Maybe a harsh critique but I believe a fair and honest one.

Your post sounds as though your lawyers drafted this for you. The humanity has been sucked out of it, canned lawyer speak is what remains.

Stack Overflow and Monica Cellio have come to an agreement. We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent. We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

We had already established this. What wasn't established was why her requests for clarifications were shut down so forcefully.

We acknowledge our responses to her requests for clarification were not satisfactory. The verbiage in our Code of Conduct could have been more explicitly detailed about what was expected. We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

Really? Then you'd have done her the courtesy of responding sooner and not waited until it required lawyers. You'd have treated her with a little bit of dignity and decency by not talking to the press.

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

Lawyer speak...

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure we are more careful in our public communications, and that there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked as well as a process for reinstatement.

You changed the policies as a result of the unending trouble. Not because you saw the light.

Let's be quite clear here, mods repeatedly tell users that they don't discuss user suspensions so why is it that an employee thought it appropriate to do so with press?

Gross negligence or plain simple malintent?

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute. We sincerely hope she remains an active member of our community. In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process. Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied.

Lawyer speak and it makes you seem so unbelievably unaware.

How NICE of you to 'invite' her to apply for reinstatement EVEN though you've acknowledged it was YOUR mistakes.

This whole post screams that you're making amends not because you genuinely feel a mistake has been made but because it's something your lawyers have said you need to do if you want things to settle. If you're going to apologise, do so without talking about the other person's shortcomings.

Monica must've had a real good case for y'all to even post this.

Anyhow, I'm glad Monica got a resolution she could sign off on.

I can't comment further for legal reasons.

I'm so happy disappointed that after months of frustration, hundreds of well-reasoned responsible adults advising you, and untold hours of people working to persuade your company to take action, that your lawyers finally allowed you to say the absolute minimum necessary to check all the boxes on the list of things to redress, under the threat of litigation.

So, let's be perfectly clear, that this does not read as a heart-felt personal apology. Coming from Sara Chipps feels calculated, or possibly legally-required. All language has become "We" now, as in "Stack Overflow". So, despite the personal level of the accusations that were initially leveled, this redaction is impersonal.

The verbiage in our Code of Conduct could have been more explicitly detailed about what was expected.

We all already knew this, based on the countless hours of moderator and community feedback to Code of Conduct and FAQ changes. You literally proved every step of the way after taking the bad actions, that the CoC expectations were murky at best. There is zero value in stating the blindingly obvious at this point. What's absent here is an admittance and acknowledgement that despite knowing the expectations weren't clear, you took extreme action against one person, and created a hostile environment that made many, many others afraid of suffering similar extreme actions.

I know much of the member base and many employees want to start healing. Some people may see this as a form of closure that allows us to move forward.

It's not. This is not an apology. This is not a form of redress for anything except one of the wrongs done specifically against Monica: It serves to be evidence to clear her good name so as not to damage her reputation and threaten her livelihood.

This does nothing to make amends for the harm caused to the communities.

We still have valid fears of being harmed by You. Not all of us have Monica's network of support to raise enough funds for legal fears to scare you into doing the right thing. Most of us would be stuck.

We still have no reason to trust that You will do the right thing on your own. Our legitimate concerns and worries over how you handle our content (licensing changes, profile vandalism, intrusive ads) have not been addressed.

We still have no personal apologies from anyone for the hurt they've caused members. And this agreement all but guarantees that we won't, because your legal team is apparently disallowing any further comment on the topic, and was likely involved in drafting this coldly impersonal post.

We still have networks whose communities were irreparably harmed by the sheer volume of moderators and influential users that had to leave the network or cease contributions, because You dug in your heels.

So please, everyone, make no mistake, this isn't good enough. It may satisfy the company's legally-required list of requirements, but it does not satisfy their ethically-required list of requirements.

Stack Overflow, you need to do better.

I find this statement to be a continuation of your (= SE inc's) inappropriate, underhanded, approach to this matter and to relations with the SE community so far.

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent.

This implies Ms. Cellio did something wrong (albeit inadvertently).

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

This implies even more strongly that you stand by your claim that she had broken your Code of Conduct. I remind you, Ms. Chipps, of the highest-voted reply to your last post on this site: "Did you lie in claiming that Ms. Cellio broke the code of conduct?" You seem to be claiming you didn't. Well then, again, what did she do that broke the code?

We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

This does not square with her termination on the spot as moderator - a termination you are still justifying and have not undone.

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

And how will you compensate her for this damage? More importantly, what's to prevent you from acting in this "regrettable" manner against other users - even valued and respected contributors, to use your words - with whom you disagree?

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure ... there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked

In that case, then - please apply this policy and tell us why Ms. Cellio's moderator status was revoked.

Also note, that a "clearer process" does not help much when you can be sanctioned unilaterally without even the opportunity to rebut the charges against you.

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute.

And yet, you still stick by her termination as a moderator; and have not reinstated her. Why?

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

That would be a non-recognition of the mistakes that led you here. Any terminated moderator can apply for reinstatement, after all.

Bottom line: You (= SE Inc.) seem to be "cutting your losses" w.r.t. the most legally vulnerable point, which is the slander in the media, while holding your position otherwise, and presenting all wrongdoing as an unfortunate conjunction of circumstances.

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

What a patronizing comment; in the discussion on the mod Q&A back in January a large majority of the moderators agreed with Monica's interpretation, which proves that she's not the confused foolhardy individual that this sentence makes her out to be, but that there was an actual disagreement on what the CoC actually mandated from people. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the CoC had to be updated to reflect this: there would have been no need for an update if all we had was one confused individual.

Stack Exchange still shifts the blame on Monica, instead of recognizing that it repeatedly kicked Monica in the teeth and treated her like an anonymous internet troll over an (IMHO fairly minor) disagreement. The only party that clearly breached the spirit of the CoC is Stack Exchange.

In other words, I feel this is a non-apology, and it's a disappointment this is the best Stack Exchange can come up with after 3 months. It seems there is still little understanding of the real problems with the entire situation.

I'm happy there is a solution which satisfies Monica sufficiently so she can move on from this stressful and emotional situation, but this has done little to put my mind at ease about the future.

You said (my emphasis),

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process. Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied.

I applaud you for admitting responsibility in this matter, but a better response would be to offer her her diamond back. Why should she go through a process without a clear likelihood of success if the problem was largely caused by your failure to communicate with her? If I want to make amends for hurting someone, I make them. I may ask them what they want or expect in terms of amends, but I do not give them a form and tell them to fill it out to apply for possible consideration.

Another thing to consider is why the initial actions took place. Admitting wrongdoing is hard, but I have read in multiple sources that lasting behavioral change requires an understanding of the contributing factors. In other words, "I'm sorry, my bad" is necessary but not sufficient. One must confront the source and handle it.

For example:

• Ignorant or poorly-qualified staff can be trained or educated in the proper procedures, policies, principles, ethics, or best practices.
• A rogue employee can be fired, and safeguards put into place to dissuade future employees from "going rogue".
• Bad legal advice can be handled by getting better lawyers.
• Conflicts of interest can be handled via recusal.
• Physically and/or emotionally burnt-out staff (who might lash out irrationally due to stress) can be asked to take a vacation to recharge.

In software development, we sometimes speak of "root causes". Maybe a particular kind of error keeps popping up, and it gets fixed each time the customer complains, but the real reason it is such a problem is a poor requirements-gathering process. What is the root cause of the mistakes above?

Stack Overflow and Monica Cellio have come to an agreement.

Great!

I am happy that you have reached an agreement. I am especially happy that this happened sooner rather than later for Monica's sake. Clearing her good name as soon as possible was imperative here.

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

Plain wrong!

After all the missteps you have done from day one handling this, you still had one chance to make things right.

And you spectacularly failed.

You should have given Monica her diamonds back. If then she decided she is no longer willing to moderate sites on SE, she could step down on her own. While nothing could totally erase events in last few months, this would show good intent on your side and true desire to fix wrong moves and truly move forward.

Under the circumstances reinstatement process would be mere farce. I fully support and understand Monica in her decision to not go through the process.

This incident had great impact on how people perceive and value SE.

