You can interpret it however you like. I'm sitting here staring at the conversation from March. Given that I told Lar to *do nothing* while I consulted with two other people, you could argue that I told him not to tell you, but I effectively told him to tell no one else as well. I did so because I was weighing how much privileged information to share with Lar. I didn't think it was wise to raise the matter with you, yes, because you'd already made it quite clear to me that you didn't trust Lar and because, back in the early winter, we'd already been through this whole discussion and I was satisfied by the explanations that I'd received. I found myself in a bit of pickle, not the least because of the significant, pre-existing gap of trust between users.
The primary role of the ombudsman is to review the release of private data. Given that no such release had occurred or appeared to be pending, I was not acting in that role. It is not clear to me why I should have notified you, or Crum, or anyone else, that Lar had run such checks. I also don't see how I was "aiding" or "abetting" Lar, which implies that he was committing some sort of crime!
I don't care for the accusation nor the insinuations.
Charles
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:40 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/08, Charles Fulton mackensen@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's not quite the case, and you've been told that before. I'll repeat it again for the benefit of a wider audience.
What is not quite the case, Charles?
Lar came to me because he was understandably disturbed by some of his findings and wanted my opinion before taking matters public. I counseled Lar to do nothing because I had stumbled into the 'situation' several months previously, but did not feel that I could disclose to Lar the full specifics until I had discussed the matter with the other people involved. I will not, yet, name names, but they included a member of the Arbitration Committee and another Checkuser. I grant that I didn't see any particular urgency in the matter.
But that's not what Lar said. He told me in an e-mail that you had advised him not to raise the check WITH ME. You had no business doing that as Ombudsman. If you say now that you didn't give him this advice, I believe you, but then we're back to the issue of spinning. You can't both be right.
The point is, Charles, that from the very start, even before any of us knew about the checkuser, you aided and abetted Lar in this situation, rather than stepping back as Ombudsman and realizing that it was the kind of thing you might be asked to adjudicate on. What is the point of having an Ombudsman who is so deeply biased?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l