Regardless of whether the Arbcom actually did it, they advocated doing it so they are still responsible. As for the moderators removing me from the list, I have received emails from 5 people so far that think I am just being bullied by 2 arbs and a trustee of WMUK who probably is hoping to score political diversity points.
So its entirely possible the moderators don't think I am as much of a problem. And I agree with Lennart. This has gone on long enough. So whether I get dropped from the list or not. Its time to move on. Which strikes me as funny because I have said that at least 4 times now and its the Admins/Arbs that want to keep this going. So lets drop it ok? On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:37 PM, marinka marinkavandam.com < [email protected]> wrote: > > Well, I suppose Kumoiko/Reygula could have reasonably riposted that the > proposed email that Arbcom finally did or did not send to his employers was > harassment of a sort. However I agree that it seems something of a stretch > to accuse you of voting to ban Carol and hand out a mere slap of the wrist > to Corbett. > > On topic, are we going to see some more debate about the Slate piece? > Anne/Risker is suggesting there was a basic misunderstanding on the part of > the author: that the whole thing had nothing to do with gender gap > discrimination but behavior. Would that be your view, Molly? It does > strike me as insular. > > Marinka (a pseudonym) > > > > On December 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM [email protected] wrote: > > GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a "vendetta" is a purely >> untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the >> project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status >> (admin or editor), gender, race, etc. >> > Well, I’m glad you got some of this very pure fight for fairness in > around the harassment you were leveraging against other editors. I’ve > spoken out against this behavior because I don’t think people engaging in > email harassment campaigns against editors such as myself should be allowed > on this list any more than they should be allowed on Wikipedia. There has > been discussion on this list recently about how there are so few women (and > so few people of any gender) running for the Arbitration Committee, and > meanwhile one of the ones helping to keep it an incredibly thankless and > often unpleasant place to be is continuing to do so on the very same list. > >> With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for >> participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the >> series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but >> on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me. >> > If you read the proposed decision, you’ll see that I did not vote for > this. If my participation in the case—where I voted *against* banning > Carol—makes me “responsible for participating in banning Carol,” then we’ll > have to agree to disagree. > > — Molly (GorillaWarfare) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
