He'd take it down because of his "intuition" instead of any set up guidelines. The "keeping it up until reported" notion was a guideline agreed upon after much discussion with members of the forum, and save for Pink there's been no problems with it.
Reaper: "Turncoat fucked around with Pink instead of getting the job done and he did it purely out of spite."
For me to have spite I'd need to actually dislike her. Instead I responded to her lack of being straight forward and went to someone I could see as more trustworthy. While I dislike how she was trying to handle that, I don't really care one way or another about her, but I do care about sticking to the guidelines established for my role here to the letter.
If you want the dox rule changed, start a topic on it or revive an older one. I'll follow what's agreed upon.
Spatial Mind: "She was freaking out and begging for it to be taken down, and you expect her to say yes it's her place ?"
Pretending to more like, as was apparent with continued conversation. It hit that point when she saw that other tactics weren't working.
Begging isn't the doorway towards truth. She changed her tune not even thirty minutes later to it not being her again, while I had someone who I could confirm having given me the okay to keep it up. I was expecting the household to be like "Yeah, sure, you can take it down" so that I could report to the forum that who it's confirmed to belong to wanted it down... and instead the man on the phone insisted that it was fine and that it should be left up, that things would be handled on his end.
Spatial Mind: "I doubt you told them someone in their household is being doxed on sociopath community, and how their daughter is losing her breath over it, and there's some guy who's trying to intimidate their kid, and will be sending some packages."
Actually, I did (save for the packages thing, something that happened later and was responsible for tricking me into taking it down the second time). He kept saying that they'll handle it, to not worry about it, and to not bother doing anything. It shocked me and had me ask if he was sure, displaying the gravity of the situation, but he kept insisting despite that.
When facing someone who's lying left and right, to my face, versus someone who was willing to have a straight forward chat with me? It's easy to see why I went for an actual answer.
Spatial Mind: "By your logic, sometimes you must conclude the dox is them, and sometimes you don't. Even though she was freaking out, Pink did not confirm or deny it being her residence, so you decided leaving it up is okay."
Actually, she denied it and said it belonged to someone else, then said it was hers extremely briefly, then resumed saying it was someone else's.
Seriously man, read the whole story before you jump to conclusions. You don't even know what you're talking about at this point. 
Reaper: "Do you think TC was too stupid to realize that?"
It's not about intelligence, it's about meeting a standard. To go with inference gives too much room for error, as was the case the second time that her dox topic went down at my hand. If I'd stuck with what should have been done, the second topic wouldn't have gone down at all.