[Web4lib] Subscriber Removal Clarification

[Joshua Ferraro]

A few comments regarding this action:

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:02:39AM -0800, Roy Tennant wrote:
> The Web4Lib Advisory Board and I have been asked privately to explain  
> our actions. Rather than doing this multiple times to individuals, we  
> wish to do this once and make it part of the public record.
First off, the fact that you're being questioned should alert you
that a significant portion of us on this list feel that the action
taken was unfair.

> The facts are these.
> 
> Some years ago, Chuck Munson violated this Web4Lib Posting Policy:
> 
> "Personal attacks such as name calling and personal insults will not  
> be tolerated. Comments that are intended only to enrage the recipient  
> rather than contribute to thoughtful discussion are prohibited."
> 
> He was formally warned that further infractions of that same policy  
> would result in his removal from the discussion. He then violated  
> that same policy again and was removed from the discussion (see  
> <http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/1999-March/004882.html>).
So Chuck was formally warned, were warnings also issued to everyone
else who has violated Web4Lib posting policy? If so, why are you
singling out Chuck?

> Recently he quietly rejoined the discussion without requesting to be  
> reinstated. Shortly thereafter he violated the very same policy  
> again, in an egregious and gratuitous manner, at which point I  
> removed him from the discussion again (see <http:// 
> lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/2005-December/039336.html> for  
> the message in question and <http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/ 
> web4lib/2005-December/039345.html> for the removal notice).
Did you also remove everyone else who violated the posting policy?
or send them formal warnings? If not, again I must ask, why are you
singling out Chuck? Some of us appreciate his candidness and point
of view.

> Since the list began in 1994, only three individuals have ever been  
> sanctioned in this way. We do not use this sanction lightly, but we  
> will not hesitate to use it if it is required to protect the ability  
> of all Web4Lib subscribers to voice their views while being treated  
> in a civil manner.
Frankly, Chuck recieved as much or more flack from other web4lib
subscribers than he dished out from my reading of the threads. He
didn't resort to name-calling or insults until after he had been
called 'extremist' and had personal information which he clearly
stated he didn't want to have on display thrown in his face.

> This is about _behavior_, not his opinions or views. Frankly, we  
> don't care what he says so long as it adheres to the policies of this  
> discussion, which have been crafted over time in response to real  
> situations to create a place on the Internet for civil discourse  
> about issues important to libraries and librarians on the web. If we  
> don't have that, we have nothing at all.
If you really were worried about _bebavior_, why are the other 
'misbehaving' subscribers (and advisory board members) not 
sanctioned similarly?

For Chuck being reinstated,

Joshua