[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned

Albert Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Wed Feb 23 20:53:25 UTC 2011


I'd just like to say that last night's meeting was one of the most
well attended meetings I've seen in quite a while. And I have never
seen such a diverse and large group of Noisebridge members agree on
something so consistently. Your idea that this is *anywhere* close to
"vigilante action" is incorrect.

-Al

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:43 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
>    i wasn't there and i'm sure lots of other members
> and regular participants weren't there. i worry that
> this has been a little too close to vigilante action
> for my comfort.
>    rachel's initial email somewhat addressed this
> discomfort in asking that those of us who were not
> there trust the action at least until we see the
> "evidence", i.e. basis for this drastic action. okay,
> i'll suspend my alarm for a little bit, but the burden
> is on you all who took the action.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 10:02 -0800, Albert Sweigart 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
>>
>
>



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list