That sounds more likely.eagle wrote:I predict that for a career, she will find an public relations position with a Spanish-based company that requires a liaison with the United States (and/or other English speaking nations or the EU (where English is one of the available languages).)
I'd would never wish anyone ill who has not done me or mine harm.Vigilant wrote:I view it differently.Jbhunley wrote:I wish her all the best in whatever she does -- In a a "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" kind of way.
I'm adding Laura Hale to my 'professional herpes' list.
Regardless of where she lands, any new employer will get the dossier on Laura Hale.
She can be Maria Sefidari Huici's 三八.
Democrats Abroad. That was fast! Take over any committees yet?SLW80 wrote: (I just saw Jbhunley's post. You made my day with your comments on the case.And she's already infiltrated the democrats-abroad, which disgusts me.)
Vigilant wrote: fecal pulsar.
I'm still laughing at the imagery! Can I add it to my bag of metaphors I use to keep from using terms like "shitgibbon" on WP. I need all I can get so I can vent when dealing with the inanity without just going "fuckfuckfuckidiotmoronfuckfuck" in between my rhetorical points.https://www.democratsabroad.org/purplepoppleJbhunley wrote:Democrats Abroad. That was fast! Take over any committees yet?
Oh dear....Laura Hale
Laura Hale has lived in Madrid since 2013, previously having lived in Bratislava, Tinian and Canberra. Originally from the Chicago suburbs and a family of life long Democrats, she has an BGS and MSEd in Instructional Technology from Northern Illinois University, and a PhD in Communications from the University of Canberra. A data analyst and sports historian by training, in the past few years she has been active in disability activism through sports data related projects. Laura has been involved in further activist activities online and offline mostly centering around Wikipedia and related projects since 2011.
Good point re low pay and likely remaining an expat. Whatever she does I fervently hope whatever it is does not involve Wikipedia. In this context that is really all I care about. I gave up on the idea of a just world long, long ago. I just endeavor to keep the patch I must deal with less shit, as and how I can.eagle wrote: Dear Mr. Hunley, As you know, Laura Hale specializes in small groups that are just launching and lack the maturity of more established groups. She is now targeting a subset of the [US] Democratic Party that is organizing US voters who live abroad, specifically in Spain. As you know, such people typically speak English so language will not be as much of a problem for her. The Democratic Party offers very few paid positions, and the pay for Field Directors is very, very low. Any politcal career path would lead back to the US and her wife already has an established career in Spain, so this will be at most a volunteer position or a low level dead-end job. People living abroad, even in the military or with the State Department, can't run for office back in the US. And as Ms. SLW80 can attest, Dr. Hale at this point could not be elected Headless Horseperson Dog Catcher of Sleepy Hollow.
I predict that for a career, she will find an public relations position with a Spanish-based company that requires a liaison with the United States (and/or other English speaking nations or the EU (where English is one of the available languages).)
I think that the WP core group will judge her (and Raystorm) based on whether they do right by Fram. And Raystorm and Hale can earn a lot of good will in the next 24 hours by affirmatively making a gesture to fix this mess. With that, we will all wish her the best on her next chapter of life.
Of course.Jbhunley wrote:Vigilant wrote: fecal pulsar.
His M.O. is trying to figure out which ass to kiss and in this case he has no idea which one is the right one. IIRC, back in the day he was basically a toady to one WR's "infamous" wikipedians. Either Durova or SV, one of them most likely.Vigilant wrote:Can someone tell Jehochman to shut the fuck up?
He's on every page taking contradictory stances on every issue.
It's like every 6 hours his inner magnetic pole flips and he feels compelled to shit post something different in every space available.
He's a fecal pulsar.
Yes.rhindle wrote:His M.O. is trying to figure out which ass to kiss and in this case he has no idea which one is the right one. IIRC, back in the day he was basically a toady to one WR's "infamous" wikipedians. Either Durova or SV, one of them most likely.Vigilant wrote:Can someone tell Jehochman to shut the fuck up?
He's on every page taking contradictory stances on every issue.
