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.

[Kwork]

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.

Bro Lar, you are fairly good at condescension, but not really very good. Let me make it clear that I do not care what you think about me, or anything else, because you have already proved to me that you are a liar.

The "inability to get along" crap is certainly a central problem of WP, because the general attitude of virtually all administrators is that WP is really more a social networking site, or a free alternative to Second Life
http://secondlife.com/?v=1.1
that just happens to have have some users writing strange stuff.....when they are not otherwise occupied with arguments, accusations, complaining, whining, and squealing to administrators about infractions of rules that exist no place but WP. It is clear that WP does not care about writing an encyclopedia. No organization that really cares about achieving its mission terminates workers because they can't get along. During WW2, the Manhattan Project didn't fire Robert Oppenheimer, even thought he was an even worse dick than you are. The reason they kept him was because they really wanted to get their job done, and he knew knew how to get the job done.

As for your misusing Checkuser, there was an extended discussion over that accusation, which was none of my doing. To make you a CU ombudsman after that is just one more example of the general SNAFU situation at Wikipedia.

[EricBarbour]

Larry, please don't say things like "I didn't misuse my CU privs". It makes you look bad. Say something like "I never intentionally misused CU". If there was a problem, it would help if you gave a link to any discussion of it.

As for your misusing Checkuser, there was an extended discussion over that accusation, which was none of my doing. To make you a CU ombudsman after that is just one more example of the general SNAFU situation at Wikipedia.

And to you, I can only make the same assertion as to Larry:
Link?

Remember Hammurabi. And don't descend to the usual Wiki level of "Oh, well, I'm a good
guy and nobody can criticize me". We get quite enough of that on WR.

[Kwork]

Remember Hammurabi. And don't descend to the usual Wiki level of "Oh, well, I'm a good
guy and nobody can criticize me". We get quite enough of that on WR.

Code of Hammurabi? I was not aware that was the manual of conduct for this list. (Does that mean, then, that I now stand to get my ear cut off?)

The main issue for me is Lar's dismissive attitude that a person who has been sent into wiki-exile (such as myself) is obviously defective, and a person who has succeeded in becoming a prominent administrator (such as Lar himself) is obviously a superior class of person. I see two main problems with Lar's condescending point of view.

1. There is nothing to actually support the view that people who become WP administrators are in any way superior to the users who are bounced out by those administrators. In fact, the inverse is frequently the case. By extending Lar's line of reasoning to areas outside of WP, we could reach the absurd conclusion (for example) that the tyrant Domitian was a superior person to the philosophers who he exiled from Rome in their entirety. No doubt Domitian thought that was true, but there are few WP:RS, if any, who would now support his POV.

2. Even if Lar's view (and Domitian's also), that he is superior to the people he has exiled, were actually true, his gloating over that is disgusting.

[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.

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...

Those are descriptions of emotional states, and which descriptions are based on the words and actions of those who are described. They seem reasonable explanations. For instance, Rootology blocked me and then, when he undid the block, he claimed it was out of the kindness of his heart, which is laughable. It was obvious that he had been angry, and then later he realized he had acted irrationally.

If I had claimed that I knew the value system that Rootology used to make his judgments, decisions, and actions, that would be theoretical. I make no claim of that nature. Rather I said an obviously emotional reaction is an emotional reaction.

NB: It would be a lot easier to supply links to the discussions on my talk page if you would restore the approximately 40-50 days of edits that are missing from my talk page, including your threats, and Rootology's block.



This post has been edited by Kwork:

[Lar]

As a note, there are no deleted revisions in the history of your talk page, Kwork.

Larry, please don't say things like "I didn't misuse my CU privs". It makes you look bad. Say something like "I never intentionally misused CU". If there was a problem, it would help if you gave a link to any discussion of it.

I have not misused my CU privs. That's short for "I never intentionally misused CU and every review of my use of them has shown no misuse, even unintentional."

[Lar]

2. Even if Lar's view (and Domitian's also), that he is superior to the people he has exiled, were actually true, his gloating over that is disgusting.

Two theories of mind in one sentence!

[GlassBeadGame]

2. Even if Lar's view (and Domitian's also), that he is superior to the people he has exiled, were actually true, his gloating over that is disgusting.

Two theories of mind in one sentence!

Nothing wrong with a theory of mind based on assuming that one intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions. So if it is likely that an "exiled person" would feel debased or humiliated something like theorizing "gloating" or belief in their own "superiority" seems reasonable. Not that I would know what goes on inside a Wikipedian head.

[Kwork]

2. Even if Lar's view (and Domitian's also), that he is superior to the people he has exiled, were actually true, his gloating over that is disgusting.

