Why was this flag on alleged Code of Conduct violations declined?

Question

Monica recently posted a question making her case to the community, she argued:

My patience is not infinite; the company has already dragged this out for nearly a month while harm continues to accrue. It is past time for a meaningful response. I remain available to discuss the matter. Please prioritize resolving this ongoing, painful, damaging situation in the very near future.

This yielded an answer which I thought wasn't in line with the Code of Conduct.

I think it was needlessly offensive to characterize negatively statements Monica may have made in the Teacher's Lounge, a place few of us are able to check to see if the statements are true. Furthermore, it made a very strong claim:

By Monica and her supporters taking the meta site hostage and the degree of vitriol that has poured out from this, is not the answer. It's created a hot bed for bigotry on the site. I am not calling Monica or her supporters bigots! - but this is the actual reality of what is occuring.

How I read it, that's saying Monica is partially responsible for creating a "hot bed [sic] for bigotry on the site".

For those reasons, I flagged the answer as rude or abusive, as did some others according to comments under the answer. These flags were declined within minutes. I then flagged a mod with a custom reason, trying to outline the reason I flagged the question. This flag too was declined within minutes:

The custom declination reason stated is:

This is Monica's question. If Monica didn't want to talk about Monica then maybe Monica shouldn't have posted a question about Monica.

I think this is very weird. Monica is a user who should be protected under the same Code of Conduct everyone else is. The Code of Conduct doesn't list exceptions for specific users or for users asking questions about their own situation.

Therefore, I am asking anyone who can shed light on this to take their time and answer thoughtfully. Why was this flag declined and why was this an appropriate rejection reason?

---

To add some background to my question, I think that a post, however personal, does not place it above the Code of Conduct. If there are parts that violate the Code of Conduct, I think those parts should be removed, which is why I flagged them, citing the Code of Conduct. These flags were handled in haste, I get that mistakes can be made in the heat of the moment. That is the reason I flagged a second time, but it seems to have been discarded immediately.

If that is the case, then anything goes. Where do we draw the line on attacking a user? Clearly that's why we have the Code of Conduct and it makes little sense to me to apply the Code of Conduct selectively. If it may be applied selectively as I understand some (e.g. in the flag declination) argue that, then please explain why that is okay and when that applies.

---

Even though the answer has since been deleted, the question on the handling of the flag stands.

Answer 1

I also flagged that answer, not because I disagree with its content (people are allowed to be wrong) but because of rudeness like:

I am not calling Monica or her supporters bigots! - but this is the actual reality of what is occuring.

"Oh no, not a bigot but I'll tie this bad stuff to you anyway". And then the post tries to tie me to an alt-right site as if I had anything to do with that.

stubborn refusal to respect other people

That one speaks for itself.

were in actual fact targeting and further marginalising a very small group of, already marginalised people

Accusation of malicious intent, concluded with "These are the facts".

By Monica and her supporters taking the meta site hostage

I ask you to stop hijacking Meta, and making many of the posts about you.

Hostage-taking and hijacking? Seriously? I've posted four times since this started.

if you really detest it so much, you can leave

Who said anything about detesting or hating?

In fact you led the outcry against this, both in the Teachers' Lounge (TL) and on the Moderator Teams site

There was no "outcry", and I answered a question on the team. Hardly leading or setting things in motion.

Another problem in this answer might not cross the "rude" line by itself, but the insinuation is problematic:

your continued debate over this one issue over a prolonged period caused issues

Um, that would be one conversation in June 2018, one answer to a question on the team asking what our policy should be (i.e. we didn't have it yet!), and the conversation in September 2019.

---

I asked a question, directed to SE, about two specific issues, with the other one (the public statements) being clearly the primary issue. SE has left me no other on-site ways to have a conversation with them. I don't think posting about this should legitimately open me up to personal attacks, particularly when an "answer" doesn't even touch the primary issue raised in the question.

Answer 2

I had a similar (custom mod) flag pending, though I formulated it slightly differently. The post was deleted before my flag was handled. Now, my flag is marked as "helpful", not sure if it was marked that way automatically, or by one of Meta moderators.

As I expressed under Shog's post, I flagged the post because in my interpretation of CoC it violates:

Focus on the content, not the person.

The phrase

I ask you and your supporters to stop hijacking Meta, and making many of the posts about you. Other people are being hurt and apparently no one seems to care about that. I, personally have received more abuse over this than you have.

crosses the thin line for me, and is written to be perceived as a personal attack. I might be mistaken. But judging by this discussion, I am not the only one who sees that post (technically, a small part of it) in violation with CoC

Notes:

• I flagged the post before the discussion started.
• I certainly never coordinated the flags with anybody.

The flagged post was certainly controversial, and it is not easy to make the right call. Especially, when there might be some evidence of coordinated flagging (I would hate to encounter that myself as a moderator). I would also hate it if I think that a post of mine is deleted via "red-flagging" due to a large group of people not agreeing with me.

To me, those two situations mixed up here. However, it does not make it less legitimate to edit part of the post that is in violation with CoC. Maybe, the deletion was too much.

Answer 3

I don't see any purpose to holding this discussion on meta. We built a process to handle it privately; if that isn't acceptable or doesn't work, then I have little faith a discussion here will matter. If it would be acceptable or will work, then this is a waste of time.

But, here we are. In public, open to all comers. You don't like the answer? Think it's wrong? Down-vote it. I can't rightly argue that personal statements are inappropriate in a thread about a person, posted by that person. They may be wrong, they may be inaccurate, but they aren't inappropriate merely because they are personal.