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