Don't you think it's bizarre that ArbCom is punishing Lightbreather for discussing the identity of the guy who posted porn images, claiming they depicted Lightbreather? He posted those images off-wiki, and she discussed it off-wiki.
In my opinion, she had every moral right to. ArbCom's fixation on "outing" reminds me of all the Redditors who wailed when someone put a name to "Violentacrez". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks8xuYRPnWM Seriously, does anyone think ArbCom's gallant protection of the dude, while site-banning the woman at whose expense he was having his fun on those porn sites, will help women's participation? On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Carol Moore dc <[email protected]> wrote: > The good news is this time they actually have a long list of problematic > issues and are not just getting rid of editors for trumped up ones like > that did with Neotarf and I, i.e., just listing of 5 or 6 examples of being > snotty to (powerful and connected) editors who were obnoxiously harassing > either ourselves or the GGTF group... > > > On 7/13/2015 10:50 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> The proposed decision in the Lightbreather case was posted yesterday. >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision >> >> It comments extensively on harassment. >> >> The proposed decision has already been controversially discussed on >> Twitter: >> >> https://twitter.com/eastgate/status/620337415669026816 >> >> A. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
