On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:

I am surprised to discover that you believe I have been indeffed.

Risker

Oh, please. Do you really think anyone believes you have been indeffed? Or maybe I am reading that wrong, and it was meant as sarcasm.

>On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps you need to redefine what you are talking about. There are dozens of people on this list, and plenty of others on that page you just linked, who have objected publicly to sexual harassment but have never been blocked or sanctioned, let alone indeffed. Please stop spreading such nasty memes. It is hurtful.

Risker

I remember some time ago we had a disagreement over something by email. Much much later, I was proved wrong. Please prove me wrong this time. Please.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:

You linked to a discussion on the ideas lab which you stated included 26 people speaking out against sexual harassment. Most of those people are not indeffed or sanctioned in any way. Many of them are administrators or hold other permissions.

Risker

I am a newbie with less than a thousand edits to articles, and I have only written about a dozen articles myself, so I don't know how to tell by looking at a user name what kind of permissions they have. But even I know that there are special vested users like admins and former arbs such as yourself who have an almost bulletproof immunity from sanctions. If there are a high number of such special people on that page, it wouldn't surprise me in the least, as I have received emails from a number of ordinary non-admin users who are too intimidated or fearful of retribution to say anything publicly. If you read the discussion, it should be evident why it had to take place on meta instead of en.wiki.