[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned

Wed Feb 23 19:18:33 UTC 2011

This is precisely why we are having a consensus vote on this matter next
week.
It was decided last night that to allow Patrick continued access to the
space posed an immediate and real threat. This is why we do-ocratically
banned him. We will actually vote on the act next week, but basically, he
had to go, and he had to go right now for the safety of the membership.

Also, for the record, there were probably around 30 people at the meeting
last night, and all agreed on this.

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Sean Cusack <sean.p.cusack at gmail.com>wrote:

> I want to point out one little thing here before we that is sort of getting
> lost in the cross fire:
>
> I don't know all the details surrounding what Mr. P has done, and agree
> that it could be completely correct to ban him from the space based on the
> info. However, we have set up a situation here that is pretty alarming. A
> small group of people do-ocratically elected themselves judge and jury of
> Mr. P. Let's think about this:
>
> Step 1: A group of people want to ban someone from the space and say they
> have some evidence that will be presented. For those not in the know, this
> could or could not be reasonable based on the evidence, right?
> Step 2: Said person to be banned enters the space, and *is* kicked out by a
> subset of people (presumably some that were on the initial e-mail).
> Note...no real consensus has taken place, and no evidence has been presented
> to anyone outside of a small group of people.
> Step 3: Patrick agrees to leave
> Step 4: An e-mail gets sent to the list saying "this was bad, but trust
> us...it was what needed to happen".
>
> Reading it in those steps, does this not sound like some gitmo style
> bullshit? So, if the consensus process decides that Patrick shouldn't be
> banned, then what? Do you really think he'll ever come back into the space
> given how he was treated?
>
> Again, I'm not denying the fact that maybe P's actions warrant him getting
> booted. I don't have a vagina - so I wasn't hit on. I don't know the
> details. I'm just saying that having a small group of people running around
> making decisions that are this severe is mafia-esque. Although I don't
> really think we can do anything at this point to salvage the situation
> (regardless of what happens during the consensus process), I sincerely hope
> that god-forbid if this situation presents itself again, people don't resort
> to vigilante justice (btw, last I heard, we were going to have an
> intervention!), and bring it up in a more formal sense before just acting on
> what a subset of people thought was correct at the time.
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Albert Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I would also like note that this was discuss for a couple hours last
>> night at the weekly meeting. Lots of people from all over the spectrum
>> of "what Noisebridge ought to be" were there, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON
>> supported barring Patrick from coming back to the space.
>>
>> In Patrick-style bullet points:
>>
>> * This isn't about his personality quirks or obnoxious mailing list
>> posts, it's about him sexually harassing people.
>> * He's harassed multiple people.
>> * He refuses to talk with others about it, change his behavior, or
>> even admit that he's done anything wrong or apologize.
>> * It's to the point where multiple women feel uncomfortable enough
>> that they would avoid Noisebridge if Patrick could still come.
>> * This is exactly the situation that calls for banning from ever
>> physically entering the space again.
>>
>> Also, he's stolen our printer. He clearly said he donated it (
>>
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-February/020804.html
>> ) but took it back this morning when he was told he couldn't come back
>> into the space.
>>
>> -Al
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:26 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
>> <rachel at mediumreality.com> wrote:
>> > hooray!  well-put, VonGuard.  I will chime in to say that while people
>> > must trust that our doocratic decision was made in good faith, we did
>> > not yet consense on banning patrick because of how our consensus process
>> > works - everyone will have a chance to view the evidence and decide for
>> > themselves.
>> >
>> > There is evidence.  This is not a witch hunt.
>> >
>> > We are viscerally and hugely concerned for the safety and well-being of
>> > the vast majority of our users, and feel that this negative person's
>> > behavior has passed beyond something that we can influence and/or help
>> > to improve.
>> >
>> > Noisebridge exists to provide a safe space to hack, not as a place to
>> > help those who behave reprehensibly to improve themselves.  We aren't
>> > banning him from humanity, just our workshop.
>> >
>> > R.
>> >
>> > On 2/23/2011 9:04 AM, VonGuard wrote:
>> >> So, I just wanted to nip this in the bud: We are all very appreciative
>> of
>> >> advice from newcomers, but if you are watching all this Patrick Keys
>> drama
>> >> from the outside, and you think to yourself "Hey, that's some very
>> >> unexcellent behavior towards Patrick!" I ask you to stop and think for
>> a
>> >> moment.
>> >>
>> >> Noisebridge is a super accepting space. It was only after tremendous
>> >> discussion, debate, and evidence gathering that we decided to ban him.
