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

[radek]

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.)

I gotta admit, that's quite an excellent essay there by Thatcher. The broader concept, of course applies... errr... more broadly.

[Milton Roe]

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.

I didn't know Lar was ombudsman. I had to look the word up again to see if it still meant what I thought it did.

Hey, Larzy! The public is not happy with Wikipedia. They make bios of people without asking them, and sometimes they aren't accurate, and anybody can mess with them, and yet Wikipedia gets all nasty when you ask them to fix things. And the rest of the time when they aren't nasty, they don't have time for you. Or they refuse to believe you are who you say you are. Like you have to prove this to them.

This could all be fixed by having Wikipedia just have a policy of not doing such a nasty thing as to make biographies of people, particularly people who aren't even close to being famous like the president. But they won't do it.

So this is a job for the ombudsman. You're supposed to tell us why the organization you represent, is behaving like such a bunch of assholes. And (if I understand the concept of ombudsman correctly) you're supposed to go back to the organization itself, and say something like "Hey! Why are you all behaving like such assholes?"



Helpfully, Milton

[Lar]

I didn't know Lar was ombudsman. I had to look the word up again to see if it still meant what I thought it did.

Hey, Larzy! The public is not happy with Wikipedia. They make bios of people without asking them, and sometimes they aren't accurate, and anybody can mess with them, and yet Wikipedia gets all nasty when you ask them to fix things. And the rest of the time when they aren't nasty, they don't have time for you. Or they refuse to believe you are who you say you are. Like you have to prove this to them.

This could all be fixed by having Wikipedia just have a policy of not doing such a nasty thing as to make biographies of people, particularly people who aren't even close to being famous like the president. But they won't do it.

So this is a job for the ombudsman. You're supposed to tell us why the organization you represent, is behaving like such a bunch of assholes. And (if I understand the concept of ombudsman correctly) you're supposed to go back to the organization itself, and say something like "Hey! Why are you all behaving like such assholes?"



Helpfully, Milton

Thanks Uncle Milty. Unfortunately the remit of the Ombudsman Commission is rather narrower than that.

"The ombudsman commission investigates complaints about violations of the privacy policy (in particular concerning the use of CheckUser tools) on any Wikimedia project for the board of trustees in an official manner."

See the description on Meta.

Now why do I suspect you already knew that though? What my own personal opinion of the desirability of actually having that remit is... is left as an exercise to the reader.

[Cedric]

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.

So? Seems as natural as water seeking its level. After all, Lar is a wiki-potentate. And what is Wikipedia but an attempt to turn "encyclopedia" into a sort of board game, and trying to get some cheating into the game at the same time?

All else is mere commentary, as the rebbes say.

[Kwork]

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.

So? Seems as natural as water seeking its level. After all, Lar is a wiki-potentate. And what is Wikipedia but an attempt to turn "encyclopedia" into a sort of board game, and trying to get some cheating into the game at the same time?

All else is mere commentary, as the rebbes say.

I suppose that, from one perspective WP can be seen that way. Certainly, a look into any topic where some flakes have their identities invested will find a never ending amount of material that needs to be corrected. But its like fighting back the tide, and so doomed to failure. This article on Gnosticism in popular culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_in_popular_culture is an example I noticed a few minutes ago. Its a load of crap from beginning to end, and should not be in an encyclopedia at all. But there are certainly enough defenders to put up a fight, so attempting changes might take weeks of time and still accomplish next to nothing. And after all that wasted time it would still, at best, just be just one more article on a on a shit website. feh.