It's like every 6 hours his inner magnetic pole flips and he feels compelled to shit post something different in every space available.
He's a fecal pulsar.
We see the earliest ghosts of his obsessive-compulsive idiocy displayed in the Fram case foreshadowed in the bolded section.Statement Jehochman
Dmcdevit expressed concerns to me in private just two days ago. I agreed with him, and took action under the good faith presumption that Dmcdevit was correct. He is not aware of this yet, but I have stopped taking advice from Durova, my former admin coach. In fact, I have accepted User:Physchim62's offer to provide new admin training, and User:El C has also agreed to provide guidance on request. You will notice in my recent logs that I have been spending time at CAT:CSD. That is the first step prescribed to me by P62.
My block of DreamGuy was supported by evidence. The unblock request was denied by User:Adam Cuerden who stated, "Plenty of evidence that trouble has been caused by this user." [4] I don't think DreamGuy needs to be litigated again because I have recused myself from further dealings with him. Durova was not involved in this incident, nor was this an "investigation". I originally became involved because DreamGuy asked me for protection from people who were harassing him. There was no "sleuthing" involved here.
I was neither involved in investigating nor blocking User:!!. After seeing comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I contacted User:Majorly to learn what had happened, and then immediately told Durova to unblock !!. Please understand that I am not Durova, and Durova is not me. We often disagree and usually act independently.
In regards to the IP 24 matter that was being handled privately, a settlement was mediated by User:WJBscribe. He told me that he was reporting to Arbcom. I consider this matter fully resolved and feel that rehashing the matter might cause this person to resume harassing me, or may encourage copy cats. I respectfully request that any further discussion be handled confidentially via email.
A more significant point is that editors should be freely encouraged to come to Arbcom and file confidential reports of cyberstalking and harassment without fear of retaliation. I cannot emphasize enough that "blaming the victim", no matter how defective their report may be, is wrong and has a chilling effect. If a report has gaps in logic and confirmation bias, it can be stashed away and a polite reply can be sent, "The Arbcom has decided not to act on this report at this time." The fact that a case has been brought against me in part for filing such a report sends the wrong signal to others who might need to file reports in the future.
I'd like to shed light on an issue that has been the subject of conspiracy theories. I am the one who requested oversight of the private email. "These four deleted revisions contain a copy of a user email that was posted to the site without permission. The author asked me to request oversight." Posting a lengthy letter without permission of the author is an obvious copyright violation. Copyright violation is one of the stated reasons for oversight. I encourage the committee to investigate the release and publication of that confidential email. Editors should be able to collaborate offline without fear that their private comments will appear on site.
Lastly, in Krimpet's remarks below there is an ad hominem argument against me, "why do we seem to tolerate Jehochman and Durova doing the same thing [as Kohs]?" I am not doing the same thing as Kohs, which Krimpet could have discovered if she had contacted me, rather than repeating after Kohs. I am concerned that Krimpet may trust Kohs more than a fellow administrator. I am unclear where Krimpet gets these ideas because I've never called myself a "sleuth." No, I'm just an ordinary editor. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (except those who are banned). Krimpet and Kohs have suggested that people can be excluded because of their profession. I disagree strongly and would like Arbcom to make a clear statement that people of all professions are welcome to participate and that statements such as Krimpet's are not allowed.
Thank you for your consideration of my remarks. - Jehochman Talk 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
How about telling admins what the rules are then?I agree. Past ArbComs have had (too) high a bar to desysop and been (too) careful not to rock the boat. But ArbCom is not a static body. Our membership and opinions change based on elections and the evolving norms of the community (which we're part of remember). We're also not a single body. So announcing a 'new regime' would be both impracticable (we don't all agree) and inappropriate (the "clear standard" we work off is community policy, always).
Speaking for myself, I was elected saying that I thought admins were getting away with bad conduct, that I'd desysop in cases where previous ArbComs didn't, and that taking decisive, unpopular action is ArbCom's job. I think I've consistently voted that way in all our cases this year, and this is no exception. – Joe (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, Joe's approaching this in the worst possible way. Rather than championing changes to the standards for admin conduct such that there are objective standards and clear guidance, he's just applying a different subjective standard.Vigilant wrote:How about telling admins what the rules are then?I agree. Past ArbComs have had (too) high a bar to desysop and been (too) careful not to rock the boat. But ArbCom is not a static body. Our membership and opinions change based on elections and the evolving norms of the community (which we're part of remember). We're also not a single body. So announcing a 'new regime' would be both impracticable (we don't all agree) and inappropriate (the "clear standard" we work off is community policy, always).
Speaking for myself, I was elected saying that I thought admins were getting away with bad conduct, that I'd desysop in cases where previous ArbComs didn't, and that taking decisive, unpopular action is ArbCom's job. I think I've consistently voted that way in all our cases this year, and this is no exception. – Joe (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you going to be doing this retroactively for all prior poor admin conduct?
I have a list...
"Data analyst."Vigilant wrote:I guess I'll drop a line to the Chair, Samuel Mattern, outlining my concerns and providing him with enough information to make an informed decision about Laura Hale's participation.
Ran for Vice Chair. Lost.
https://www.democratsabroad.org/jimmerc ... candidates
Her vice chair candidacy bio. Her own words.
https://www.democratsabroad.org/jimmerc ... rc2b-addewOh dear....Laura Hale
Laura Hale has lived in Madrid since 2013, previously having lived in Bratislava, Tinian and Canberra. Originally from the Chicago suburbs and a family of life long Democrats, she has an BGS and MSEd in Instructional Technology from Northern Illinois University, and a PhD in Communications from the University of Canberra. A data analyst and sports historian by training, in the past few years she has been active in disability activism through sports data related projects. Laura has been involved in further activist activities online and offline mostly centering around Wikipedia and related projects since 2011.
She's up for voting representative in 2019. Still trying to worm her way in.
https://www.democratsabroad.org/jimmercereau
That's not the case at all. Jimbo is very much against COI editing in all its forms (unless it aligns with his own interests of course). However, he is more strongly opposed to paid COI. Cynics have suggested that this is because he resents anyone but his friends and himself being allowed to make money from Wikipedia.Eric Corbett wrote:Jimbo hasn't got the brains he was born with. So he's opposed to "paid COI editing", but unpaid COI editing is OK?
How much of Laura Hale's article-editing is related to her paid editing for clients (paid COI-editing) and WMF-grifting?eagle wrote: LauraHale (T-C-L) tried unsuccessfully to sell her Fan History wiki to the WMF in exchange for cash and a part-time job maintaining the wiki. She also had the option of turning over her wiki and community to Wikia for $0, but she would rather just shut the thing down. Her primary contact was Eric Moeller (T-H-L), Deputy Director of WMF.
Less than a year later, she goes ballistic on the gendergap list attacking Eric.
Was it because Eric opposed making gendergap a women-only list or
was it because she had created a COI vis a vis Eric in her earlier negotiations?
Ehh, let's not give in to the temptation to use absolutes here. She did a lot of material related to abortion and LGBT rights that I can't imagine were paid jobs, or anything like it. (I'm not saying the stuff was necessarily well-written, though.) I'm sure there were others...Moral Hazard wrote:Are there any examples of her editing articles with clean hands?
The analysis of content creation motives cannot be frozen in time. Just as drug dealers give out free samples to hook new clients, a paid editor will write a few articles to show off what is possible. The free articles can also be "virtue signaling" to establish that she has compatible views with the prospective clients.Moral Hazard wrote:One should examine the WMF, WMF-Spain, etc. for grants for women's health, reproductive health, etc.
"Don't Be a Dick."Vigilant wrote: How about telling admins what the rules are then?
Discretion is the greater part of valor! Actually T&S still needs to sign off on the result and to move away from their new self-assigned task as behavioral police and that might take some quiet backstage push from the committee, so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then again, it was quiet backstage pushing that caused this mess in the first place, so never mind...Vig wrote:Someone should ping the savior of the people, Doc James, and find out why he's been as quiet as a mouse lately.