>> Until
>> >> the next official meeting, most of you are just going to have to trust
>> that
>> >> we have made the best decision for Noisebridge here. That is why so
>> many
>> >> names were appended to the bottom of that email. This was to say "We
>> are
>> >> signing to say this is legitimate, and that this action needs to be
>> taken."
>> >>
>> >> This was actually never about personality, or even about the mailing
>> list.
>> >> This was about Patrick making women at Noisebridge feel unsafe. This
>> was not
>> >> done based on any form of speculation or jumping to conclusions. This
>> was
>> >> done after a careful, considered process where it was decided that not
>> >> banning Patrick was the same thing as banning a number of women who
>> would no
>> >> longer come to Noisebridge because of his presence and his unwanted
>> >> attentions, and his stalking behavior.
>> >>
>> >> Noisebridge has plenty of socially awkward geeks. We all know that if
>> yer a
>> >> chick at Noisebridge, someone might stare at your boobs. Awkward though
>> this
>> >> is, it's actually OK. Sure, it's not the most polite thing to do, but
>> it's
>> >> harmless. Women and men at Noisebridge are still perfectly free to
>> behave
>> >> like women and men. This is very far from what is taking place here.
>> >> Patrick's behavior was well over the line of acceptable.
>> >>
>> >> This was not a witch hunt. This is not a precedent for banning annoying
>> or
>> >> creepy people. This was about physical safety in and outside of the
>> space
>> >> for ladies with whom Patrick had crossed the line, and continued to
>> cross
>> >> the line after being told to stop.
>> >>
>> >> Finally, I will say that the "intervention, mediated talking" route had
>> >> already been tried with Patrick. If you are interested in reading more
>> about
>> >> Patrick's complete inability and unwillingness to listen to ANYONE
>> about
>> >> ANYTHING, there are about 4 months worth of email backlogs in our
>> archives
>> >> documenting his complete inability to listen and understand people's
>> >> problems with him. It's a pattern with him.
>> >>
>> >> This extended to also being unable to accept the word "no!" from women.
>> And
>> >> that makes me want to do something truly terrible to him. But instead
>> of
>> >> hurting him or assaulting him online or offline, we all decided to
>> solve
>> >> this within Noisebridge's processes. Believe me, there are others here
>> who
>> >> would have done far worse to him given the chance. The man is a menace,
>> and
>> >> does not even treat women like people. They are sexual objects to him,
>> ones
>> >> that owe him sexual attentions, in his eyes.
>> >>
>> >> This is not someone we will ever be allowing back. He is pure fucking
>> scum,
>> >> and he is absolutely the antithesis of everything Noiserbridge stands
>> for.
>> >>
>> >> Let it be known: you cannot sexually harass or endanger ANYONE at
>> >> Noisebridge. You will be banned if you do so and do not correct the
>> behavior
>> >> when you are told to stop. This is the precedent we're setting. And I
>> think
>> >> it is a very good one. Everyone should be safe at Noisebridge. And no
>> one
>> >> should feel unsafe outside of Noisebridge because a person associated
>> with
>> >> the space is following/harassing them.
>> >>
>> >> If you are still not convinced, come to the meeting next week. I agree,
>> this
>> >> is all quite ugly, but at the end of the day, this is 100% Patrick's
>> own
>> >> fault. Noisebridge remains %99.999 inclusive. But stalkers will NEVER
>> be
>> >> welcome.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Rikke Rasmussen <
>> >> rikke.c.rasmussen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I know that my being very new at Noisebridge may cause some of you to
>> find
>> >>> it inappropriate for me to interfere in this matter, but I hope you'll
>> bear
>> >>> with me and hear me out. I've met Patrick multiple times through
>> >>> Tastebridge, and know him only as polite, if perhaps a little  formal,
>> even
>> >>> stiff, at times. However, I have never found his behavior untoward in
>> any
>> >>> way. I will of course read the material available tomorrow, but given
>> the
>> >>> very rapid development of the situation, I feel like I should add a
>> comment
>> >>> in his defense immediately - I've witnessed a lynching before and have
>> no
>> >>> desire to see another.
>> >>>
>> >>> Exclusion is the worst punishment  Noisebridge has because of the no
>> >>> policies-policy, our equivalent of capital punishment, and I do not
>> feel
>> >>> that the crime merits this measure. It is as big a deal as the
>> offended
>> >>> party chooses to make of it, but since this has only been brought out
>> in
>> >>> public by a flamewar, and not by the person herself, I can't help but
>> feel
>> >>> that Frantisek may have a point about attempting mediated dialogue
>> first.
>> >>> More than anything, though, I would like to hear from the female in
>> question
>> >>> - if you are following this discussion, I would like to know whether
>> you
>> >>> feel that this is reasonable?
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope it's clear that I'm trying to pour water, not gasoline, on the
>> fire
>> >>> here.
>> >>>
>> >>> /Rikke
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> >>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> >>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110223/63573519/attachment-0003.html>