Did we read the same article? He turned her speaker position down because of her pattern of vengeful, childlike behavior. She acted completely in line with what her reputation would suggest and pursued a personal harassment campaign.

Maybe I'm missing something. Can you enumerate what he allowed people to do to her, and what she did to him? That way we can compare directly.

The conference organizer denied a speaker position in a conference. All that happened in private.

The person and a third-party engaged (allegedly) in doxxing and public shaming.

Even if the conference organizer was in the wrong, there's a world of difference between those two things.

"she's doing to him exactly what he allowed other people to do to her"

Please explain that. What did he 'allow' 'other people' to 'do' to her?

He's handling this without naming anyone publicly, and going through proper channels. She did the exact opposite, making this public and threatening him enough that he felt compelled to leave a conference where she was apparently harassing him.

Not quite the same thing.