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 carolmooredc@verizon.net 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/Lightbreat...
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 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap