The horse's mouth

I'm "the guy", the serial CoC terrorist in question. The quality of reporting, and of comments, on LWN are the best anywhere I've seen, and I appreciate that.

A curiosity is that fans of the ban _everywhere_ studiously avoid addressing the claimed violations. That's the last thing they'll ever talk about.

I've already written extensively about that on my blog, and at least two other bloggers did their best too at guessing what they _might_ be talking about. Nobody finds significant merit in any of those claims. For example, I was charged with defending claims of reverse sexism. The problem? I never mentioned it. Not once. Nobody can remember it because it never happened. So there's an excellent reason for why "they" didn't link to an example.

Relatedly, I was charged with defending reverse racism. In some ways that whopper is worse. I did mention that briefly, but in a message that very plainly _rejected_ the doctrine. The opposite of defending it. Nothing subtle about it. It's a failure to grasp the plain meaning of plain English. That's a charitable interpretation. It doesn't matter one whit who may have claimed offense when the thing being claimed isn't real. Nobody is asking for any details about the accusers. We're asking how even plainly false charges managed to survive review by "trained professionals" (if a paid 4-hour Zoom course on CoC enforcement counts as adequate training - I would have guessed that professionals in conflict resolution may require as much as 8 hours of training in social psychology ;-)).

I'm not going to engage with people who haven't at least read my blog, because they're disadvantaged by a severe lack of facts. It's not "the usual" CoC case, and cannot be understood by appealing to generalities. It's specifics here that are damning. Most commenters miss facts from the very start: it took 6 days for Ethan Furman to post the first reply, very bluntly and strongly saying "this is nonsense!". Gregory Smith replied with a straw man evasion, "refuting" a line of argument _nobody_ was actually making, Ethan least of all.

What "outsiders" are missing is that Ethan wasn't a friend of mine. Ethan is himself a moderator in some PSF spaces, and has handed out his own bans when warranted. It's in his _moderator's_ judgment that those specific claims are baseless, For those who identify with "authority", cognitive dissonance should have kicked in then already. Ethan was just about everyone's idea of a "reasonable person", with no dog in this fight apart from that his own senses of ethics and fairness were grossly offended. He's long on courage too, and from the wording of his brief dissent was clearly expecting they might ban him too for daring to speak his truth to power.

It's no mystery why ban targets who feel unfairly treated never return: agreeing to the charges is usually a prerequisite for being allowed back, and they refuse. In this case, I wasn't asked to agree to _any_ specific charge. In fact, the SC never even mentioned the charges to me. All of which has been explained on my blog for a long time already, and almost none of which has been disputed (Jake reported that he hadn't seen any dispute, and I can confirm that neither have I, neither in public nor in private). I agreed to everything they asked of me within a day. Which did not include that I had actually violated the CoC in any way.

While some in the PSF obviously want me gone, my reputation for integrity is unsullied across over 3 decades in the community. Most don't actually like me for technical prowess, but because I was one of the most consistently entertaining, informative, helpful, engaged, open, and welcoming of all Python's "big names". Those days are over, but you cannot sell that list of "violations" to people who've seen me, thousands of times, over decades, acting nothing like those shrill defamations claim of me. Not all that long ago, the PSF was showering me with awards for my unique posting style:

https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-happy-medium-dis... (*)

Note especially the quotes from Thomas Wouters, who, ironically enough, was made a sacrificial lamb to be the public face of posting my ban announcement. I feel bad for him.

While I've since adopted a tedious posting style to avoid triggering newer people, I haven't really changed. I'm not a grim person, and still find humor (sometimes dark) in almost everything. I just keep all sense of joy bottled up now. "Joy is not professional, supportive, welcoming, or inclusive - unless it's joy at the humiliation of perceived enemies of our new Mandatory Utopia" ;-)

BTW. the claims came from the CoC WG, and were merely echoed by the SC. They say the SC and CoC WG are wholly independent, and don't share evidence or deliberations. Whether the SC itself believes those charges is something you'd have to ask them. They won't answer, and I'm sure I know part of why, but won't speculate without proof. Beyond noting again that I wasn't asked to plead guilt. Find your own way to make sense of that without challenging your preconceived certainty about who's kidding who here.

Ah. About legalities, I don't know or care. I'm a "Golden Rule" person. You willfully violate that, and you're guilty, no matter what laws say.

I would like an apology from the PSF, but don't expect one, and don't insist on one. What I demand is that they improve the broken _processes_ that led to this. My case wasn't the first one of trumped-up fantasy charges, and won't be the last. As an old, long-retired person for whom the PSF's statements make no difference at all in my real life, they could never damage me in any real way. It has been a great excuse to reconnect with old friends and make new ones. But other people aren't so fortunate, and I've always spoken up against the injustices I see. If they won't change even now, I'll put the PSF behind me on my own.

(*) There are reasons that article is from 2018. Some day I hope to write an essay about them. More than one thing happened that year that, IMO, sent the PSF down a bad path. As the PSF's Institutional Memory (I was a founder, worked hard to create it, and wan on its Board for its first 13 years), I dare say I'm worth reading on that topic. But too involved to do here now.