You have broken the trust between company and you users. The ones that provide you content for free. The ones that moderate sites for free. The ones that ultimately brought the company to the position where it stands today.

I don't see how can you regain that trust now.

Maybe you no longer care about mutual trust and cooperation. Maybe you think company can thrive without it. Certainly the platform is huge enough and has enough momentum to keep going for a long time.

But one day, mistake upon mistake and all the future mistakes (I am sure there will be mistakes - this kind of thing does not happen by accident, rather incompetence (at company level - because while one person can always make innocent mistake, others should act like safety mechanism and help correcting those) and inability to learn from mistakes and grow) will accumulate and become too heavy burden to keep on going.

This doesn't fix the serious breach of trust SE committed by their actions for me. The agreement is of course between Monica and SE, and that is entirely her business, but the actions by SE were very public and have affected the way I and many other active users see the company.

I didn't have any high hopes for a legal resolution here, not every unethical action is also illegal, and there is a serious power imbalance here between a single person and a company. But I'm still disappointed that this statement doesn't actually resolve anything.

The problematic actions started much earlier than when SE talked to the press, or made disparaging statements on meta. The fundamental issue to me was that the actions by SE put a huge target on Monica, and that was entirely predictable. And still, SE took several actions over a longer time that all made this worse, and put an even bigger target on a single person. And while I do believe that SE would not talk to the press the next time something like this happens, I am not convinced that SE won't create a next time.

This is certainly a positive step. But it's not enough.

Offering Monica the chance to go through your reinstatement process is an insult. Either you're going to reinstate her to her previous positions or you're going put her through the wringer and reject her.

If you are planning to reinstate her, just do it! The new processes don't apply to her anyway since she was not removed with them. If removing her diamonds was a mistake, then fix the mistake.

Why force her to go through this unnecessary review unless your end goal is to say "see, we were right to de-mod you all along!"??

...But it isn't over yet

I invite you to give this Radio Lab episode a listen on the Right to be Forgotten.

You (SE) have irrevocably damaged Monica's reputation by allowing her name to be used in a public context alongside accusations of bigotry, in a format that can't be readily altered (as presumably, this article was featured in print form, as well as digitally). Furthermore, Monica herself cannot have these attributions redacted, as while they are about her, they weren't from her: they're from you (SE) and it is your (SE's) duty to contact all outlets where this article has appeared and request redaction. It's your fault, and you need to clean up the mess.

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent. We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

Oh good, another non-apology.

"We're sorry you didn't understand" is about as sincere as moldy cheese.

It's not Monica's fault for not understanding the CoC; it's yours for not making it understandable. As part of Monica's responsibility to point out places where the CoC was not understandable, she did her job and said, "Hey, XYZ doesn't make sense, can you clarify?" and in response you (SE) said, "IT'S FINE, EVERYTHING'S FINE, ALSO THAT STATEMENT VIOLATES THE COC, BANNED!"

This seems like you are attempting to strong-arm Monica into losing any of her own legal leverage, by having her agree to go through your sham reinstatement process that rests on a presumption of guilt and tacitly agree to your lack of accepting responsibility.

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

This is quite similar to the assertion made before in a post where you stated that users disagreed with policy updates and other Stack Exchange issues for "reasons they do not understand."

It is perfectly within the realm of possibility that a user can believe things correctly based on the merits and that it rests entirely on the flawed approach of another person. If I announce to a group that I intend to remove the wheels from their cars at the stop light, and they protest, it seems absurd to me to react with "I am sorry that this group did not understand." It's deflecting responsibility.

Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied.

She wrote why in her response before. The new reinstatement process starts with a presumption of guilt, and the process of her removal was flawed to begin with. She should not lower her dignity further by taking up that banner of guilt to go through a reinstatement process that's not transparent or kind, and that process seems to be for a case any other than an abberant one like this.

It was a mistake to remove her, so the mistake should be reversed. Even in this post, you are agreeing with the (new) policy does not forbid neutrality. Her requests meet the policy. But even if her requests did not, the policy was not in place yet, and therefore I do not personally understand how it breaks policy.

For example, I am not beholden to a Google policy that Google will release in 2025. I am simply not, because as of right now, it's 2019, and not 2025. Do you disagree with this being reasonable? Or do you believe that I should have my Google accounts deleted for the policy that isn't out yet?

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure we are more careful in our public communications.

Where can we review this? Because last time I checked, it was an answer that Shog9 posted to a question that stated "No comment" is the policy moving forward. I'm not sure how binding a post is. I'd feel a lot better if it was in Terms Of Service or Privacy Policy, because a post feels like as binding as a note written on a napkin. I definitely feel like a more codified approach would give people more peace.

The last sentence reads to me that Monica does not want to go through the reinstatement process, so she won't be reinstated. So perhaps don't wait too long for that diamond to reappear, it sounds like it won't. – Tinkeringbell ♦

Is this interpretation from this user true? This seems quite unfair. This is contradictory to the other features and processes of the site. If someone were to unfairly serial downvote me, their downvotes would be reversed. If someone were to deface my question or do anything else to my question, that action would be reversed.

Imagine if we took what's happening here and applied it to these other cases. I'd have to go to you on my knees and apologize for the actions that other user took, and go through a process where you restore my content. This isn't morally sound to me. Just reinstate her.

Here is what I expected to read when I saw the title of this question. IANAL and IANAW (writer), so this won't sound like legalese.

Stack Exchange and Monica Cellio have resolved their differences. Both sides have seen what a waste of time and resources it is to battle over something that started relatively insignificantly. It was in the best interest of both Stack Exchange and Ms. Cellio to settle, so both parties agreed on a settlement. While we and Ms. Cellio cannot comment on many specific details of the settlement, the following is what Stack Exchange is releasing publicly per terms of the settlement.

Ms. Cellio is hereby reinstated as a moderator on all Stack Exchange sites on which she was previously a moderator. Stack Exchange did not follow our own previously established process, and a lot of hurt has occurred either directly or indirectly because of our actions. For this we are truly sorry. We hereby retract all defamatory statements made to the press about Ms. Cellio. By now you should be able to find an article online in the press about this retraction using your favorite search engine.

Stack Exchange welcomes all positive, constructive criticism, and expects active users to ask for clarification if our communication is unclear. Ms. Cellio did not break any of our rules, even if we previously mistakenly judged it differently. She as well as we fully support inclusivity and everyone's combined effort to make everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, age, religion, or physical disability feel welcome and comfortable posting and contributing to all Stack Exchange sites.

While the Code of Conduct expects users to use proper pronouns upon request, Stack Exchange does not expect a user to know the pronouns of another specific user when not told first. While Stack Exchange recognizes that there are many different, varied opinions on the legitimacy of such neopronouns, users are expected to use them when using a third-person singular pronoun as stated on a post. Users may respectfully disagree, but if a user needs to respond on a post referring to a user with pronouns stated on that same post, then that user should comply. No user shall be punished, either with de-modding or suspension, for disengaging, for avoiding any pronoun, or for using a gender-neutral pronoun. Use of neopronouns does not necessarily mean that the user implicitly condones these neopronouns, but it does show respect for the referred user. The bottom line here is that we expect all users to treat each other respectfully.

Both Stack Exchange and Ms. Cellio fully support those users who identify with the Lavender community in ensuring that they feel as comfortable as any other user when posting on Stack Exchange sites.

Per the terms of the settlement, there were damages awarded, although neither Stack Exchange nor Ms. Cellio are at liberty to discuss the amount. Both Stack Exchange and Ms. Cellio have agreed to donate any leftover funds previously designated for legal costs to charities benefiting lavender causes.

Stack Exchange realizes that while most users may not even be aware of this situation, many long-time, long-contributing users feel that trust has been greatly damaged, even beyond repair. While we respect those feelings, starting NOW we intend to earn that trust and respect back. Lately we have increased our Meta interaction, specifically addressing concerns the community has brought up, from both years ago and recently. We understand if many never want to return, but we appreciate those have respectfully called for the right actions -- respect, civility, constructive criticism, transparency, honesty, and integrity.

As part of this, Stack Exchange will be more transparent with our actions and business decisions. While we reserve the right to make changes without consent, we will at least discuss changes that affect the community in a non-negligible way. After all, the community makes Stack Exchange possible. There are many that may not believe the preceding statements, but we believe that this is the first of many necessary steps that we will take to regain trust and improve relations between Stack Exchange and the community.

But that's not what I read. This wasn't what was posted by Stack Exchange above. It may look like a small step forward, but a giant leap forward was required, so it looks like things are still backwards.

This is a similar answer to Columbia's, but I have a slightly different take.

The last paragraph just doesn't make sense to me. It's nice that Stack Exchange seems to be admitting fault, but that's negated by the last couple sentences.

Monica was removed without warning or process. As far as the rest of us know, she didn't even have a chance to argue her case before she was fired. Why should she have to be held to a process for "possible" reinstatement, if no process was used in her removal? That just doesn't make sense.

Of course, there's a very good chance Monica just doesn't want to bother with moderating for a company that essentially threw her under the bus, but that should be up to her, shouldn't it? If she was wrongly removed, she should have the option of being reinstated; not the option of applying for possible reinstatement.

In other words: "we wish this didn't happen, we're absolutely not sorry at all and did nothing wrong. Oh, and the new CoC obviously applied retroactively; shall we call you a waaaaambulance?" That is not an apology, that is yet another insult; do you think the users are bad at parsing it (yeah, you Did Something and that's it, fixed)? Merry Christmas to you, too (oh yeah, plus the traditional "posting this right as the holiday starts in the hopes of avoiding Streissand effect," very cute)

Edit: whence "this is not an apology"? A glossary:

• "I apologize": "I wish to fix my fault"
• "I'm sorry": "I acknowledge my fault"
• "I regret": "I wish I wasn't involved"

See what that means, and see the OP.

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

At the time of the relevant events, NO-ONE understood the Code of Conduct.

The details were still being worked out. FAQs were still being explained and re-explained. Problems in the wording were being addressed. No moderator, no-one in the community, and no Stack Exchange employee could claim in good faith to understand that which had yet to be defined.

As things stand, it's still not really the case that the community has come to a common understanding about these issues.

Monica was trying to help you guys out by helping to move the community towards a common understanding.

Saying "we believe she did not understand" sounds rather patronising.

As a 35-year veteran of startups (including legal issues with employees), this is not as good an outcome for Monica as I would have hoped. I wonder if she spent any of the $30k from her GoFundMe account to get this 'agreement'? It doesn't seem like she got much for her money, if she did.

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

Not many posters today seem to be commenting that there were several COC's floating around at that time - the original one, and several draft versions of a new one. It's my understanding that only the new one(s) contained references to the 'gender' topic in detail, and this COC was not yet in force. So ... what exactly is 'our Code of Conduct' as referenced here?

We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered

I can handle 'regret' rather than 'apologize for' as basic legal weasel-words, but she may have suffered is a far cry from 'we may have caused'.

Overall, this is a big non-apology. If, however, it hadn't been for the last paragraph, I'd have said - at least reading between the lines, 'this is an apology by the company and you can move on'. But the last paragraph is a low blow.

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here

(not 'mistakes we made'),

we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

This really sucks. Since she was - by their own admission - removed from the position without due process and without following stated guidelines, her removal should simply be 'negated' and she should be a moderator in good standing as if nothing ever happened.

My heart goes out to Monica. She must have been emotionally drained by this process and ready to accept this poor substitute for an apology.

As a startup with healthy venture funding, SO needs a squeeky-clean track record if they want to go public. Getting this issue swept under the rug was probably a priority.

When you state that

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct

If I recall clearly, she was asking in order to comprehend such nuances and full intent. I believe this source of distrust will never be remediated, at least for users old enough to remember a different place and a different way of doing things.

For Monica, it seems, it's clear that the trust is not there.

Confession is good for the soul.

So far, you're still doing everything exactly wrong. As plenty of people have already pointed out, this is a non-apology that essentially says "we're sorry that Monica misunderstood the rules and ended up accidentally breaking them, but we didn't do anything wrong."

Well... screw that. Yes you did! You absolutely did do things wrong. I'm sure your lawyers are advising you to not admit wrongdoing "for legal reasons," but they're wrong. That's how you deal with a case you expect to be able to win, but you can't win this one because you are clearly, objectively in the wrong.

