Stack Overflow Inc.: call for company action

[cellio]

I just posted the following on Meta.SE under the title "Stack Overflow is doing me ongoing harm; it's time to fix it!":

---

Over the last month, Stack Overflow Inc. has violated its own policies and precedents to cause egregious and unnecessary harm to me -- to my reputation (personal and professional), to my health, and to my safety. This harm is significant and ongoing. It is past time for the company to correct its errors, repair what can be repaired, and move toward a spirit of working with rather than against its users and volunteers.

Whereas:

1. The company removed me without due process or warning and ignored procedures it already had in place, which an executive admitted to, and did so in the midst of a discussion with a community manager to understand the new Code of Conduct (which was previously unclear); and

2. A representative of the company violated longstanding privacy policies by immediately (within seconds) announcing my firing to a large audience, denying me the standard privacy afforded to subjects of such discipline; and

3. A director, speaking for the company, posted on various resignation announcements (example) in a way that maligns my character and violates the Code of Conduct; and

4. Company representatives violated common corporate practice of not commenting to the media (now codified) by speaking with The Register to further malign my character, paint me as a bigot, and make unsubstantiated claims; and

5. A company representative made an official post on Meta accusing me of "repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct and being unwilling to accept our CM's repeated requests to change that behavior", a claim that has never been substantiated, and featured the post across the network where it was prominent for 77 hours; and

6. Representatives of the company including executives, a director, and the Community Management team have failed to respond to my repeated requests to be shown these alleged violations and warnings and, more broadly, my requests for discussion to find a mutually-agreeable resolution to the situation; and

7. Company claims of an urgent need to act before resolving the ongoing discussion, despite my having left the Teachers' Lounge nine days earlier and otherwise behaving normally across the network, have never been substantiated; and

8. The new reinstatement process is unacceptable in my case because my removal did not follow the paired removal process (or any process), the reinstatement process proceeds from a presumption of a legitimate guilty finding, and I cannot appeal charges that have never been communicated to me; and

9. The issue I asked about has now been confirmed to comply with the new CoC;

Therefore I call on Stack Overflow Inc. and its individual representatives to:

1. Retract all of the negative statements about me described above, publicize that retraction to all places where the original claims were made or are known to have spread, and to the best of its ability clear my name; and

2. Reverse the original decision, restoring me to my position without prejudice. The model here must be akin to declaring a mistrial, not akin to an application for early parole.

Stack Overflow Inc. is a private company and its representatives are free to treat users badly. They can ignore #2 if they do not value fairness, respectfulness, and diversity; that is their right. However, they must address #1, and given the many errors that got us here, they should address #2.

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.

Comments

Spiritual strength.

[(Anonymous)]

You remind me of my Mother. She had a career in the 1950's before even "equal pay" and was the smartest person in the room. I don't know how she tolerated it so long (but am glad a straw broke the camel's back so I'm here). So many stories I can't go into here.

I don't know your maritial status, but you are more valuable than rubys. Showing the fortitude, temperance, patience, in the cause of justice.

I'm non an employer but I would hire you in a minute - I don't even know what for, but someone so fierce in defense of the right can only be an asset.

Have you considered a crowdfunding site (maybe to do the legal part)? There are so few warrior spirits for the truth.

Re: Spiritual strength.

[cellio]

I am interested in the crowdfunding idea to help with legal costs. I don't want to personally organize it for two reasons:

1. "Fund me" can give off the wrong vibe compared to a third party doing it.

2. I am bad at this kind of administration.

If anybody reading this wants to organize something, please get in touch with me. Anonymous comments are screened so you can use one to leave me an email address, or you can email me or DM me on Twitter.

Re: Spiritual strength.

[madfilkentist]

If someone starts a satisfactory crowdfunding campaign on your behalf, please let people know here. I'd be willing to provide support, but I'd have to know that the campaign exists and that you consider it legitimate.

Crowdfunding, and who is the hater?

[(Anonymous)]

Feel free to post this but this is more of a DM

You mentioned something in a comment on your post at SE that you would want any funding overage to go to charity - but specifically mentioned a "lavender" charity. I think you are trying to help but making the same error as the pronoun policy - first, it acts as an admission of guilt (I need to make repairations - watch the mob swarm on this), second, which "lavender" charity? Maybe something like this one: https://www.facebook.com/gaysguns ? I'd recommend something more neutral like a Children's hospital, or STEM scholarship. Third, even if not an admission, it has the condescending air of "oh, you poor lavender people, let me help".

If we weren't in a war of feelings and weaponized words the kind of charity would not be a problem either way. Instead it just causes people to assume some alterior motive behind the most reasonable act. Welcome to the culture wars.

The other thing is simple justice. If a Lavender moderator was fired in a similar unclear manner and then libeled, those who did it would have already lost their jobs. SE's actions speak far louder than any procedure document they can write. Your case is well beyond violating "Be Nice" and "Assume good intent". Your case is negative, but the flip side would be if there was a truly bigoted transphobic post they refused to remove for over a month with only some comments "we've contacted the person and hope to work on a solution" but it remains up. You remain removed and the libels unrecanted.

Every day that you don't get justice - have an apology, retraction, and reinstatement shows SE is engaging in irrational hatred with actual harm toward you and that is the essence of bigotry. It might be a "magnificent" (Augustine: "Pagan virtues are magnificent vices") bigotry, but it is still bigotry.

Re: Crowdfunding, and who is the hater?

[cellio]

I was thinking that it would be good, and fitting, to find somebody who is actually helping the queer community, unlike Stack Overflow. And by "help" I mean somebody who's providing needed support services, which I think everyone could get behind. But I don't know who those players are yet, so I haven't done anything.

If I do that, then donations go either to legal fees or to help a vulnerable community -- Stack Overflow's choice. It seems like it could highlight one more aspect of their hypocrisy. The lavender folks being hurt by Stack Overflow are by and large not part of the problem (a few are but not most).

But it's all just an idea so far.