Newly appointed Ombudsman was investigated by the old Ombudsman, ...for privacy violations.... Options

[the fieryangel]

I'm surprised that this wasn't discussed before : off of Jimbo's talk page :

As [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1860690&oldid=1850631 evident from this edit], [[:ru:user:DR]] who is a checkuser at ruwiki, was promoted to the ombudsmen commission. In addition to an obvious conflict of interest (ombudsmen are supposed to independently investigate checkuser actions), this action is very questionable because previously DR was under investigation by the ombudsman commission for an alleged violation of privacy. DR violated [[:ru:user:Serebr]]'s privacy by publishing the information about his wiki-mail usage. The ombudsmen commission confirmed that DR published private information, but did not impose any actions on DR on a pretense that his disclosure of private information did not constitute a disclosure of personally identifiable information. This was a curious decision. Now, after DR was assigned to the ombudsmen commission, it appears that DR may have had secret connections to that commission from the very beginning and possibly influenced it to make a decision in his favor. Assigning a violator of privacy to the commission that is supposed to ensure the users' privacy is of great concern. Therefore, I request that you disclose the secret decision making process that led to this very questionable assignment of a privacy violator to the position of a privacy guard. Who decided that? Were you a part of this decision? [[User:SA ru|SA ru]] ([[User talk:SA ru|talk]]) 12:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo replies :

:I know nothing about this particular decision. I am not part of the Ombudsman commission and play no role in their selection nor operation.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody know anything about this incident which took place on the Russian Language WP?

[NuclearWarfare]

Cary Bass (WMF Volunteer Coordinator)'s comments on the issue: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl..._for_disclosure

[the fieryangel]

Cary Bass (WMF Volunteer Coordinator)'s comments on the issue: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl..._for_disclosure

SA:RU asks some very good questions in that discussion and I am curious as to why there was no response given :

You wrote: "Ombudsmen are usually taken from active checkusers". Although I do not think that this is a good idea to select ombudsmen from the pool of people obsessed by investigations into private data and undoubtedly very likely to protect other checkusers, you still did not answer how exactly DR was selected. Was there a discussion of his candidature? Who participated in this discussion? Who made the decision? I think that public deserves to know all these details, especially because we are talking about the selection of people who are supposed to protect wikipedia users from invasions into their privacy.

Does anybody know the answers to these questions?

[tarantino]

Cary Bass (WMF Volunteer Coordinator)'s comments on the issue: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl..._for_disclosure

SA:RU asks some very good questions in that discussion and I am curious as to why there was no response given :

You wrote: "Ombudsmen are usually taken from active checkusers". Although I do not think that this is a good idea to select ombudsmen from the pool of people obsessed by investigations into private data and undoubtedly very likely to protect other checkusers, you still did not answer how exactly DR was selected. Was there a discussion of his candidature? Who participated in this discussion? Who made the decision? I think that public deserves to know all these details, especially because we are talking about the selection of people who are supposed to protect wikipedia users from invasions into their privacy.

Does anybody know the answers to these questions?

The same questions could be asked in regards to Lar's appointment as an ombudsman.

[Jon Awbrey]

Does anybody know the answers to these questions?

No, Om Bud Lite!

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Does anybody know the answers to these questions?

No, Om Bud Lite!

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Most excellent pun, Jon. It does strike me as inappropriate that ombudsman would be selected from Checkusers. This seems to contain the same wisdom that put people from the industry in charge of watching over the financial sector.

[Jon Awbrey]

Does anybody know the answers to these questions?

No, Om Bud Lite!

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Most excellent pun, Jon. It does strike me as inappropriate that ombudsman would be selected from Checkusers. This seems to contain the same wisdom that put people from the industry in charge of watching over the financial sector.

Hm³, thereby hangs a motto …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[thekohser]

My favorite part of that discussion:

Thank you for your classification, but as this is my talk page, it cannot be construed as trolling. bastique demandez! 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you're allowed to make as many outlandish and defamatory claims on your own Talk page as you'd like, but it cannot be construed as trolling. Got it.

Strange, then, this:

03:51, 29 May 2009 AdjustShift (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Thekohser (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Sockpuppet of banned user Wikipedia Review.)

[Lar]

The Ombudsman Commission is charged with investigating all allegations that fit their remit.

So what is significant is not that an accusation is lodged, but whether there actually is anything to the allegation.

People lodge all sorts of unwarranted accusations all the time.

[RMHED]

The Ombudsman Commission is charged with investigating all allegations that fit their remit.

So what is significant is not that an accusation is lodged, but whether there actually is anything to the allegation.

People lodge all sorts of unwarranted accusations all the time.

And who judges if an accusation is warranted or unwarranted?

[Lar]

The Ombudsman Commission is charged with investigating all allegations that fit their remit.

So what is significant is not that an accusation is lodged, but whether there actually is anything to the allegation.

People lodge all sorts of unwarranted accusations all the time.

And who judges if an accusation is warranted or unwarranted?

The commission as a whole in the process of evaluating the accusation. My review of cases in the archives suggest that the previous membership has tried to err on the side of not closing investigations prematurely, although I am not going to give specifics. I intend to treat matters the same way, follow things where they lead.

Again, people lodge all sorts of unwarranted stuff. It needs to nevertheless be looked at carefully, to do less would be unfair. Thus, merely being investigated is not, in my view, a bar to membership.

[the fieryangel]

The Ombudsman Commission is charged with investigating all allegations that fit their remit.

So what is significant is not that an accusation is lodged, but whether there actually is anything to the allegation.

People lodge all sorts of unwarranted accusations all the time.

And who judges if an accusation is warranted or unwarranted?

The commission as a whole in the process of evaluating the accusation. My review of cases in the archives suggest that the previous membership has tried to err on the side of not closing investigations prematurely, although I am not going to give specifics. I intend to treat matters the same way, follow things where they lead.

Again, people lodge all sorts of unwarranted stuff. It needs to nevertheless be looked at carefully, to do less would be unfair. Thus, merely being investigated is not, in my view, a bar to membership.

Lar, can you give us a rundown of the selection process for these positions? Are they chosen by the other members or is this an outside process? I'm curious, myself...

[A Horse With No Name]

03:51, 29 May 2009 AdjustShift (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Thekohser (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Sockpuppet of banned user Wikipedia Review.)

A sockpuppet blocking a sockpuppet. Only on Wikipedia! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The Ombudsman Commission is charged with investigating all allegations that fit their remit.

Yes, I found it with some difficulty at the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki Ombudsman commission page. It appears to have no relationship to my 2005 WP:Ombudsmen proposal, or the more mealy-mouthed WP:Ombudsman from later that year, or the even mealy-mouthier WP:Ombudsmen Committee from 2008.

[Lar]

Lar, can you give us a rundown of the selection process for these positions? Are they chosen by the other members or is this an outside process? I'm curious, myself...

I am sorry, I'm not cognizant of the details of the selection process. From the page Hersh linked to:

Members of the ombudsman commission are selected by Wikimedia Foundation officials from the Wikimedia community (there is no call for volunteers or elections). They are appointed (assuming they agree) for a period of approximately one year. An ombudsman's real identity must be disclosed to the Foundation legal counsel.

I made it known some time ago that I would be willing to serve if asked, and I was asked earlier this year, and I agreed. That's about it from my perspective.

[SB_Johnny]

I made it known some time ago that I would be willing to serve if asked, and I was asked earlier this year, and I agreed. That's about it from my perspective.

Right, but you realize that it doesn't look good right? Not a great thing for a position where your chief responsibility is to make it appear that someone is being responsible for the seekrit stuff those CUs are doing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Lar]

I made it known some time ago that I would be willing to serve if asked, and I was asked earlier this year, and I agreed. That's about it from my perspective.

Right, but you realize that it doesn't look good right? Not a great thing for a position where your chief responsibility is to make it appear that someone is being responsible for the seekrit stuff those CUs are doing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

I can't control the process used. I suppose I could have just not volunteered because I didn't like the process, but, believe it or not, I felt it would be a good thing to be on this commission, and that I would do some considerable good being there, and that I wouldn't be swayed by things I've seen other wikipoliticians be swayed by. The OC has had some stellar folk on it in the past (Mackenson comes to mind, for one) that give some high standards of impartiality and thoughtfulness to live up to.

I won't speculate on how exactly this process evolved because I have no idea whatever. But I will speculate that a consideration might have been to have this process be insulated from the high drama that seems to involve community input on so many other matters.

We ARE responsible for the seekrit stuff the CUs are doing. I take that responsibilty pretty seriously. As I do the privacy policy as a whole. I won't shy away from pointing out issues where I find them but I also won't be railroading people. That's just not me. Regardless of what some of my detractors may say or think.

So... I don't know what else to say. Or did you mean "look good" in some other aspect that I missed? If so, sorry for confusion.

[EricBarbour]

I can't control the process used. I suppose I could have just not volunteered because I didn't like the process, but, believe it or not, I felt it would be a good thing to be on this commission, and that I would do some considerable good being there, and that I wouldn't be swayed by things I've seen other wikipoliticians be swayed by.

So, what exactly HAVE you done on this commission? At least a general precis, please?

[Lar]

I can't control the process used. I suppose I could have just not volunteered because I didn't like the process, but, believe it or not, I felt it would be a good thing to be on this commission, and that I would do some considerable good being there, and that I wouldn't be swayed by things I've seen other wikipoliticians be swayed by.

So, what exactly HAVE you done on this commission? At least a general precis, please?

Since I was appointed, earlier this month, you mean? Mostly, reviewed the archives of what went before, and discussed how this year's process will go as all the other members are new too.

I am not going to comment on specific cases, if any, that have been raised, until and unless a public statement by the commission is made about them, and even then I won't comment on the specifics of the case beyond what the public statement says. That's the nature of this role, it's primarily concerned with investigating privacy breaches and I am certainly not going to breach the privacy of anyone who has raised, or may in the future raise, issues. That's a long winded way of saying "no comment", I guess. But I think it's important to make that point very clear. I take this responsibility very seriously.

[victim of censorship]

I can't control the process used. I suppose I could have just not volunteered because I didn't like the process, but, believe it or not, I felt it would be a good thing to be on this commission, and that I would do some considerable good being there, and that I wouldn't be swayed by things I've seen other wikipoliticians be swayed by.

So, what exactly HAVE you done on this commission? At least a general precis, please?

Since I was appointed, earlier this month, you mean? Mostly, reviewed the archives of what went before, and discussed how this year's process will go as all the other members are new too.

I am not going to comment on specific cases, if any, that have been raised, until and unless a public statement by the commission is made about them, and even then I won't comment on the specifics of the case beyond what the public statement says. That's the nature of this role, it's primarily concerned with investigating privacy breaches and I am certainly not going to breach the privacy of anyone who has raised, or may in the future raise, issues. That's a long winded way of saying "no comment", I guess. But I think it's important to make that point very clear. I take this responsibility very seriously.

What a joke!!!... Pretty hard to hide the stink of an ocean of fly infested shit.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[A Horse With No Name]

I take this responsibility very seriously.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[victim of censorship]

I take this responsibility very seriously.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I second that emotioncon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[No one of consequence]

The members of the ombudsman commission are selected by the WMF. I was asked by Cary Bass last year, but I declined.

[The Joy]

I can't control the process used. I suppose I could have just not volunteered because I didn't like the process, but, believe it or not, I felt it would be a good thing to be on this commission, and that I would do some considerable good being there, and that I wouldn't be swayed by things I've seen other wikipoliticians be swayed by.

So, what exactly HAVE you done on this commission? At least a general precis, please?

Since I was appointed, earlier this month, you mean? Mostly, reviewed the archives of what went before, and discussed how this year's process will go as all the other members are new too.

I am not going to comment on specific cases, if any, that have been raised, until and unless a public statement by the commission is made about them, and even then I won't comment on the specifics of the case beyond what the public statement says. That's the nature of this role, it's primarily concerned with investigating privacy breaches and I am certainly not going to breach the privacy of anyone who has raised, or may in the future raise, issues. That's a long winded way of saying "no comment", I guess. But I think it's important to make that point very clear. I take this responsibility very seriously.

I'm surprised that SlimVirgin and friends haven't raised Cain over your appointment. Maybe she hasn't heard about it yet? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Kwork]

I can't control the process used. I suppose I could have just not volunteered because I didn't like the process, but, believe it or not, I felt it would be a good thing to be on this commission, and that I would do some considerable good being there, and that I wouldn't be swayed by things I've seen other wikipoliticians be swayed by.

So, what exactly HAVE you done on this commission? At least a general precis, please?

Since I was appointed, earlier this month, you mean? Mostly, reviewed the archives of what went before, and discussed how this year's process will go as all the other members are new too.

I am not going to comment on specific cases, if any, that have been raised, until and unless a public statement by the commission is made about them, and even then I won't comment on the specifics of the case beyond what the public statement says. That's the nature of this role, it's primarily concerned with investigating privacy breaches and I am certainly not going to breach the privacy of anyone who has raised, or may in the future raise, issues. That's a long winded way of saying "no comment", I guess. But I think it's important to make that point very clear. I take this responsibility very seriously.

What a joke!!!... Pretty hard to hide the stink of an ocean of fly infested shit.

