[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned

Frantisek Apfelbeck algoldor at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 23 22:01:16 UTC 2011


Hi to All!
If Patric is being banned it should not be "for ever". Things change and people 
does too. If he comes back in years to come like a father of a family with three 
year old son and wife or whatever, he should have a chance of fresh start. Many 
people will be probably still around remembering the issue so if anything starts 
to look "suspicious" it can be sorted out quite pretty fast at that time. I 
propose limited 1-5 year ban. I can not do it by myself so I would like to ask 
someone to do it for me, please let me know who would do so.

Sincerely,

Frantisek



----- Original Message ----
From: jim <jim at well.com>
To: Albert Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
Cc: rachel lyra hospodar <rachel at mediumreality.com>; Frantisek Apfelbeck 
<algoldor at yahoo.com>; "noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net" 
<noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
Sent: Wed, February 23, 2011 9:03:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned


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
> >>
> >
> >
> 


      



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list