Okay, 'permissible' was perhaps the wrong word to use, 'possible' was probably more appropriate, but I really do not understand this language of "reporting" and "going to the ANI". If I got into an argument with one of these men it is the last thing I would do.
Posting something like the compulsory sterilization article on a website would get you jailed in the UK under hate speech law (example:
).
I wouldn't take on one of these men on a talk page or anywhere else. I wouldn't try to sit around and have a reasonable discussion with anyone who mugged me either.
From: LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:38:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
-----Original Message-----
From: Marie Earley
[mailto:eiryel@hotmail.com]
Sent: 29 June 2014 14:07
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap]
Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
"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 Sarah was suspended for her off-site comments then how is
this permissible?"
----- Reply -----
I don't think it's fair to assume that
it's /permissible/. Perhaps it just hasn't yet been brought to anyone's
attention, or perhaps it's impossible to determine which Wikipedia editors are
writing these things.
Powers &8^]
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap