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

[A Horse With No Name]

I take this responsibility very seriously.

[victim of censorship]

I take this responsibility very seriously.

I second that emotioncon

[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?

[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.

[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.

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: Thu 4th March 2010, 5:00am

[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!

[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.