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: