Difference between revisions of "Y U BAN PATRICK"
|Line 8:||Line 8:|
'''This decision was not made lightly and not without in depth discussion and careful weighing of options.'''
'''This decision was not made lightly and not without in depth discussion and careful weighing of options.'''
Revision as of 20:07, 23 February 2011
"I'm not stalking her, she's stalking me! She's everywhere i go!" - Patrick
Patrick has been stalking and harassing female Noisebridgers. He has sent harassing emails to several individuals, and when rebuffed and asked to stop by both his targets and other people, not only refused but victim-blamed and claimed the targets of his actions had no problem with those actions (after they had explicitly stated otherwise). Evidence was collected and intense debate and discussion occurred over the course of a few days. Patrick was contacted and given the chance to correct his behavior, but he continued to maintain he did nothing wrong. As a result, several of those involved declared they did not feel safe at Noisebridge anymore in the presence of a person who exhibited tendencies to ignore consent and agency. For the safety of the many, the one was banninated.
This decision was not made lightly and not without in depth discussion and careful weighing of options.
In regards to the matter of evidence, in a matter of sexual harassment the priority is also protecting the privacy of women, who have already had their boundaries crossed in some fashion. Jason has just touched on this here: []
Patrick's behavior publicly is less crappy than his private behavior, scarily enough:
[Patrick talks about his healthy sexual attraction to women]
[Jason's response to Patrick about women]
[Rigel calls out Patrick on misogyny]
[Patrick excuses his behavior], [Jason's response]
[Rachel restates how what Patrick is doing is not cool]
[Liz's ultimate response to the whole thread]
VonGuard Says: ( https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-February/021420.html ) "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."
Liz Henry Says: ( https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-February/021352.html )
"On 2/20/11 8:53 PM, Alex Handy wrote: > Please fuck off and die, before I make a huge issue about you > emailing unsolicited sexual advances to female Noisebridge members. > How'd you like to talk about that on the list, ya fucking creep. >
I get why people might decide not to make a huge issue about being creepily harassed at Noisebridge or by Noisebridgers, but since creepy sexual harassment has apparently happened, it *is* a huge issue.
On 2/22/11 3:21 AM, Rigel Christian wrote:
> example: after someone told you they were creeped out by your email > solicitation, you reportedly responded by leading off with > > "I'm certain that you are neither offended nor creeped out." > > And went on to continue your harassment of this poor person. That > qualifies as "repeated"
> I did hear about some > horribly harassing and bigoted messages that you sent to another lady > that you don't seem to be mentioning here.
I didn't hear about this, and I wish I had. Could people please report it to the list when this happens so it can be discussed and aired and the rest of us can be aware?
I would like to directly address Patrick now.
Patrick, can you see that it is creepy to email someone an "offer to hook up" whose name you got off Facebook or the NB wiki? That sounds creepy to me, not like flirting.
Then, apparently you were asked to stop contacting her, and you continued.
Then there is the denial of agency. If I said to you "I'm offended and creeped out" and you replied "I'm certain you are neither offended nor creeped out", then, you are not respectful of anything to do with personal boundaries. You would be claiming to see inside my head into what I feel in direct contradiction to what was asserted. This is a major denial of agency attack.
Given this interaction between you and a woman you think you have "flirted" with "jokingly", I am seriously uncomfortable with you and when I next run into you at Noisebridge will ask you to answer for it face to face and explain your behavior.
Also, I don't think you need to enumerate how many women you've harassed. One is enough.
Patrick, you also wrote:
> Why does > anybody care about mine (or anybody else's) private life? I've always > been a good sport about personal attacks on me, but this mailing list > has about 500 people on it. Given that everything you're discussing > took place outside of Noisebridge, you're not giving any sort of > consideration to this amazing non-profit that we all enjoy.
This is quite disturbing to me as well. Here, you seem to be saying that off a public list, you can harass women who frequent Noisebridge, with no social consequences, because any airing of the harassment in public would hurt Noisebridge. That won't fly. I'm calling you on that big time. No way.
Since you don't respect women telling you individually to stop harassing them, I think we might need to organize some sort of group to come and speak with you collectively to explain why it is unacceptable.
That might not be enough here and I'd like to know what other people think. I feel here that Patrick has crossed a major, major line in many ways which I listed above. I don't care if someone is kind of annoying and a time sucker. That's inevitable. But I don't want our community to tolerate blatant misogynist disrespect for women and blatant harassment.
Rachel's Ban-ifesto: ( https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-February/021398.html )
"Patrick, the undersigned have agreed doocratically that you are no longer welcome at Noisebridge. Do not return. If you have possessions in the space you may contact Jason Dusek who will collect them and bring them down to you at the sidewalk. Any of us will, if we see you in the space, ask you to leave and escort you out.
Everyone else, we are putting up an official consensus item for banning Patrick from the space. There is strong evidence that he has behaved in unacceptable ways to other people associated with Noisebridge, which makes members of our community feel unsafe.
It is a difficult balance to illustrate the problem while still protecting the privacy of all of those involved, and the solution we have come up with is this.
Rachel Hospodar, Al Sweigart, and Veronica Sutter are talking to those involved to obtain the level of permission they are comfortable with. They plan to collate two bodies of evidence, one electronic and one on paper, documenting Patrick's behavior. Members of Noisebridge can view this evidence by contacting them directly. The electronic version will probably be smaller, but will be available to members on request if they are unable to come to the space to view the paper version. The paper version will be in the custody of Jason Dusek, who has a high level of availability to meet members at Noisebridge and show them.
This is a serious case and we truly hope that all members are able to take time to consider this evidence, discuss the situation with your fellow Noisebridgers and come to a meeting next week to express your opinion.
Rachel McConnell Al Sweigart Alex Handy Timothy Sanders Will Sargent Rachel Hospodar Ronald Cotoni Steve Koenig (Hephaestus) Veronica Sutter Robert Chu John E. Zedd Epstein Rubin Abdi Snail Jason Dusek
--- I have taken the liberty of redacting Patrick's last name from this email. Google is forever and it's possible he will improve over time. I hope others who respond will take this into account.