Two theories of mind in one sentence!

Bro Lar, you are trying to turn "theory of mind" into a sort of board game, and trying to get some cheating into the game at the same time. If I say something you don't want to hear, that is violating the rules of your little board game. But you wrote in a previous post to me that: "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 ". Why do you think it is bad for me to make a judgment, but good for you to do the same thing?

By the way, the WP article on theory of mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind is rather problematic. For one thing, it does not even say what branch of psychology it occupies, and only the category at the bottom of the page says it is cognitive science....the most theoretical branch of psychology. It appears, that Theory of Mind developed in an effort to explain some problems occurring with autism, ie that autistic people do not recognize the existence of feelings in other people, and sometimes not even their own feelings.

I understand your desire to find a convenient tool to deflect my criticisms of you, but I think Theory of Mind is a poor choice. The better choice, if psychological analysis is what you want, might be Victor Frankl's Logotherapy, or some form of Cognitive Psychology, such as Albert Ellis's REBT (which is really a lite form of Stoic psychology). In such models there is the assumption that it is necessary for people to make judgments on their impressions. If the judgment is a fallacy, then the actions taken, and words spoken, will also be in error. Often some pretty negative emotions will result from the incorrect judgment. A great deal depends on the quality of out judgments, and particularly the rationality of our judgments. By using that model, if you think my judgments are in error, you would see the best approach would be simply to show me where I have made a mistake.

This post has been edited by Kwork:

[Lar]

Kwork: You ascribe motives. I merely criticise outcomes. I have no idea, nor do I care, WHY you are unable to edit successfully on en:wp. I only observe that you ARE unable to edit successfuly there.

To the point of having been banned from participating in an ArbCom case. Which case makes for some interesting reading, as things said in that case explain rather a lot about recent events. Amazing how people tend to accuse others of the very things they themselves do.

[Kwork]

Kwork: You ascribe motives. I merely criticise outcomes. I have no idea, nor do I care, WHY you are unable to edit successfully on en:wp. I only observe that you ARE unable to edit successfuly there.

To the point of having been banned from participating in an ArbCom case. Which case makes for some interesting reading, as things said in that case explain rather a lot about recent events. Amazing how people tend to accuse others of the very things they themselves do.

Bro Lar, try not to sound like a fool. When you wrote, "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", you are making assumptions about my intent in a way that is self serving, and mistaken.

I did not "mess up", because I assumed I would get indefed or banned for what I said, and have clear statements to that effect on my talk page. Your saying that I am trying to "pin the blame on someone else" is ridiculous because I made it very clear in the edits on my talk page (the only place I had left to edit at that time), that I took full responsibility for every word I said, and I did that with my own name on those words without hiding behind a WP alias. That is all on my talk page too, and anyone who wants can go there and read it.

I understood ahead of time that saying what I had to say would result in vicious responses from the wiki-cops, including you. You can not find one word where I was whining about the outcome. That does not mean I have any respect for the viciousness of the wiki-cops (administrators) who were involved, any more than I have respect for viciousness in any person. The problem with WP administrators is that, like NYPD cops, self interest and viciousness goes unchecked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWjSOVDyUJ4
That is what makes it such a laugh to have a wiki-cop like you, with all the abuses, an ombudsman. Of course you do not see the problem. If you were not blind to the issues you would not be the dick that you are.

This post has been edited by Kwork:

[Lar]

I get it, you think I'm a dick. Whatever.

[Kwork]

I get it, you think I'm a dick. Whatever.

Yes, that is true, but this is about Wikipedia only. You have not behaved much differently here than on WP, but I would not have come to this forum to insult you. You just make a convenient example for my point.

My real point concerns Wikipedia, not you. Is there any hope to improve Wikipedia? How can there be when everyone with authority there claims nothing is, nor ever has been, wrong with how they use authority? It is human nature reacting, and functioning, in a situation that easily allows abuses of authority.

[Lar]

How can there be when everyone with authority there claims nothing is, nor ever has been, wrong with how they use authority?

{{citation needed}}

[Kwork]

How can there be when everyone with authority there claims nothing is, nor ever has been, wrong with how they use authority?

{{citation needed}}

Bro Lar, WP:V applies to WP content, which this question is not. Generally, questions have no proposition content, and not verifiable....although this may be an exception.

[Lar]

How can there be when everyone with authority there claims nothing is, nor ever has been, wrong with how they use authority?

{{citation needed}}

Bro Lar, WP:V applies to WP content, which this question is not. Generally, questions have no proposition content, and not verifiable....although this may be an exception.

The question contains an assertion, that everyone with authority claims NOTHING is or ever has been wrong with how they use authority.

Please find a cite for where I've said that. If you cannot, the assertion is false.

Here's a hint: I've never said I'm perfect and have many times said I am not. I'm sure I've made mistakes in the past in specific cases, blocked people that ended up being unblocked or what have you.

My preferred mode of address is Lar, Larry, or Larry Pieniazek. I am not your Bro.

[Kwork]

How can there be when everyone with authority there claims nothing is, nor ever has been, wrong with how they use authority?

{{citation needed}}

Bro Lar, WP:V applies to WP content, which this question is not. Generally, questions have no proposition content, and not verifiable....although this may be an exception.

The question contains an assertion, that everyone with authority claims NOTHING is or ever has been wrong with how they use authority.

Please find a cite for where I've said that. If you cannot, the assertion is false.

Here's a hint: I've never said I'm perfect and have many times said I am not. I'm sure I've made mistakes in the past in specific cases, blocked people that ended up being unblocked or what have you.

My preferred mode of address is Lar, Larry, or Larry Pieniazek. I am not your Bro.

Bro Lar, as I said, I think you model the problem perfectly, and I have intended to use this thread to establish that.

[Lar]

Bro Lar, as I said, I think you model the problem perfectly, and I have intended to use this thread to establish that.

Another unanswered point, and discourtesy to boot. Whatever.

[Kwork]

Bro Lar, as I said, I think you model the problem perfectly, and I have intended to use this thread to establish that.

Another unanswered point, and discourtesy to boot. Whatever.

Bro Lar, the only answer you ever had was: 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

That is the same nonsense as you have used in our disagreements on WP and Commons. The only difference is that here you have not threatened to block me for saying the things you do not want to hear.

[Lar]

Bro Lar, as I said, I think you model the problem perfectly, and I have intended to use this thread to establish that.

Another unanswered point, and discourtesy to boot. Whatever.

Bro Lar, the only answer you ever had was: 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

That is the same nonsense as you have used in our disagreements on WP and Commons. The only difference is that here you have not threatened to block me for saying the things you do not want to hear.

Of course, I didn't "threaten to block me for saying the things you do not want to hear" there either. That's just your failure to accept what the difficulty in your contributions and your style of contribution was.

This is going nowhere useful, there's little common ground.

[Kwork]

Bro Lar, as I said, I think you model the problem perfectly, and I have intended to use this thread to establish that.

Another unanswered point, and discourtesy to boot. Whatever.

Bro Lar, the only answer you ever had was: 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

That is the same nonsense as you have used in our disagreements on WP and Commons. The only difference is that here you have not threatened to block me for saying the things you do not want to hear.

Of course, I didn't "threaten to block me for saying the things you do not want to hear" there either. That's just your failure to accept what the difficulty in your contributions and your style of contribution was.

This is going nowhere useful, there's little common ground.

Bro Lar, I got quite a few blocks on WP but I do not recall a single one for "not getting along." That's nonsense. As for your claim that you did not threaten to block me for saying the things you do not want to hear, review this from Wikimedia Commons administrator notice board

Me: I understand your POV, but I am trying to find the Commons rule that gives Adambro actual grounds for his block. Blocks can not be given out just on the basis of what some administrator feels like doing. There are supposed to be grounds, a rule that is being enforced. For instance, when I brought up the issue of BLP, Adambro said there is no Commons rule that gives grounds for enforcing BLP. OK. Well, what gave him grounds for blocking Mbz1? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You: Yes, looking for highly explicit rules is approaching this wiki incorrectly. It is collegial here, for the most part, because we all (or most of us anyway) work hard to get along, most of the time. Malcolm, do your part, please, and spare us the snarkiness. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Me: Lar, you have been highly involved in arguments with me from WP, although strangely those fights disappeared from my talk page after I was sent into wiki-exile. I really do not value your opinion, which amounts to: administrators can block anyone they want whenever they want and do not need to site any rule for that all. Nice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You: It's not necessary that you value my opinion, or anyone else's. Merely that you edit in a non tendentious and collegial manner. Which you haven't been. That's not an opinion, it's a warning. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The above can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...blems_11#Mbz1_2
My main contribution to that particular dispute was a suggestion that it be resolved with a compromise. I was, in fact, not a party to the dispute, although Lar acted as though I was the entire problem. What Lar threatened me, with a block, for wasfor saying: if an administrator blocked a user (and the blocked user was not me) there should be a rule that justified the block. Lar seemed to find my request, to be shown a rule, itself grounds for a warning. (Saying that Commons is not a democracy would be an understatement. Police state is more like the actual situation.)