I just saw this thread. Lar is a wiki-ombudsman? Amazing!

I had a disagreement with Lar in a discussion on my talk page just previous to my wiki exile. It does not take very long, I found, to get shown to the door after getting into arguments with WP administrators who have clout. (That discussion with Lar has since, strangely, disappeared from my talk page)

Of course, first I pissed off some members of the ruling Arbcom class (and an assortment of their flunkies) by criticizing a decision of theirs on the arbcom noticeboard. They really do not seem very open to criticism of their decisions. Toward the end of that discussion Rootology, who was getting increasingly agitated, flipped his lid and blocked me. Then, when he cooled down a little, he realized there was no grounds for the block so he reversed it.

Then there was a discussion with Lar on my talk page about his misuse of checkuser.

After that Rlevse showed up and blocked me for removing an edit from my own talk page and for not violating 3rr. When I asked for a review of Rlevse's block, Lar (who was now gunning for me, and certainly involved) was the one who declined my request.

From that, and from later observation of Lar's behavior on Wikimedia Commons, it seems pretty clear that Lar takes pleasure that he can act like a dick and get away with it; so whoever made Lar ombudsman must have later spent quite a long time laughing about doing that.

[Eva Destruction]

Of course, first I pissed off some members of the ruling Arbcom class (and an assortment of their flunkies) by criticizing a decision of theirs on the arbcom noticeboard. They really do not seem very open to criticism of their decisions. Toward the end of that discussion Rootology, who was getting increasingly agitated, flipped his lid and blocked me. Then, when he cooled down a little, he realized there was no grounds for the block so he reversed it.

You're seriously saying you think Rootology was "a member of the ruling Arbcom class"?

[Kwork]

Of course, first I pissed off some members of the ruling Arbcom class (and an assortment of their flunkies) by criticizing a decision of theirs on the arbcom noticeboard. They really do not seem very open to criticism of their decisions. Toward the end of that discussion Rootology, who was getting increasingly agitated, flipped his lid and blocked me. Then, when he cooled down a little, he realized there was no grounds for the block so he reversed it.

You're seriously saying you think Rootology was "a member of the ruling Arbcom class"?

No, I did not say that. In this case he was just one of the "assorted flunkies" I referred to. He is, however, clearly a member of the wiki-administrator class; which gives plenty of prerogatives when it comes to acting like a dick.

[A Horse With No Name]

The members of the ombudsman commission are selected by the WMF. I was asked by Cary Bass last year, but I declined.

Lord, they must have been desperate if they asked you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[EricBarbour]

The members of the ombudsman commission are selected by the WMF. I was asked by Cary Bass last year, but I declined.

Lord, they must have been desperate if they asked you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Haw haw haw. Let me tell you about the "ombudsman".

(All those links are from 2007. I defy you to show me a recent case where an Ombudsman
"did his job" and removed some out-of-control Checkuser's powers. Yes, Lar is a current
ombudsman. Feel free to ask him. "Seekrit" or not, I see very damn little evidence, anywhere,
that the ombudsmen have done much of anything in the last 3 years.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[UserB]

It's great how anyone who questions the cult is a sockpuppet and a troll. It doesn't even matter the issue. To the cult members, any honest person would agree with their POV, therefore if you disagree, you are not an honest person.

As far as I can tell from the linked page, Bastique doesn't deny the substance of the claim - namely that the user in question disclosed non-public information about another user. Just saying, "yeah, but there are lots of false allegations out there" doesn't mean that this particular accusation is false. Lots of people are falsely accused of crimes, but that doesn't mean all criminals are innocent.

It doesn't really matter, though. Until personal protections such as automatic notification when you are checkusered are put in place, there isn't really any expectation of privacy there.

[Lar]

It's great how anyone who questions the cult is a sockpuppet and a troll. It doesn't even matter the issue. To the cult members, any honest person would agree with their POV, therefore if you disagree, you are not an honest person.

As far as I can tell from the linked page, Bastique doesn't deny the substance of the claim - namely that the user in question disclosed non-public information about another user. Just saying, "yeah, but there are lots of false allegations out there" doesn't mean that this particular accusation is false. Lots of people are falsely accused of crimes, but that doesn't mean all criminals are innocent.

It doesn't really matter, though. Until personal protections such as automatic notification when you are checkusered are put in place, there isn't really any expectation of privacy there.

I don't believe you're reading carefully enough.

[Kwork]

It's great how anyone who questions the cult is a sockpuppet and a troll. It doesn't even matter the issue. To the cult members, any honest person would agree with their POV, therefore if you disagree, you are not an honest person.

As far as I can tell from the linked page, Bastique doesn't deny the substance of the claim - namely that the user in question disclosed non-public information about another user. Just saying, "yeah, but there are lots of false allegations out there" doesn't mean that this particular accusation is false. Lots of people are falsely accused of crimes, but that doesn't mean all criminals are innocent.

It doesn't really matter, though. Until personal protections such as automatic notification when you are checkusered are put in place, there isn't really any expectation of privacy there.

I don't believe you're reading carefully enough.

.......................................

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will protect us from our protectors?)

This problem is old, and very current. For instance, if Lar himself has misused his checkuser privileges, the claim that he will protect WP users from checkuser misuse is a joke. How funny you think the joke is correlates inversely with how seriously you take your privacy.

[Lar]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will protect us from our protectors?)

This problem is old, and very current. For instance, if Lar himself has misused his checkuser privileges, the claim that he will protect WP users from checkuser misuse is a joke. How funny you think the joke is correlates inversely with how seriously you take your privacy.

Absolutely.

Of course, no ombudsman, past or current, actually has misused checkuser privileges that I am aware of, although it is certainly something to keep in mind as a worry.

[Kelly Martin]

Wikimedia's privacy policy exists to protect the Wikimedia Foundation, and not to protect either its editors or its readers. The ombudsman's duty is to ensure that the Foundation remains protected. The function of the ombudsman is therefore to make potentially annoying problems go away, usually by covering them with endless obfuscation until no sane person can make sense of the situation.

Anyone who thinks Wikimedia's privacy policy protects their interest is either a fool or a member of Wikimedia's Board of Directors. Or both.

[Lar]

I had a disagreement with Lar in a discussion on my talk page just previous to my wiki exile. It does not take very long, I found, to get shown to the door after getting into arguments with WP administrators who have clout. (That discussion with Lar has since, strangely, disappeared from my talk page)

Of course, first I pissed off some members of the ruling Arbcom class (and an assortment of their flunkies) by criticizing a decision of theirs on the arbcom noticeboard. They really do not seem very open to criticism of their decisions. Toward the end of that discussion Rootology, who was getting increasingly agitated, flipped his lid and blocked me. Then, when he cooled down a little, he realized there was no grounds for the block so he reversed it.

Then there was a discussion with Lar on my talk page about his misuse of checkuser.

After that Rlevse showed up and blocked me for removing an edit from my own talk page and for not violating 3rr. When I asked for a review of Rlevse's block, Lar (who was now gunning for me, and certainly involved) was the one who declined my request.

From that, and from later observation of Lar's behavior on Wikimedia Commons, it seems pretty clear that Lar takes pleasure that he can act like a dick and get away with it; so whoever made Lar ombudsman must have later spent quite a long time laughing about doing that.

Missed this before. Suffice it to say you've got a lot of things wrong in the above and just leave it at that, except to add that you've a pretty interesting theory of mind going about motivations. With no basis

Wikimedia's privacy policy exists to protect the Wikimedia Foundation, and not to protect either its editors or its readers. The ombudsman's duty is to ensure that the Foundation remains protected. The function of the ombudsman is therefore to make potentially annoying problems go away, usually by covering them with endless obfuscation them until no sane person can make sense of the situation.

What basis do you have for this assertion? It's certainly not my intent to operate this way.

[A Horse With No Name]

It's certainly not my intent to operate this way.

Well, let's face it...Lar needs a theme song! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Kwork]

I had a disagreement with Lar in a discussion on my talk page just previous to my wiki exile. It does not take very long, I found, to get shown to the door after getting into arguments with WP administrators who have clout. (That discussion with Lar has since, strangely, disappeared from my talk page)

Of course, first I pissed off some members of the ruling Arbcom class (and an assortment of their flunkies) by criticizing a decision of theirs on the arbcom noticeboard. They really do not seem very open to criticism of their decisions. Toward the end of that discussion Rootology, who was getting increasingly agitated, flipped his lid and blocked me. Then, when he cooled down a little, he realized there was no grounds for the block so he reversed it.

Then there was a discussion with Lar on my talk page about his misuse of checkuser.

After that Rlevse showed up and blocked me for removing an edit from my own talk page and for not violating 3rr. When I asked for a review of Rlevse's block, Lar (who was now gunning for me, and certainly involved) was the one who declined my request.

