Timeline for Under new processes, Monica's removal should complete the Conduct Review, not request Reinstatement
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Feb 10, 2020 at 7:39 | history | bounty ended | gnat | ||
| S Feb 10, 2020 at 7:39 | history | notice removed | gnat | ||
| S Feb 5, 2020 at 11:29 | history | bounty started | gnat | ||
| S Feb 5, 2020 at 11:29 | history | notice added | gnat | Reward existing answer | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 2:16 | answer | added | okie | timeline score: 14 | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 0:42 | comment | added | SecretAgentMan | (+1) for the hand-drawn arrow. (-1) for not using a free-hand circle | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 18:47 | comment | added | Ask About Monica | Of course, a consistent refusal to re-litigate the past absolves them from ever having to correct any mistake in the future. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 16:55 | comment | added | Giuseppe | they won't do this, because doing so will require them to re-litigate the past. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 14:02 | comment | added | Davis Broda | I think that it is important to note that the process says that "If there's is no annotation that notes the moderator had previously been warned [...] CM2 will do so [...] The process is concluded here". Additionally here it is noted that there are no annotations on Monica's account. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 13:59 | comment | added | John | The 'Emergency Removal Phase' inclusion is like your boss telling you, yes, you were right, but had I been right this is how we would've done it. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 13:54 | answer | added | Scott Seidman | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 7:16 | comment | added | Ziv | If your process makes it impossible to safely raise an incident, it's a bad process. But I'm with you on the countermeasure of arbitration done specifically by people with community trust, and the random-assignment is also an interesting suggestion :) | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 7:12 | comment | added | Magisch | @Ziv sure, but that's a function of due process. the alternative is almost infinitely worse. Methods of alleviating that while preserving privacy include a community elected or randomly chosen panel of arbitrators to hear and summarize non public evidence. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 7:10 | comment | added | Ziv | @Magisch: As general policy, there's often substantial difficulty with publicizing allegations. Particularly, this often winds up pointing fingers at the person who complained, or prompting speculation about who complained. These can get absolutely toxic, and completely chill willingness to raise incidents to begin with. (This case in particular might not have those issues; but then again it might.) | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 7:09 | comment | added | Cerbrus | @Magisch: And that's the answer to my question ("so how do we know what's going on?") I was hoping for :-) | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 7:05 | comment | added | Magisch | @Cerbrus If that is the case, then SE should follow longstanding policy of making allegations public if the subject of these allegations chooses to publicly request so. There is no reason for them not to do that outside of the conclusion that they either 1) do not have a case or 2) know that the case they have is so weak the community will rebel even more for bringing it up. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 7:03 | history | edited | GlorfindelMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 22, 2019 at 6:56 | answer | added | Magisch | timeline score: 117 | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 6:53 | comment | added | Ziv | @Cerbrus : Monica has repeatedly stated that SE has not provided any explanation of how she has violated the CoC (beyond that violations have occurred). Likewise, she says SE claims she has received previous warnings, when she is unaware of any such. I was co-moderator with Monica for many years on Writing.SE, and she has my trust and respect -- and all the more so when SE is being so opaque and haphazard. (Nor has SE made any statement to the contrary; quite the opposite...) | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 6:47 | comment | added | user351483 | I really wish that SE would separate the personal and professional hurt that they admitted they caused Monica from the reinstatement process. The reinstatement process will not ease that hurt and that loss of professional and personal reputation. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 6:47 | comment | added | Cerbrus | Devil's advocate: Who's to say they haven't already done that? Maybe Monica is not allowed to, or doesn't want to share more information on that? It's all behind closed doors, so how do we know what's going on? | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 6:43 | history | asked | Ziv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |