Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

I really stink at writing these sorts of things, but I hope my intention/goal have come across. Perhaps someone can assist me in developing this idea? Bstone (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points here, I'm not sure I fully agree with the examples you give as spiraling out of control, but it probably would be a good thing to have a selected few administrators who put what should be considered binding end of a thread on the noticeboard or relatively minor dispute. At present, there's a big step between ArbCom and administrators and often disputes get out of hand because there's no-one to step in. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me I make some good points. Good to know I've not lost it. I actually would like to have ombudsmen not be admins but regular editors. Ombudsmen/women would not have admin powers but would rather have the ability to investigate and issue official opinions which might actually differ from official wikipedia opinions. I believe this to be essential to the project. Many universities and governments have this and it's often been a place of refuge when the system just fails. I agree with you in that there is a huge gap between admin disputes and ArbCom. I don't know is ombudsmen would bridge that gap but it would be another tool in the box to help smooth things over. Bstone (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ryan but does not RfC bridge that gap, cumbersome though it can be? I'm also worried about the "selected few" idea; who selects and how few/many? Presumably the community, in a process similar to RfA, but what happens if you disagree with a thread closure? You'd still be stuck with some form of dispute resolution. Those are my initial thoughts but I realise this is at an early stage and I'll gladly rethink once the ideas become more crystallised. I'll watch this page and if any ideas occur to me, I'll chip in, as I am not trying to be a Jeremiah here, just a smallish (but cute) devil's advocate. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The idea is still forming. It's very rough at this point. Selection of ombudsmen/women is something would have to brainstorm together here. I would think something similar to an RfA but actually more like ArbCom. It would be the Ombudsman Committee, more specifically. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstone (talk • contribs) 04:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So, say we have a corps of some half-dozen ombudsmen (or ombudswomen?). An incident explodes onto the Noticeboard, where an admin and an editor are in dispute over something.

  • Question 1: Does the Admin or the Editor say "Let's get an ombudsman in here", or does the ombudsman say "Here I come to save the day" and step in? I note that uninvolved admins comment all the time, and this should be different.
  • Question 2: So, the ombudsman steps in - now what? Do they mediate the dispute? Or do they try to find common ground? "Admin X won't block you, Editor Y, if you agree to discuss Issue Z on the talk page", or some such?
  • Question 3: Would this become a more formal mediation process, or some sort of sub-arbitration? Would it become a prerequisite for Arbitration? Sort of a pre-application step, where the ombudsman would review the incident and say "Yes, that's messed up - escalate to Arbcom" or "There's more we can do, or we're closing on a compromise, or this is a content dispute and not a case for arbcom, etc." Can they be overruled?
  • Question 4: Not a question so much as a comment, but I think ombudsmen should be selected in a similar fashion to Admins, where the community of editors support or oppose the candidate based on their level of trust. Then, the admins or a group of admins judge consensus (in similar fashion to the bureaucrats now, with RfA). In this way, the individuals charged with finding common ground between editors, or between editors and admins, have shown that both groups trust them.

I think this is a good proposal, and it might be a good fit for some well-trusted and experienced editors who might want to help out more, but might not want the admin tools (for whatever reason). I stand mute on whether admins should be eligible for ombudsman, but that's a very interesting topic. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for your early support of this proposal. Second, I appreciate the questions! They are good, valid and pertinent. Third, I think the Ombudsman Committee would not be here for mediation, intervention or arbcom, but rather for independent investigation, analysis and finding of fact. Sometimes this might actually disagree with admins, mediation and even ArbCom. It would be an official wikipedia position and sovereign (in that ArbCom cannot overrule the Ombudsman Committee) but since the Committee would not have actual authority to institute change if would not necessarily change things. It would, however, give those in the decision making capacity something to consider as there just might be an official wikipedia committee who would disagree and offer criticism of a decision. I believe this is healthy and important to the process of this project. This is still in the early states of idea development, but I already have some thoughts as to where it would and could go. Bstone (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This might run afoul of WP:AGF, if the Ombudsmen are charged with researching disputes and determining questions of fact, and especially so if they are charged with interpreting or analyzing those facts. Each side in a dispute will present their facts and claims, supported by diffs in most cases, and the ombudsman sounds like he/she will have to determine that one of the parties is right, and the other is wrong. It becomes almost like an arbitration (in the legal sense), in that the arbitrator sits in the place of a judge over a dispute, hears evidence, and makes a ruling. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I add that this seems like it would become another tool in the Dispute Resolution toolkit. Some cases simply don't benefit from RfC, nor would this be fruitful in every circumstance. But, where one doesn't work, another might. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Having more tools in the toolkit is beneficial. Bstone (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This proposal sounds interesting. I'd like to see if it could be carried out effectively. My question; would this be a discussion only amongst this group? Or would it involve ARBCOM and the like? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What might you mean exactly? Certainly ArbCom members are entirely welcome to comment here. It's their right as members of the community. As far as parity between the two, there would be some parallel of an Ombudsman Committee (OmbCom) and ArbCom, just that the OmbCom would not have authority to make rulings or orders. Bstone (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this proposal effectively create a separate Arbitration Committee style body that would deal with content related problems rather than behavioural problems ? Nick (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not completely sure if it would deal with content issues. I am thinking not. I am under the impression that it would deal with what the OmbCom decided to accept as a case. I would enjoy to hear from other editors about this. Bstone (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Having a group that would review content disputes and come up with compromises might not be a bad notion, and it would be complementary to the Arbcom's traditional role in behavioral issues. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the mediation committee is best suited for content disputes. OmbCom would stick to major issues of judisprudence, I believe, where people feel things have gone horribly wrong. Bstone (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, devil's advocate. What is to be done with disputes whether a certain edit/set of edits is in breach of policy? OmbCom would then have to interpret policy, as I see it, and apply that interpretation to the case in point. If that interpretation is challenged, we are back to square one if consensus cannot be reached. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that OmbCom will be dealing with simple content disputes. OmbCom would more likely be invoked in exceptional cases of railroading, admin abuse, ArbCom mishandling or really important issues that demand an internal, non-admin review. And even if OmbCom interprets something different than established ArbCom precedent it would be immaterial to the outcome. Bstone (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admins?

I think that users would have to be administrators here. The way I could see this working would be the ombudsmen would have the power to make and enforce binding decisions in disputes when it's requred. It would, by nature, stop disputes escalating further. The problem we often have is being unable to make a decision and other parties rejecting it, a few trusted admins who could evaluate and make that decision would certainly help. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually have constructed this proposal so that those who sit on the OmbCom are not admins. Further, they do not issue decisions but rather findings. The purpose of ombudsmen is not to be a punitive or judicial body but rather an investigative one. As far as those on the committee having access to various records which are normally restricted to administrators, I can only suggest that administrators work with the committee. Bstone (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As to whether Ombudsmands should also be admins, I am still open-minded; however, if the power/responsibility to issue findings, and preumably recommendations, but nothing more, is given, this implies to me both appeal and enforcement, and in difficult cases it may not be possible to achieve consensus for acceptance of the finding, which leaves us with existing routes of resolution. Or am I missing something? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually this is how ombudsmen work. They are independent and those in power listen to them and respect their criticism and recommendations. Of course this works because those in power know how badly it reflects upon them if they simply ignore the ombudsman. I'm not sure we can expect the same system to work on Wikipedia - which is why we still have ArbCom to desysop those who repeatedly abuse the tools. How does this differ from previous attempts to get something like this working? EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, EconomicsGuy, for responding to the above and for your question. I am not very certain if there has been an effort of this specific type before. I have seen multiple attempts to set up committees which would have various powers to de-sysop, mediate, issue injunctions, etc. By definition the OmbCom would not have any of these powers. Thus, I believe this proposal is novel in attempt. Correct me if I am wrong? Bstone (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)From what I know of the Scandinavian system, you are correct; they are appointed by government as a balancing influence upon itself, although their operation is reviewed by an inspectorate; the proposal here is that it is an entirely voluntary process within the community, which presumably will retain the right to remove incompetent or malicious holders of the role. I have major concerns here which remain to be addressed (and I'm not trying to talk the proposal down; it is early days yet)- 1. Who appoints? 2. Who resolves disagreements by way of appeal? and 3. Who removes the responsibility? The logical answer must be "the community"; I am culturally opposed to excessive layers of bureaucracy and prefer "lean and mean", but (notwithstanding the youth of this proposal) I think there is still a lot to be thrashed out here. I remain interested in the idea, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as how one comes to serve on the committee, I would assume there would be a nomination and election similar to ArbCom elections. Appointment or random selection wouldn't be appropriate for this sort of committee. Also there might be some pre-reqs, such as certain number of months editing or some like. Again, this is all very rough right now but I think it's shaping up. Please continue to share your ideas and thoughts. Bstone (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Ombudsman: An overview on my thoughts by CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€

Let me start by saying that in theory, this is a fantastic idea.
Let's be honest: Every Wikipedia user with a ramblings section on their user page is an Ombudsman. The actual point, and I think many users are missing this, of an ombudsman is to look into what happens in an organization and point out the good and the bad as an independent observer. This is typically done in response to individual events - the Ombudsman notes what happened, what the reaction was from those in power, and what was good, what was bad, and how things went. Most of the ombudsman's work is to determine where, when, and how much an organization strayed from its stated goal in an event - in our case, the stated goal is always to build an encyclopedia. Some ombudsmen then make recommendations on what can be improved upon for next time. ESPN Ombudsman Lee Ann Schreiber is a good example: She works for ESPN, but she is an independent observer, frequently critical of all of their various wings in her monthly-ish column on the main page of ESPN.com.

[edit] What the Ombudsman needs to be

In short, an Ombudsman must be completely neutral. Therefore, for an Ombudsman to work, the person would have to:

  1. Be an independent observer
  2. Have an extremely strong working knowledge of Wikipedia
  3. Not hold, nor ever have held, any other position in the organization (sysop, arbcom, 'crat, dev', office staff, foundation)
  4. Be willing to permanently swear off ever becoming one of the above
  5. Completely avoid ever participating in any debates about policy, guidelines, deletions, content, consensus, blocks, bans, or anything else at all
  6. Be of the personal nature where they can criticise without inflaming

[edit] Why This can never work

  1. This is a sweeping generalization, but I feel confident in it: Every editor on Wikipedia that gets involved in policy does so because at one time they had a content dispute of some sort. Every editor, then, with the slightest knowledge of policy is, by definition, already biased, destroying perception of neutrality
  2. Nearly every editor with a strong enough knowledge of policy to be an ombudsman is either an Administrator, will be an Administrator eventually (See Hammer, 10 lb.), or will continually fail RfA because they don't interact with people well. A member of the first group is a part of one of the groups of people that would be "ombuds-ed-ed", and that would be like asking the head of the EPA to evaluate how effective President Bush is - his job is "no big deal" (under Bush at least), but you know what the answer will be before you ask the question. The second group is too concerned with keeping 75%+1 of the editors happy to be unbiased, and the third group shouldn't be ombudsmen for the same reason that they shouldn't be sysops
  3. Any editor who isn't in a group above but has a strong policy knowledge, still will have to deal with the fact that they won't be trusted as an independent observer if they participate in any forum that might later be "ombuds-ed-ed". Therefore, the Ombudsman would have to basically only ombuds for their time as Ombudsman, and not edit at all
  4. The ombudsman will eventually call out an editor by name and then we'll have RfCs, RfArbs, accusations of bad faith and incivility, and hurt editors even though the Ombudsman was doing their job

[edit] The Only Possible Option

Basically, an Ombudsman could only work if a person who has a background in auditing but had never been a Wikipedia editor was hired by the Foundation to evaluate the workings of the site. Only this person would truly be accepted as neutral. Thank you for reading my massive thesis.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss my thoughts below this line

I disagree with much of what you say, this idea would involve a number of users being elected to the Ombudsman Committee, and as with the Arbitration Committee, recusal for those with conflicts of interest or involvement would be the approach. The OmbCom would be difficult or impossible to operate without at least some users having access to administrator tools, as access to deleted revisions is essential, I believe. I also think the ability to unprotect talk pages would be very useful if the OmbCom intends to review blocked/banned users who may well have previously abused their talk pages. There are also disputes arising from material which is forwarded to the Foundation and which can be accessed through the OTRS system, and some members of the OmbCom would most likely need access to the system then, which raised further complications about identifying themselves to the Foundation and perhaps creating a perception (incorrect, of course) that they're not totally independent. I know that current Foundation level privacy policy precludes any OTRS volunteer from supplying material to any other user who has not/will not identify themselves to the Foundation and agreed to abide by the privacy policy. I should note that I would have no interest in standing for any OmbCom and am in no way interested in feathering my own nest so to speak. Nick (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to be just another cabal and votes for banning version 2.0 then I strongly object. There is enough of that already and more than enough status seeking going on + these ideas of how this should work here have nothing to do with an ombudsman. I don't think Wikipedia is ready for this level of accountability and non-cabalism. This is an extremely noble effort but I don't see this happening any time soon. I strongly suggest that those who comment here read up on what an ombudsman actually is. I think the better option here is to simply accept that this is just a website run by volunteers. Some things will never improve - this is one of them. With all its flaws it is still great and fact is that 95% of all users don't care about WikiPolitics - maybe we should stop caring so much too and do like them and just edit the damn encyclopedia. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that there is a large cadre of editors who are trusted, experienced, and have never touched the English Wikipedia - Admins from other projects. A trusted admin from, say, the Italian Wikipedia would be impartial to our concerns and dramas, and would never have been in dispute here, but would still have the experience with the project in general to be able to offer realistic and constructive criticism. Now, are there any admins who would agree to such an exchange? Maybe, maybe not. But, under castastone's methodology, I can't see any other way to implement this proposal. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The concern with this, however, is that each and every project has slightly different rules, we would need to be satisfied that they are fully aware of all our policies and the finer points of the way we do things here. There's also the problem of moving cabalism to other projects, not everybody has the same username across projects, we wouldn't want a user under investigation here being very friendly with the Ombudsman on their home project, for example, and ensuring impartiality in that sense is going to be extremely difficult. Nick (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would submit that, similar to ArbCom, anyone on OmbCom would recuse themselves if there was a case to review that involved a conflict of interest. I have seen ArbCom members have a good history of recusing themselves. I would assume similar from OmbCom members. As far as the concerns about being burned out, OmbCom need not accept a case. OmbCom would have no actual administrative ability to unblock, overturn, etc. Thus the cases accepted would be limited to episodes in which there is a clear and compelling reason for OmbCom to be activated (by request/petition). Bstone (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who would WANT to be an ombudsman?

An ombudsman seems to be someone who would get all the work of an arbitrator, but none of the help or effect. This could lead to rapid burnout. Who in their right mind would want the position? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC) sorry that that's such a tough question, but this is a proposal that's good enough that it is worth it to consider such tough questions. :-)

Think ArbCom complaints about admin abuse plus complaints about ArbCom itself. Burned out in a week! This is why there would need to be more than one and this person would need the respect and collaboration of all admins and ArbCom. The latter part would be very very difficult. I actually like the idea of an outsider - if we could find anyone foolish enough to accept the offer! EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see above for my response to this, which I coupled with a similar question. Bstone (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. So something like a requirement that all other options have been exhausted like we have now with ArbCom? That would limit the number of cases significantly and reduce the risk of forum shopping by obviously disruptive users. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. And, moreover, OmbCom cannot actually give you relief. If anything it would be a moral victory as you would have an official wikipedia committee saying that ArbCom or admins or whoever are wrong. But since OmbCom has no power to overrule ArbCom or an admin it would be limited for a moral victory. Ideally, however, ArbCom et al would look to OmbCom with respect and introspection. Bstone (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What, precisely, would be the community benefit of a 'moral victory'? We already have scores, perhaps hundreds, of editors who are more than willing to say to other admins, to the ArbCom, and to Jimbo "I think you screwed up, but there's nothing I can do about it." What's the point of having an 'official' body that will do exactly the same thing?
From a practical standpoint, what would encourage parties to submit evidence to, cooperate with, or pay any attention at all to OmbCom? A party that feels that a correct administrative action has been taken or correct ArbCom decision reached has no incentive whatsoever to participate in OmbCom proceedings. Such a party would feel that their position has already been officially endorsed, and would know that OmbCom has no power to overturn the existing decision. Only parties who feel upset by a decision would apply to OmbCom or have any interest in its proceedings—the OmbCom would only receive submissions from parties seeking a 'sour grapes' ruling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. A far better way to deal with whatever concerns this proposal is aimed at, is to encourage every editor to do ombudsman-like things. This means, everyone should give their honest opinion of any particular situation, even if (gasp!) this means disagreeing with someone. It's the culture that needs changed- too often, people think in terms of "good guys" (whoever their friends are) and "bad guys" (anyone they've previously disagreed with). Then, they save time by looking only at who is on which side, rather than rationally analyzing a particular situation. I agree that we should find ways to counter cronyism, but I can't see that this is a useful way. Friday (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
An Ombudsman Committee is important to any sort of academic or government project which reaches a certain size. When the administrative bureaucracy reaches a certain size there comes a point where individual citizens (or in this case, editors) need to have an official forum where their individual voices are coalesced into an official opinion. This holds more weight than individual editors/citizens who can simply be passed off by the bureaucracy as whining, annoying, etc. Thus, an official, internal, introspective, consultative, non-admin body with parity to ArbCom would be in parallel to those already in existence at all the large academic and government bodies around the world. The creation of OmbCom (or whatever we wish to call it...I'm not married to the name) is now the perfect time for wikipedia and the above comments, mostly all positive, demonstrate that this proposal should indeed be passed. Bstone (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it'd play out in real(wiki) life, but to me, I'd see one of the points of such as being establishing a 'history' - "If one neutral body of investigators is consistently/regularly/occasionally coming to different conclusions than ArbCom, should we investigate further as to why this might be happening?" - with possible scope for "than ArbCom within the realm of 'identifying meatpuppets'", for example. Achromatic (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
An "official, internal, introspective, consultative" body. Hm. That sounds all well and good, but what does it actually do to benefit Wikipedia? A body explicitly unable to actually effect change, that will only be an echo chamber for whiny sore losers. Five individuals elected to decide who's right, whose judgement is supposed to be superior to and more reflective of the community's will than that of the fifteen elected arbitrators.
We already have a process for telling Arbitrators that they've screwed up. Actually, we've got several:
  • file a request to reopen a closed case;
  • ask an arb to file a motion to amend a closed case;
  • have an RfC on an issue to demonstrate commmunity consensus or present any new evidence;
  • ask Jimbo to refer a question back to ArbCom;
  • ask Jimbo to overrule an ArbCom decision based on any or all of the above; or
  • ask the Wikimedia Foundation Board to step in.
Having five self-important 'consultants' empowered only to make obnoxious nuisances of themselves is not a useful or productive addition to that list. Having someone say "You made the wrong decision, but I can't and won't do anything about it, except taunt you. My opinion is final, but I have neither power nor responsibility. Suckers!" isn't helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If I'm reading this right, the Ombcom would be a committee of editors who would review administrative (and arbitrative) actions, and determine if they were correctly and properly executed. Sort of an appeals court, perhaps? The Ombcom would review, say, an arbitration case, and determine whether the administrators and arbitrators involved in the case acted properly. If the Ombcom finds fault, what does it do - would the Ombcom say "You got screwed" or would they say "Case Overturned on procedural faults A, B, and C", or would they remand the case back to the Arbcom for further review? In the case of admin actions, Arbcom is currently the proper venue for appeal, so - in this capacity - the Ombcom would be stepping in as an intermediate step. I'm concerned that, without teeth, this would indeed become a hate-the-admin club, which would not benefit the project. However, third opinions are always welcome, aren't they? If done properly, this might not be a bad idea, in principle. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought I saw a tinge of "hate the admin club" in this too- notice that it's supposed to be specifically non-admins. Which is weird, because generally we try to give admin tools to experienced, reasonable editors. Friday (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. This already does get done, informally, all over the place. Have you known editors to generally be shy about giving their opinions on things? I haven't. :) Making it formal but without any real responsibility is the part that seems bizarrely useless to me. Friday (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of good, experienced editors who could serve effectively, but who aren't admins. I think the concern I have is that, by choosing only non-admins, the implication is that admins on the committee would automatically be biased in favor of other admins and arbitrators, and would thus not be able to properly represent the editors who go to the Ombcom for satisfaction. It furthers an us vs. them mentality - but, another committee of admins might do the same. The only way this is different from what already goes on all over the wiki - i.e. discussion and analysis of other editor's actions - is if this committee has some role in the DR process, and some official task or authority to act in some capacity. I don't see that at this point. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I thank you all for your opinions and feedback. I don't feel that I can further explain any further benefits which would convince you that OmbCom would be of benefit to wikipedia as it seems we simply disagree philosophically on the benefits of such a committee. Of course every credible academic and government institution in the world having such a group should be reason enough, but I do respect your disagreement. I will say, however, that Ten's points of the OmbCom being a place for people to whine and complain did come across crass and, truthfully, I am not surprised that the strongst voices of dissent are coming from those who are admins. Good day. Bstone (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there are enough voices in support of the general idea that discussing the specifics has been worthwhile. Ten's points, while you may feel that they could have been worded more politely, do have merit - in order to have this policy approved, we would need to show that the committee would be something more than a forum for the disenfranchised. There is some value in a moral victory, true - but, in terms of the project, is that enough to justify the creation of a formal committee? Maybe, maybe not. Any policy proposal goes through discussion, and the changes that are made to it are usually for the benefit of the project - so, just because your first idea was not unanimously accepted doesn't mean that it won't be accepted in time, in a modified form. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that he's giving up too easily.. But, this will never be approved as official policy as written. Here's how to move this forward: anyone who's interested, go ahead and run around calling yourselves the ombudsman committee, and do ombudsmanly things. See what useful things you can accomplish. You may become useful as an informal group, or you may not. There may eventually be some community mandate to give the group some formal status, or there may not. You won't know until you try it. Friday (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am disappointed, Bstone, that you would choose to dismiss criticism to your proposal (as it is now formulated) on the basis of whom it comes from. 'Admin' isn't a dirty word. I was hoping that you could answer some of the questions that were asked, instead of simply responding that many organizations have ombuds, so we must as well.
It is not obvious to me that you have considered the differences between governments and universities and Wikipedia in this context. In the 'real' world, ombuds typically have the power to compel testimony and require individuals to participate in their investigations. Not even the ArbCom can do that on Wikipedia, and I doubt that any body will ever have such authority. As well, ombuds often have access to sensitive and privileged information. On Wikipedia, that would roughly equate to access to the arbcom mailing list and to checkuser information. I have grave misgivings about granting access to this extremely sensitive information to editors who haven't been vetted by the community even to the minimal standards required for adminship.
It also remains unclear to me – and probably to most readers here – why we should consider the judgement of a five-member elected panel (that excludes otherwise-qualified candidates if they hold positions of trust or responsibility) over the judgement of a fifteen-member elected panel (ArbCom).
So what are we left with? It is a shadow of a real ombudsman's office—a caricature of accoutability. The OmbCom will exclude from its membership many of the most experienced and trusted Wikipedians (admins, bureaucrats, ArbCom members, Checkusers). Editors who've already been through the hassle of arbitration aren't going to submit to another round of evidence submission and investigation for no benefit (particularly if ArbCom has already found in their favour). The OmbCom would be making judgements based on biased testimony (only from parties who had received sanctions) and incomplete information (no access to private emails, ArbCom deliberations, Checkuser data, etc.). How and why would such a body draw the respect of Wikipedia's editors? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ten, you seem to be under the impression that I am married to how the proposal currently is written. That's contrary to what I've written here a few times and contrary to my personality. I have invited the community here to give feedback and enter into discussion in order to talk about this proposal and develop it. So, what sort of refinements would you like to suggest? Bstone (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
At the Village Pump, you invited comments on your new and improved proposal. I've raised several issues now; I suggest that you find ways to modify your proposal in such a way that the concerns I've raised are moot, or argue convincingly that the problems I've described are illusory.
You've asked me to suggest refinements; I'm afraid that you're begging the question. First you have to put forward a persuasive proposal that convinces me that an OmbCom will a) satisfy an unmet need, and b) do so in a way that won't do more harm than good. Once such a proposal is on the table, I'll gladly tinker with its mechanics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thus, I refer you to my previous statement in which I indicated that I do not believe I can assist you any further with answering questions as it's clear we are simply philosophically divided on this issue. Good day. Bstone (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is giving up? Friday, I have simply come to realize that you cannot convince everyone of your opinion. That's why they are opinions. It seems you weren't too keen on this proposal but it seems from the above that you are perhaps more interested in it happening in an informal to formal manner than official-off-the-bat. Interesting. I still believe there should be a great deal more community input, specifically from the non-admin editors, as their comments would shine the greatest amount of light on the probable success of this project. Bstone (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The big reason I suggested doing it informally: You can start doing this right now today, or any time you want. You don't need to wait for some official approval. If you start doing it, then we'll have actual data, rather than mere speculation, about whether it's useful. That's the beauty of how Wikipedia works. Got some great new idea? Just start doing it- you'll find out soon enough whether it's useful or not. Friday (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
An OmbudsCabal? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


I think User:Friday's informal idea is a good one, although I think some points should be thrashed out in a little detail beforehand. User:Bstone, can you give us a "worked example" or two of some situations that, in your current version of the proposal, might become OmbCom cases? (I love "OmbCom", incidentally!) How might OmbCom deal with the case (in summary)? Feel free to use the standard "Alice, Bob, and Charlie" as false names (no offense to User:Alice, User:Bob, or User:Charlie, of course ;-o) to make an example.

A possible purpose for this group that springs to mind is that frequently, even in the middle of an ArbCom case, people spend much of their time arguing back and forth even about the simplest parts of their personal statements. OmbCom could maybe make itself useful by agreeing with each party individually on what their point of view on the given situation is (without agreeing with the opinion itself, obviously). These "crystallised statements" would save ArbCom a considerable amount of time spent wading through screenfuls of argument/debate on people's precise meaning. Obviously the users' opinions will still contradict each other, but the point is to get a single, concrete, short, readable fact of what that opinion is. This is something that, in my humble reading, seems to be a bit lacking in some of the more emotionally-charged ArbCom cases.

Similarly, users going to other forms of mediation might find such a service useful; even, groups of users trying to compose a "common grievance" of some sort might find it useful to have the OmbCom "distil" their personal statements into one that covers all points readably. This model for the OmbCom (which admittedly strays a bit from the concept of ombudsman) is interesting because it doesn't (hopefully) create another bone of contention; their job is to write a short, simple, text for each disputing user which covers that user's specific issues, and hence each user should be happy with their personal result. Hopefully it will make disputes a bit more calm too.

--tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that what I described might better fall under Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Does anyone want to try a "worked example" like I mentioned above? It would really help me get a handle on how people's versions of the proposal would function. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I will make such an example below. In the section below ideally we can take a few senarios of what the OmbCom could look like and run with the process. Bstone (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ombudsman-like tasklist

Actually we already have WP:EA and WP:MEDCAB, which might be able to take on some level of ombudsish tasks. Or we can indeed decide to make a new title.

Could proponents of creating an ombudsman-ish role on wikipedia make a bullet-point list of what an ombudsman-like-person would be required to do?

An ombudsman should
  • Listen to people: To understand what's going on in a case.
  • Write a report about what they hear: Else no one can learn about new best practices
  • ...

[edit] This is not

...m:Ombudsman commission; please make sure that's abundantly clear. I'd go so far as to suggest changing the name of this proposal. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally not married to the name. And no, this is not the Wikimedia Foundation's Ombudsman Commission. This is the Ombudsman Committee, aks OmbCom, which is specific to Wikipedia and the name is subject to change, just like the rest of the proposal. :) Bstone (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a hatnote. A name change wouldn't be a bad idea, and the Wikipedia:OMBUDSMEN or WP:OMBCOM shortcuts could redirect. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not rejected, seems to be leaning to some manner of acceptance

Noticed someone added a rejected tag on the project page saying no one was working on this. I a actively working on this, constantly soliciting opinions. The opinions on this talk page seem to indicate a general favorable attitude to some manner of formalized committee of editors tho it's clear more of the details (including name) need to be hashed out. Thus, please do not simply add rejected until and unless it gets discussed here. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is support for the general idea, but the devil is in the details. The previous tag, indicating that this is proposed, would imply that the current version is being forwarded for wider acceptance, which would seem to be lacking. But, outright rejected? I don't know about that. Is there a tag for something that might become a draft of something that could eventually be proposed? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The tag up at the minute includes "under development" in its text, so I think it serves the purpose alright. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 14:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of ombudsman/women