On Doc James' talk page, I wrote: Fram case nears conclusion
The Arbitration Committee, having reviewed the evidence presented to them by WMF Trust & Safety and the community, have found Fram's one year ban imposed by WMF to have been disproportionate and have set it aside, while stripping him of administrator status pending a new Referral for Adminship vote for "a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures."
Do you have an opinion about the structure of this case and this particular result? What will you do to insure that WMF respects the result? Carrite (talk) 4:55 am, 8 Sept 2019 (UTC−7)
In reply, Doc James wrote:When the case was handed over to arbcom I made it clear at the time that I will stand 100% behind whatever decision arbcom makes and that is still my position. With respect to the structure of this case, it was an exceptional event and I do not consider this it should form a precedence going forwards. Changing to usual structure of cases should follow community discussion and consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 5:03 am, 8 Sept 2019 (UTC−7)
Imprecise, fungible, subjective standards are what's the problem.Randy from Boise wrote:"Don't Be a Dick."Vigilant wrote: How about telling admins what the rules are then?
Lamentably, it is pretty impossible to quantify human behavior, good or bad. You could channel George Carlin for a list of prohibited words, triple that, and people would still come up with room to work around the edges.Vigilant wrote:Imprecise, fungible, subjective standards are what's the problem.Randy from Boise wrote:"Don't Be a Dick."Vigilant wrote: How about telling admins what the rules are then?
They are what lead to the situation that the WMF bemoans, 'the unblockables'.
GorillaWarfare, currently on ARBCOM, is the classic example of this.
When Oliver Keyes aka Ironholds aka Ole Throatpuncher was getting his comeuppance, she opined that his acts weren't that bad because he was her friend.
That's how "Don't be a dick" gets gamed.
And it'll happen every time.
I haven't seen this answered yet, but during the whole Fram thing, SilkTork took the stance that they weren't going to do any Committee work while the hoo-haa was still going on. I suspect it is related to this.mendaliv wrote:What the ever loving hell?SilkTork wrote:I didn't have a hand in shaping the PD - I haven't communicated with the rest of the Committee for over a month
this.Vigilant wrote:Because the process by which he was handled was fucked.Osborne wrote:So why do you want to re-sysop any monster?Vigilant wrote: There are far worse monsters than Fram in this fairy tale we're reading.
You don't allow decisions like that to stand or you set the stage for far more bad decisions in the future.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated fairly.
Which is precisely why I continue to fight my ban...and always will!Beeblebrox wrote:this.Vigilant wrote:Because the process by which he was handled was fucked.Osborne wrote:So why do you want to re-sysop any monster?Vigilant wrote: There are far worse monsters than Fram in this fairy tale we're reading.
You don't allow decisions like that to stand or you set the stage for far more bad decisions in the future.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated fairly.
Well, we had a major rebellion that demanded Justice For Fram and an end to T&S civility bans. As a result, as of now, we have a promise that T&S will conduct a forthcoming community consultation on its one year, one project ban and we have the ArbCom bending over backward to deal with a redacted record that makes it impossible to tell what Fram actually did or whether this is just a case of a Laura Hale complaint camouflaged by parallel complaints against Fram from a few of her allies.Eric Corbett wrote:But there are better, more productive ways of spending your time than with this particular fight, one that with the best will in the world you can never win. You yourself know that neither Wikipedia nor the WMF has anything other than a token interest in content, but your only bargaining chip is the amount of content you could provide if your ban was lifted. That's not exactly a winning hand.Kumioko wrote:Which is precisely why I continue to fight my ban...and always will!Beeblebrox wrote:this.Vigilant wrote:Because the process by which he was handled was fucked.Osborne wrote:So why do you want to re-sysop any monster?Vigilant wrote: There are far worse monsters than Fram in this fairy tale we're reading.
You don't allow decisions like that to stand or you set the stage for far more bad decisions in the future.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated fairly.