The only correct course of action in this case is to capitulate. Openly admit your guilt, reverse Monica's firing without any need for admissions of wrongdoing on her part, publicly retract your libelous comments against her in the media, and make restitution. The things you've done were obvious enough and public enough, and angered enough people, that I honestly don't think the community will accept anything less.

This post? This is beyond inadequate; it's straight-out insulting, both to Monica and also to all of us, for expecting us to be dumb enough to fall for it.

Enough is enough. The delay is far more than enough.
We do not want another nonapology, this situation should've been ended way earlier than 2020.

The post seemed ostensibly good, that the company officially acknowledged their misjudgment and revoking Monica's diamond. This is not a good statement at all. It already faced the same trajectory as her last post [now deleted].

Scenario

Imagine that: You deliberately broke or discarded someone's collectible item, which could be anything ranging from a small toy to something as as valuable as a diamond. You promise you will buy a new and identical replacement later on and directly give it to her in apology.

Will that person still feel the same to you after receiving the new "identical" diamond?

This is what Sara officially stated to “apologize”:

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

What‽‽‽ She is asking Monica to reapply for the new diamond. Keywords are “apply” and “possible”; her application might be rejected. She is not even guaranteeing that she will give out a replacement diamond for her, in which being a staff she may instantly give out to her because this is an exception that needs to be handled. Figuratively, you [or an official statement under your name] sprayed more corrosive salt to the wound, which leads to more pain and even infection.

Impact

It also affects other people who regularly contribute or even read this site including me, which at that time I am mostly away for work-related and research-related reasons. I only recently came back to SE and found out the gravity of this exception; I barely even contributed to Meta before that. I am not a high-XP user but just another SE user who shows general interest in programming, topics, and the site. Also, I am one of the first to see and comment on that post.

The best outcome is if this chaos never happened in the first place; that SE follows everything that should be done to moderators and ordinary users alike. Or that her diamond is found and given back seconds after; when Monica's diamond was given back minutes after her wrongful dismissal. Monica is very upset and many other moderators wholly lost their will to contribute. The staff has delayed for months and months and refused to give back the intangible diamond they took away.

Please, we need to take real action, not get into more "non-apologies" and "I regret that…" statements. Staff can give out the replacement diamond to her, and if they would otherwise offered the replacement minutes after taking it away, this exception won't even happen.

This is not even a halfway-acceptable resolution to a historic SOF event which resulted in the resignation of numerous diamond-moderators and an atomsphere of general distrust and exasperation among the SOF community. Indeed, it will not negate the damage already done, either to Monica, nor the collateral damage done to the other users. The post resulted in zero effective action despite her publicly statement that she [maybe representing all of SE staff acknowledges the company's miscommunication. Her response is not a solution at all to this catastrophic SOF event.

So you're still not going to accept that your statements about her were actually wrong, you just "regret the damage to [her] reputation"?

It seems you've decided not to take your last opportunity to make this right and instead targeted getting the maximum you possibly could from the legal process. The community resentment and distrust will stay with Stack Exchange, and particularly the people most directly responsible, for years.

I'll be keeping the "Apologise to Monica" in my name for a while yet.

A disappointing, but unsurprising result that only confirms that Stack Exchange Inc. is now infested with a corporate culture that not only fails to take responsibility when it is wrong, but refuses to even admit it's wrong. That sort of mentality is well-documented to doom companies, and I for one cannot wait to see that happen, because sometimes the only way to fix something that has been unbelievably twisted beyond its original purpose is to let it destroy itself so that you can rebuild from the ashes.

As for Monica, I hope she received a decent settlement, although I doubt anything will make up for the damage to her reputation and personal distress she's endured. Part of me is sad that she didn't fight to get the apology and retraction that she deserves; but I also appreciate that she likely has little wish to continue dealing with the bad-faith actor that is SE Inc., and just wants this whole sordid business put behind her.

Amazing how much goodwill a simple apology can achieve... amazing how much goodwill the lack of one can destroy.

I do assume that SE Inc. respectively the OP is telling us the truth, and that there is some sort of agreement between the two parties, and yes, we can find the same statement also on her gofundme page. But let me say the following, which raised like all my eyebrows immediately.

You start with this:

We sincerely hope she remains an active member of our community.

To then continue with:

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

Honestly, together that reads naive and awkward at best.

But it rather feels like a bully who challenged the wrong person and who still tries to put up their own rules, to then blame the other party who refuses to follow said rules.

If you really want her to stay because of her great contributions, then ask yourself why you start with ignoring her objections about the process you want her to go through. To give her back something she earned from community members electing her. And which you took from her in the most dubious way possible.

I wish I could change my user name to

Ghostcat says: SE Inc should have reinstated Monica

but alas, too long to fit into the 30 character name limit.

But that is what I feel and think right now. It is probably a good thing that there is an agreement between the two parties, but it is a sad day for this community that Monica won't come back as moderator (here). We lost a lot, and SE Inc. gained nothing!

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

It is hopelessly inadequate. IIRC, part of the problem was the reporting of the incident to the press with all the implicit connotations made against Monica's personality. If this isn't followed up with a retraction in the press as well, then it's a bit of a nothing. "we're not even sorry we implied she was a bigot which will remain on the Internet forever, but we regret saying her name even though we didn't say her name, right".

The entire incident with the press was unacceptable, and now they simply wheedle out of it with more "and we did nothing wrong" faux apologies.

This may end the legal threat, but it (again) does nothing to suggest to us that SE is a reputable company led by people with integrity.

Now… look what Santa put under the Meta.SE Christmas tree.

Geez, it is sad to see that it took ages for Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow to finally recognize that there actually might be some kind of problem for them to fix. Though, personally, I am not able to detect any hint that Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow also grasps that the problem is on their side. I mean, like it or not, but fact is that this whole drama was started by a knee-jerk reaction on the corporate side and has been evolving in a bad way ever since. It wasn’t something the community’s or an individual Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow user did.

I have long kept my mouth shut about why I once dropped my mod gig, but it’s about time to note that the way Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow – as a company with a community of hard contributing users – slowly slid towards where they are now, was one of the main reasons why I stepped down as a Crypto.SE moderator in December 2018.

Seeing how things evolved left and right during the past twelve months, then standing on the sidelines while watching this whole Monica event turn from a “misunderstanding” to a full fledged community drama fueled by Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow, and finally stumbling upon this post at Meta, merely confirms that my stepping down and pulling back from investing time and efforts in a Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow community site obviously was not the baddest idea. From my perspective, things got even worse than I suspected them to become. It feels like having to watch a company shoot itself in the foot in almost every way possible, while I can’t do anything to make it stop.

Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow was once such a great community to be part of and I loved contributing. Now, it just feels hostile – not because if its users, but because of the way the company running Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow handles things.

Just look at the most recent example:

…we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up.

I mean, really?

It’s things like these that are anything but constructive and it’s things like these that strongly impact the public image of Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow as a company.

If it weren’t that sad, I would joke that it’s not the users but rather Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow as company who needs a working “Code of Conduct” for itself. One which would prevent Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow from bluntly kicking benign users and (as in Monica’s case) mods who represent the better pieces of the cake Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow Inc feeds on.

^{(No worries, the kid is not tied up but rather standing behind the cardboard. It’s a halloween costume. This is how it works.)}

Last but not least, I would like to note that this “Update: an agreement with Monica Cellio” post should actually have been posted in the Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow Blog, as that’s what the world sees and reads. Putting it on Meta.SE – where it is bound to be buried by the dust of time and new Q&As – merely underlines that Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow obviously has not fully grasped how their public image suffers from the way things like these are handled.

Anyway, merry Xmas to y’all.
Peace on Earth et al.

So you've made an "agreement" that you're going to claim legally prevents you from even starting to do anything to win back the trust of your user community? (Such as giving the user community an explanation of what happened and what you've done to guarantee that other users who happen to catch the random unfounded ire of some SE employee won't be treated in the same way).

This is not a smart move.

I'm out.

This is not a remotely adequate response from Stack Overflow.

