[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned

Wed Feb 23 21:03:31 UTC 2011

you didn't follow the normal procedures; you took action 
extraordinarily. by definition that's in the neighborhood 
of vigilante action. note that so is putting out a fire. 

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 12:53 -0800, Albert Sweigart wrote:
> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> 