However, EllenCT has proposed on the talk page 2e which would give Fram the choice of a new RfA or going to BN instead.2d) The behaviour shown in the case materials falls below the standards expected for an administrator. Accordingly, the committee takes over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools. They may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Isn't that just a long term abuse account being reverted?Finally, there are strange issues that an IP has tried to raise against Future Perfect at Sunrise, which are being reverted and re-reverted.
Arb Joe Roe made that comment in a larger reply to Charcharoth. I take that as confirmation that part of the document was in fact related to Laura Hale (of course most of us already assumed this). The Arbs may want to stop talking about that dossier lest they run afoul of their NDA.I'll say up front that I very much share your concerns about the way in which Fram came to the attention of T&S. Having read their document on Fram, I would stress that it's absolutely ''not'' just about LH – people really need to drop the unpleasant fixation on her and stop prying into her personal life.
to5) The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response. In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response.
A new low for ARBCOM.5) The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response. In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not consitute [[WP:TOOLMISUSE|misuse of administrative tools]].
MrErnie wrote:Arb Joe Roe made that comment in a larger reply to Charcharoth. I take that as confirmation that part of the document was in fact related to Laura Hale (of course most of us already assumed this). The Arbs may want to stop talking about that dossier lest they run afoul of their NDA.I'll say up front that I very much share your concerns about the way in which Fram came to the attention of T&S. Having read their document on Fram, I would stress that it's absolutely ''not'' just about LH – people really need to drop the unpleasant fixation on her and stop prying into her personal life.
Who else was doing the work to protect the quality of the encyclopedia?Joe Roe wrote:I regret voting against that now; I was also excusing their bad conduct because they were 'right'.
He was going to get killed anyway... It was just a matter of time...Even if Fram had not been subject to an office action, I find it hard to believe that they could have carried on as they were much longer. In the last few years they have been the subject of multiple ANI discussions and party to multiple arbitration cases. Earlier this year, they were [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision#Fram reminded|close to being admonished in another case]] (I regret voting against that now; I was also excusing their bad conduct because they were 'right'). We all know that this is the trajectory of an admin that is likely to end up subject to an ArbCom case sooner or later. T&S' involvement muddied the waters considerably, but we're here now.
Thank you for that. Couple of points: (1) The practical aspects of the unblocking and unbanning - you (or other arbs) may want to make sure the wording of the block log entry when Fram is unblocked is not too contentious and work out who does the unblocking (for example, do you have to notify the WMF before enacting the case and its remedies?). (2) Restoring Fram's user page and any other 'admin' that may not be obvious. (3) On the COI point, feelings on that will not go away even after this case concludes. It may eventually reach the point that you end up with a case request about that - the vanishing is currently getting in the way of attempts to scrutinise the COI (which concerns paid editing), so it may have to come to ArbCom as a 'private' case in the end anyway. Is it possible to bring a case request involving a vanished user? Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a good point.1 pillar or 5?
User:SilkTork: Talking about Fram: I understand that the behaviour is sometimes borderline failing 1 of our pillars, but this lifts that one pillar out of the rest. We have 5 pillars to uphold: we are writing an encyclopedia here that contains neutral, 'free' material while respectfully editing and ignoring rules that stop us from doing so (to dumb it down a bit to the extreme).
Do you consider that editors should sometimes just drop all other 4 pillars in order to make sure that we should keep up the 1 most important one (if that is how we have to interpret that one pillar), or do we sometimes borderline on that one so we keep on with the rest?
There is a sockpuppet that I encounter every so many weeks who has a history of incivility, edges on our free-use interpretations, makes erroneous translations, does some other practices that we discourage. It appears that I am the only editor who 'detects' the socks (I sometimes get them handed to me), it could very well appear that I am 'hounding' this editor. I report them all to SPI and they all get blocked. Maybe I should stop (we've had recently an AN/I regarding him, I think the rest of the people are aware of him), and let other admins do the hunting (so maybe I should give up enforcing 3 pillars in order to adhere to one of those 3 pillars!). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
What you're trying to say is that ADMINCOND has been selectively enforced.But the WMF can desysop, under the global office actions policy. See meta:Office actions#Secondary office actions, "Removal of advanced rights". In this case I think they went beyond that policy, but we've told them as much and they've accepted it, so I don't see any reason to make a big song and dance of the 'constitutional' issue now. ArbCom isn't actually a representative of enwiki or go-between for the community and the WMF. We're a dispute resolution body. We can desysop users under the arbitration policy, and if we end up doing that in this case we will explain why we've reached that decision.