From that, and from later observation of Lar's behavior on Wikimedia Commons, it seems pretty clear that Lar takes pleasure that he can act like a dick and get away with it; so whoever made Lar ombudsman must have later spent quite a long time laughing about doing that.

Missed this before. Suffice it to say you've got a lot of things wrong in the above and just leave it at that, except to add that you've a pretty interesting theory of mind going about motivations. With no basis

I did not explain my theory of mind at all, did not even touch on it. I described what happened. That includes your actions, and the actions of others, but not motives. If you are claiming that I said is untrue, I can easily supply the necessary links to support what I have said. Let me know.

[Lar]

I had a disagreement with Lar in a discussion on my talk page just previous to my wiki exile. It does not take very long, I found, to get shown to the door after getting into arguments with WP administrators who have clout. (That discussion with Lar has since, strangely, disappeared from my talk page)

Of course, first I pissed off some members of the ruling Arbcom class (and an assortment of their flunkies) by criticizing a decision of theirs on the arbcom noticeboard. They really do not seem very open to criticism of their decisions. Toward the end of that discussion Rootology, who was getting increasingly agitated, flipped his lid and blocked me. Then, when he cooled down a little, he realized there was no grounds for the block so he reversed it.

Then there was a discussion with Lar on my talk page about his misuse of checkuser.

After that Rlevse showed up and blocked me for removing an edit from my own talk page and for not violating 3rr. When I asked for a review of Rlevse's block, Lar (who was now gunning for me, and certainly involved) was the one who declined my request.

From that, and from later observation of Lar's behavior on Wikimedia Commons, it seems pretty clear that Lar takes pleasure that he can act like a dick and get away with it; so whoever made Lar ombudsman must have later spent quite a long time laughing about doing that.

Missed this before. Suffice it to say you've got a lot of things wrong in the above and just leave it at that, except to add that you've a pretty interesting theory of mind going about motivations. With no basis

I did not explain my theory of mind at all, did not even touch on it. I described what happened. That includes your actions, and the actions of others, but not motives. If you are claiming that I said is untrue, I can easily supply the necessary links to support what I have said. Let me know.

You put forward a theory of mind about a number of folks other than yourself which you have no basis for. I never made any statements about YOUR state of mind, mind you... (Also, I have to credit Moulton here for articulating this concept)

But go ahead, why don't you give us diffs that support the following:

• I pissed off some members of the ruling Arbcom class ...
• Rootology, (...) was getting increasingly agitated
• (Rootology) flipped his lid
• (Rootology) cooled down a little

All statements putting forth theories of mind about other folk. That's a start...

[Kwork]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will protect us from our protectors?)

This problem is old, and very current. For instance, if Lar himself has misused his checkuser privileges, the claim that he will protect WP users from checkuser misuse is a joke. How funny you think the joke is correlates inversely with how seriously you take your privacy.

Absolutely.

Of course, no ombudsman, past or current, actually has misused checkuser privileges that I am aware of, although it is certainly something to keep in mind as a worry.

Bro Lar, do you remember this, that I said to you, from our discussion on my talk page?

There was an important and lengthy dispute concerning your misuse of CU privileges, in which Jayjg was peripherally involved. During that dispute, and afterwards, your comments made it clear that you intended to punish him for his involvement. Considering that, I would appreciate your refactoring your claims to be an 'uninvolved' administrator. (Don't bother noting that the ArbCom whitewashed your highly inappropriate activities in that affair; because that was just another glaring example of how the -- more or less current -- ArbCom picks favorites.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[Lar]

Bro Lar, do you remember this, that I said to you, from our discussion on my talk page?

There was an important and lengthy dispute concerning your misuse of CU privileges, in which Jayjg was peripherally involved. During that dispute, and afterwards, your comments made it clear that you intended to punish him for his involvement. Considering that, I would appreciate your refactoring your claims to be an 'uninvolved' administrator. (Don't bother noting that the ArbCom whitewashed your highly inappropriate activities in that affair; because that was just another glaring example of how the -- more or less current -- ArbCom picks favorites.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember you saying it, yes.

That doesn't mean that anything you said was true.

For starters, because I didn't misuse my CU privs. (doesn't matter how many times that charge is repeated, it's no more true now than the first time it was said) As ArbCom pointed out, and you calling it a whitewash doesn't mean it was. Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that I intended to "punish" anyone for anything. While I am aware that suggestion has been bruited about of late in more than one place, it's categorically not my style.

You messed up on en:wp, whether you admit it or not, and you're just trying to pin the blame on someone else, anyone else, for your inability to get along.

Broken record.