Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't I. I didn't realize the list had two Sarahs on it.

Third time lucky....

In a discussion about off-Wiki mentions of editors, I was making a comparison between Carol Moore's suspension which she mentioned here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html  in answer to SlimVirgin (aka Sarah), in which Carol said:

> "questioning behavior too aggressively off wikipedia evidently remains a no no. I was once blocked for a week for asking an editor whether his overwhelming history of editing in articles about bondage of females was related to his obvious and annoying harassment of me on a noticeboard, after which I mentioned the issue on the Wikia Feminism page which I thought was a part of Wikipedia (duh).  The latter evidently was the bigger "no no"."

...and some of the stuff in an article on A Voice for Men's website.

The third paragraph of this message http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004409.html therefore should have read (correction in capital letters):
> I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/ which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if CAROL was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?

And LtPowers point that Wikipedia may simply not know is correct. Perhaps, editors just have to run the gauntlet / try and recruit more women / be a bit more pro-active about looking for and reporting off-wiki activities which break the rules and not just leave it to moderators. With that in mind I have reported the article to WP:ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_multiple_policy_infringements

Marie