I am totally not married to just five. Maybe it should be 7? 9? 11teen? Bstone (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Before designing a bureaucracy, it might be wise to consider – clearly and in detail – exactly what you're expecting this committee to do. Perhaps the 'worked examples' that you mention above would be a good first step. Heck, take a recent (or not-so-recent) ArbCom case and show us exactly what the steps of a proposed OmbCom review would be. Tell us who does what, when. If there are any steps you can't perform because you don't have appropriate access to information (Checkuser, mailing lists, OTRS tickets, etc.) highlight those.
Right now, I can only identify one passage in the proposal that describes what the OmbCom would do. It reads
...the Ombudsmen Committee investigates situations and issues official opinions....
It's just not enough detail. While I expect any parameters set down now to be flexible, you're not giving the community anything to work with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point. Perhaps I will take a recent ArbCom and run with it. But don't you think it's dangerous if in case this OmbCom does pass and someone wishes to consult OmbCom about an ArbCom case? Perhaps an older case. I will say, however, that I am just one person trying to spearhead this. Perhaps someone would like to join me in this effort? Bstone (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not shy about giving my opinions- I'll take a crack at it. I suspect most other editors are not shy either.. I've not noticed that a shortage of people with opinions is a problem we have here. :) Friday (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
One more opinion comming here then. The way this is going it really doesn't look like an ombudsman to me anymore. Here is my suggestion: OmbCom is the very last step prior to appealing directly to Jimbo. OmbCom can issue public critique responsibly but independently without fear of repercussions. OmbCom has no authority, hence it only reviews the procedural handling of cases and needs no special access such as OTRS or access to any other off-wiki communication such as closed mailing lists. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Might it look more like an Editors Consultative Committee? Like I said, not married to the Ombudsman name. Bstone (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Please, what does the ombudsishperson actually DO? In detail. What are the things you'd expect an ombudsishperson to do, and how will that help wikipedia? If we don't have that data, this suggested course of action has little point. (Yes I can imagine some of the things an ombudsishperson should be doing, but that's not the same as having it in detail, which is what we need to get the show on the road, kay?) Also, let's consider ways to achieve those goals with a minimum of overhead, so as to maximize gain. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I'm approaching this with the attitude of "let's get this show on the road, (or see where it breaks)", less talky, more worky

Yes, working on that. I am not greatly skilled in the legalese so please bare with me if this takes a small bit of time. Bstone (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I think Bstone's already writing an example for us, probably he is just agonising on the wording for ages like I do. :-) Incidentally, it might be better to change the names of the involved users in the example(s), Bstone, just to avoid any accidental offense. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I will just say that the Sabbath starts in a few hours and I'll be totally unavailable for 24+ hours, so my apologies if it seems that I disappeared. I know these projects seem to move quick. Sorry if the next few days seem to move slow. Bstone (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
STFU on the legalese, wikipedia is not a courtroom. :-) Just give a braindump of what you need, and we shall tidy it.
  1. make new section on page
  2. Braindump
  3. Let someone else fix
  4. ...
  5. \o/ Wikis are fun! :-)
Comprende, capice, begreifen sie? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. I know. I love the collaborative nature of it all. Tho I did study Talmud and Code full time for several years so it's in my nature. I must go now tho I will return to this Sat night or Sunday. Bstone (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, see you when we see you then. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You forgot step 6, profit! --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a wiki, so we replace that by step 5: "\o/ Wikis are fun! :-)" instead. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soliciting ideas for potential case

Curious what folks think about using this as a recent and test case for OmbCom? It's a biggie. Perhaps too big. Want to solicit some ideas before diving headfirst into it. Sorry for my lack of progress. I do apologize for it. I had intended to be a much more proactive but you know how things get. Bstone (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We certainly do, happens to us all! I wonder if perhaps it might be a good idea to ask an administrator's advice on what to use as a basis; even if changing the names, there's the potential to offend inadvertently. If I'd ever been the subject of admin action I'd offer myself as a test subject, but unfortunately I'm too polite and likeable! ;-o --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 09:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Or this episode. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion on SkypeChat about proposal

My apologies for the short notice. Tonight on SkypeChat there will be a discussion about this proposal. You can find more about it at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly. One of the things I will be discussing is changing the name to the Editors Consultative Committee or some such. Bstone (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)