15

We've had a mixture of varying statements with regards to events leading to the removal of Monica Celio as a moderator.

A statement and apology by SE does not match previous statements by moderators, and one moderator has called for SE to stop lying.

A call to make the relevant chat log public has received an objection from at least one person directly involved, so it's unlikely that's ever going to happen.

I'd really like an account of what happened I can trust, without one of the parties disputing it. To be short, I want the truth!

Could the relevant parties (Stack Exchange and the moderator team at the time of the event, ideally including Monica Celio) draft a shared public statement, so we can have agreement on what actually happened between the parties involved?

Or, is there another way we can resolve these conflicting statements and get to the truth without violating the confidentiality of the parties involved?

  • "so we can have agreement on what actually happened between the parties involved?" counter question why should we be the ones deciding? I personally don't want to as I don't feel I'm qualified. In addition to that, I don't quite care enough. However I also think that the people who most want to see everything and judge are similarly not qualified. – VLAZ Oct 6 at 16:45
  • 1
    @VLAZ I don't ask us, the community, to agree on what happened. Just the parties directly involved. They have access to all the relevant facts, so it should be possible for them to agree on what actually happened and create a shared statement without them calling eachother liars or asking for citation. – Erik A Oct 6 at 16:49
  • 3
    Let me get this straight. You’re asking both sides of a heated, diametrically opposed argument to collaborate together in order to publish a true and honest account of exactly what happened? – Snow Oct 6 at 16:52
  • @Snow You make it sound odd, but in corporate politics (e.g. failed deals), it's something that's quite routine. The current situation, with conflicting public statement and people calling eachother liars, is not one I'm comfortable with. – Erik A Oct 6 at 16:54
  • Sadly, the truth is apparently however one chooses to interpret the events. – Robert Harvey Oct 6 at 17:18
  • @Mari-LouA I disagree with these duplicates. None have expressed the objective to resolve the conflicting statements internally before publicizing a statement. – Erik A Oct 6 at 17:26
  • The older post is also asking for clarification, just less directly: Stack Exchange is not only a company but also a community. While the company provides the platform, the community provides the content that makes the platform valuable. Either party can only be successful by cooperating with the other. But at this point, it looks Stack Exchange Inc. has given up on communicating with the community and is taking an adversarial stance. Is Stack Exchange Inc. still interested in cooperating with the community? What is the vision for this relationship? – Mari-Lou A Oct 6 at 17:30
  • @Mari-LouA That's asking if the company generally wants to cooperate with the community, not if we can get a shared statement on what actually happened between the parties involved. My question is a lot more narrow and specific. – Erik A Oct 6 at 17:39
  • 2
    There are 44 posts, including yours, related or directly connected to the firing of Monica. One of them is the Update and Apology post submitted by Sara Chipps. Despite the thousands upon thousands of words spent on the issues of CoC and lack of communication, no one from SO has come forward with the facts. You're not the first to ask, your post is a variation of the same theme. No one from SO will volunteer the information you're seeking. By the way, Monica has provided a timeline of the facts but I suppose that's not good enough for you either... sigh... – Mari-Lou A Oct 6 at 17:46
  • But, I'll retract the close vote. It won't make a blind difference though. Ha, someone else has posted a different duplicate. – Mari-Lou A Oct 6 at 17:50
  • 1
    Summing up the main issues (The Story So Far) Monica's detailed report of events. – Mari-Lou A Oct 6 at 17:57
  • @Mari-LouA I don't disagree there are a lot of posts on the subject. However, there's none asking for this specific thing, while I do think it'd be a significant step to resolve this issue and it'd be achieveable. – Erik A Oct 6 at 17:59
  • @Mari-LouA That's directly from the most affected party, so it might not be impartial. – Erik A Oct 6 at 18:02
  • 8
    SE won't even tell me what they think I did exactly, or show me the evidence to back Sara's defamatory, harmful, and far-from-respectful accusations. – Monica Cellio Oct 6 at 18:42
20

We have no standing jurisdiction to litigate anything, and thus have no standing to request documents to piece together "truth". So, until either party decides to reveal more concrete details, it turns into a quite brutal hearsay debate.

Stack Overflow Inc. is not beholden to listen to our requests for more transparency on the matter, and quite bluntly they're not going to.

My recommendation is for you to simply take the circumstance at whatever face value it has, and to reconcile your opinion based on that.

  • 3
    I don't want documents, facts, excerpts or anything. I'd just like to have SE run a public statement by the people involved for factual correction, so we don't have people disputing statements and accusing others of lies. Because both parties have access to the chat logs, they can resolve disagreements internally by pointing to the specifics, without us needing to have access to it. – Erik A Oct 6 at 16:59
  • 2
    @ErikA: That's already been tried and failed. One of the reasons it fails is that it stands on a singularly unworkable premise: that "it's the truth because I say it is." – Robert Harvey Oct 6 at 17:21
  • @RobertHarvey I hope that, when both parties have access to a log of the facts, they can agree on the facts, and clearly label interpretations as such. If there has been an effort to make a shared statement between mods and SE staff, I'm entirely unaware of it. – Erik A Oct 6 at 17:24
  • 3
    @ErikA: Both parties already have access to a log on the facts, and were unable to agree on them. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm not sure how a shared statement would help matters; you're quite literally asking two parties with diametrically opposed views to stand together in unity. That's not going to happen. – Robert Harvey Oct 6 at 17:28
  • 1
    The point of the shared statement is that currently, when disputing a statement (like Art's answer), you can't refer to what exactly is untrue and why that is so because that information is confidential. With a shared statement, you can fall back on the confidentially shared details since you both have access to them. I've previously worked on such statements for conflict resolution, they tend to become quite brief and factual but it's certainly something that's achievable. Facts don't differ, interpretations do, and if you clearly distinguish and label the two then there's nothing to dispute. – Erik A Oct 6 at 17:34
  • 1
    I don't want documents, facts, excerpts or anything. I'd just like to have SE run a public statement by the people involved for factual correction. The problem is, AFAICT, SE is refusing to respond both to Monica Cellio's and the community's further request for information, aside from two statements and a comment, none of which add nothing substantive beyond the original accusation. – Zev Spitz Oct 6 at 18:16
  • 1
    Both parties already have access to a log on the facts, and were unable to agree on them. I think this statement implies that there was some kind of dialog between the two sides. AFAICT, both Monica and the community have repeatedly requested to open such a dialog; while the company just stonewalls, repeating the same accusation again and again. (Note that I have never been a mod nor a CM, and may very well be missing some crucial information here.) – Zev Spitz Oct 6 at 18:22
  • I have the (possibly naive) notion SE won't leave this as-is, but actually wants to resolve this issue and will attempt to approach the community after more internal debate, and post a second, more refined statement. I'd like that to be correct and accepted by the moderators. I could be wrong on that, but I hope I'm not. – Erik A Oct 6 at 18:28
  • 14
    I think SE wants to wait until it burns itself out, assumes some resigning mods will return, and is happy to say "good riddance" to the rest. They won't even tell me what I supposedly did. They are not currently acting like partners for collaboration. – Monica Cellio Oct 6 at 18:44
  • @RobertHarvey (I'd meant to mention you on this.) – Zev Spitz Oct 6 at 21:38
  • 1
    @ZevSpitz: Up until very recently, Robert Harvey was privy to those conversations. This is corroborated by the fact that several accounts also make reference to The Teacher's Lounge and several accounts also reference an exchange in there between Monica and staff. So...yeah, there was some kind of dialog between the two sides. – Makoto Oct 7 at 4:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .