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: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/facebook-troll-jailed-after-targeting-901896 ). 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. Marie From: ltpowers_w...@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:eir...@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
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