As an aside, I don't agree that the boundaries for admin conduct are vague or made up by this committee. They're spelled out in black and white at WP:ADMINCOND. The problem is we've been inconsistent in enforcing it. – Joe (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There's no way to talk about this case without discussing the underlying corruption that the Laura Hale/Maria Sefidari Huici situation brings to the case.In law, selective enforcement occurs when government officials such as police officers, prosecutors, or regulators exercise enforcement discretion, which is the power to choose whether or how to punish a person who has violated the law. The biased use of enforcement discretion, such as that based on racial prejudice or corruption, is usually considered a legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law.
This is the first on wiki confirmation by ARBCOM that Laura Hale is behind the Trust and Safety action.Joe Roe wrote:I'll say up front that I very much share your concerns about the way in which Fram came to the attention of T&S. Having read their document on Fram, I would stress that it's absolutely ''not'' just about LH – people really need to drop the unpleasant fixation on her and stop prying into her personal life.
That just means it could be 99% Hale and 1% everyone else.Vigilant wrote:This needs to be highlighted.This is the first on wiki confirmation by ARBCOM that Laura Hale is behind the Trust and Safety action.Joe Roe wrote:I'll say up front that I very much share your concerns about the way in which Fram came to the attention of T&S. Having read their document on Fram, I would stress that it's absolutely ''not'' just about LH – people really need to drop the unpleasant fixation on her and stop prying into her personal life.
Fram came to Trust and Safety's attention for one reason, Laura Hale is the spouse of the Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation.
She received special treatment from the corporation that her wife heads. Period.
Every other evil thing in this case spawned from that corrupt action.
The underlying question is, "If Laura Hale were not involved with Fram, would any action have been taken?"rhindle wrote:That just means it could be 99% Hale and 1% everyone else.Vigilant wrote:This needs to be highlighted.This is the first on wiki confirmation by ARBCOM that Laura Hale is behind the Trust and Safety action.Joe Roe wrote:I'll say up front that I very much share your concerns about the way in which Fram came to the attention of T&S. Having read their document on Fram, I would stress that it's absolutely ''not'' just about LH – people really need to drop the unpleasant fixation on her and stop prying into her personal life.
Fram came to Trust and Safety's attention for one reason, Laura Hale is the spouse of the Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation.
She received special treatment from the corporation that her wife heads. Period.
Every other evil thing in this case spawned from that corrupt action.
So nice of (some of) them to visit him on exile island for a chat while they try him in absentia on the mainland.Vigilant wrote:Fram's meta talk page has become busy with arbs showing up there to talk things out.
The conversations are collegial and calm.
Makes you wonder why they didn't do this before they rendered a decision in the case...
Why they didn't do this three months ago...
Yeah, I've been following his meta talk page and it's been crickets aside from their attempts to defend themselves until now.MrErnie wrote:Seems like it makes sense to talk to Fram while the case is ongoing, instead of after you've cast your votes to desysop him.
Given that ARBCOM's efforts to modify FoF5 to fit their desired outcome were immediately called out, I suspect these outreaches are an attempt to find a more moderate solution.SLW80 wrote:Yeah, I've been following his meta talk page and it's been crickets aside from their attempts to defend themselves until now.MrErnie wrote:Seems like it makes sense to talk to Fram while the case is ongoing, instead of after you've cast your votes to desysop him.
I strongly suspect that they are starting to realize just how thin the 'evidence' is for any type of enforcement here.Mason wrote:SilkTork seems to say that, according to the T&S report, the only objectionable thing Fram did after being warned was his "fuck ArbCom" comment. I don't think we knew that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =914845389Organizations are under substantial and increasing pressure to protect their employees and stakeholders, including volunteers, from various ''types and degrees'' of harassment and abuse.