Outside of a fairly weak response to the defamation (I'd expect a strong apology in the media linked in the question above, given that her name was publicly trashed in the media), there seems to be nothing here we hadn't seen months ago, and in fact it seems to be a strong step backward from the tone of David Fullerton's post. None of this remotely addresses the issues that led me to stand down as moderator. It seems to be an even more strident digging-in of heels, but now with Monica completely silenced to boot.

This is not how you mend fences with your community. It's now quite clear what the attitude is to people that contribute value to your company for free - one totally lacking in even basic respect.

Whatever the agreement with Monica, it presumably doesn't stop SO from reinstating her unconditionally (or offering that). Then if there was some problem, you can readily follow the proper procedures; it might give us a chance to see how they work (if at all). It would be a trivial matter to do so (to just reinstate her), but it's obvious why those proper procedures won't be followed -- because it isn't certain to get rid of someone you decided to get rid of; accountability and openness are just too difficult for SO, apparently.

Why are all of these sweeping — and somewhat dramatic — declarations from the staff to the “community” being made during various holidays and seemingly at the last minute?

So I am barely invested in this whole mess — and let’s admit that, it is a mess — but as a bystander who is looking at this from a fairly neutral high perspective, I want to dig up a fairly basic quote from you Sara Chipps from the now deleted October 3rd post titled, “An Update to our Community and an Apology.”

“We learned (or were painfully reminded, rather) to never ship at 6 PM (EDT) on a Friday.”

Really? This was a lesson learned?

Because this post right here was posted on December 23rd, a day when many people are traveling for the holidays and on the second night of Hanukkah. And not for nothing, today — December 24th — is Christmas Eve; another fairly major holiday that affects a huge chunk of the Stack Exchange community.

Granted, Hanukkah is not considered the most important of holidays in Judaism, but still…

I’m not trying to be snarky, but seriously… Come on… Either everyone involved in truly unaware of the holidays this time of year or there might be an effort to bury this stuff so it just goes away.

I want to accept this post as heartfelt and true, but I read this and I see something “off” about this all: From the initial incidents, to the update about the initial incidents to this post itself.

I genuinely wish all who read this — and who are involved with this — have a happy holidays, but seriously… There are issues here that still suffer from open wounds and covered ears.

One good turn deserves another.

You've unconditionally, unarguably and unilaterally fired Ms. Cellio. Since you've admitted that it was your fault, now it's time for you to reinstate her back in the same manner.

That aside, I'm delighted to see a positive step towards a resolution of the ongoing stream of issues. I'm sure you're more than eager to prove your sincerity with your actions, aren't you?

So... what's the agreement?

Besides the acknowledgement of wrongdoing here, nothing in this post seems to reflect a change from where we were months ago. The only bits that sound like any action has been taken are these...

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure we are more careful in our public communications, and that there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked as well as a process for reinstatement.

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute. We sincerely hope she remains an active member of our community. In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process. Ms. Cellio expressed concerns about the new process and has not applied.

... but all those actions were already taken in October. (See Under what circumstances will Stack Exchange, Inc. share private/sensitive information with the press? and Feedback post: Moderator review and reinstatement processes.)

I therefore don't understand, upon reading this, what's new. Is the "agreement" something that's happened behind the scenes (e.g. a payoff to Monica in exchange for her not pursuing her libel case and not publicly commenting further on this issue) that we're never to be privy to?

To add my two cents worth...

Firstly, at the time that Monica was fired, there was no Code of Conduct that covered her alleged and as-yet undisclosed infraction. Of course she didn't understand it... no-one did, since it was still being formulated.

Secondly, Monica was fired in error... The existence of this question is an admission of that error. Monica has previously stated that she wants to resume her moderator positions, but that she is unwilling to apply to have them potentially restored, as that would be an admission that there was justification for their removal.

So... Unless Monica chooses to state that she does not desire reinstatement...:

Stack Exchange, please consider this answer to be an application to have all of Monica Cellio's moderator statuses restored, on the grounds that they were removed in error by your own admission, and that prior to the agreement being reached between Monica and Stack Exchange, Monica had repeatedly expressed a desire to resume her former positions as moderator of multiple stack exchange sites.

I would invite all Stack Exchange users who read this and who wish Monica to be reinstated to upvote this answer and add a comment indicating your support for Monica's full and unconditional reinstatement.