Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee/proposal/archive 1

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)

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)

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.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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
• ...

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)

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)

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)

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)

While recent events (which I've just heard about) are probably drawing interest to this page, I'd say you should try and get this example done before trying to finalise it. There's no rush, IMHO. I'd like to suggest not using the Orangemarlin Incident as a demonstration case, precisely because it's so current and inflamed. Look back for some old cases and ask the involved parties if they'd mind them being used in this demonstrative manner (with the names changed — I'm still a bit uncomfortable with that, check with the janitors). I think that would be safest. Maybe somebody might want to bring this recent event to OmbCom, but that should wait until community consensus exists, I think. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

All for this

I am all for this, and would like to ratify it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am delighted, SMH, to have your support for this. At this point we should examine the proposal as it currently sits, solicit additional community support and try to work out the mechanisms. Bstone (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not however how formal we need to make it. DGG (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Did you mean to say you're not sure how formal it needs to be? I think it should be a formal, official committee. However, by it's very charter, it cannot directly cause change, punishments, etc. It's meant to be introspective and consultative but not authoritative. Bstone (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be formal in the sense that it needs to be independent and that independence cannot be compromised. This still won't work though unless those whose decisions are being reviewed understand and respect the fact that ignoring critique will reflect very very badly upon them. It cannot work when people can simply withdraw for a few days without loosing their influence. This change needs to happen from within and not due to outside pressure. That said, this is still a great idea, it just needs broader support from those whose actions are to be examined. We also need to make it clear that this is not intended as a way to get around community sanctions. It's a way to ensure that those sanctions aren't being implemented without proper review. I can think of several persistent (more or less...) former users who might try to abuse this and we need to ensure that doesn't happen. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it time ?

I am going to express a strong dissenting opinion on this idea. While the idea of an ombudsman is great for fixing matters after they are broken (what someone above described as a "sour grapes" position) the real solution is to prevent the abuses from happening at all. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. For that what is needed is a professional facilitator rather than an ombudsman.

I am not talking about the "training" sort of facilitators who lead workshops and seminars but rather real professional organizational facilitators who are hired by major corporations and government bodies to facilitate complex processes.

A real facilitator is essentially a specially trained "referee" who has made a conscious choice to ignore content and focus on process only. If a professional facilitator was hired by the Foundation and assigned to oversee all RFAR activities he/she would be expected to become fully familiar with all RFAR processes, policies, and practices and then would serve as leader of every RFAR, telling Arbiters and Editors alike when they were off-track with the process. As a side benefit a skilled facilitator would be able to highlight ambiguities and conflicts of process. Note that this is not the same as providing suggestions for fixing them, but rather simply pointing out what is illogical and unworkable as a purely procedural matter. Such identification could then become the launchpoint for the community to focus on modifying processes for improvement.

I understand the job of a facilitator well because I used to be the parliamentarian for an organization and that is a similar role. When issues were being debated on the floor I was not allowed to think about if I liked or disliked the direction the discussion seemed to be heading, my job was to make sure of one thing only... was Robert's Rules being correctly used in relation to the organization's By-Laws. I was not allowed the luxury of being biased ever if I was doing my job right. Sometimes that meant biting my tongue but I stayed neutral and adhered to process reguardless of my own opinions. There are thousands of skilled parliamentarians around the world who stay netral and focus on process every day. There are even more skilled facilitators out there.

One of the arguments made above is that only an involved Wikipedia editor/admin can understand our processes and that is simply ridiculous. Any skilled facilitator can analyze the process and familiarize themselves with it. Every official process we have is officially documented for all to see and while there certainly would be a learning curve, understanding and enforcing process is what facilitators are specialized in doing.

I suggest some reading is in order so herehere is an excellent article that excerpts (and cites!) many good books on the subject of professional facilitators. One of my favorites is the following:

To facilitate means "to make easy." The group facilitator's job is to make it easier for the group to do its work. By providing non-directive leadership, the facilitator helps the group arrive at the understandings and decisions that are its task. In a consensus group the facilitator's focus is on the group and its work. The role is one of assistance and guidance, not of control.

Michel Avery, Brian Auvine, Barbara Streibel, Lonnie Weiss

Building United Judgment: A Handbook for Consensus Decision Making

The Center for Conflict Resolution, 1981, page 51.

To facilitate means "to make easy." ... Isn't it time Wikipedia stopped being hard? Low Sea (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mechanisms

MBisanz and I have been discussing the mechanisms of this proposal and have come up with the following:

OmbCom Consists of and is selected by:

• OmbCom is to consist of 5 members, divided as 2 administrators and 3 non-administrators. They must be at least 18 years of age at the date of election and must comply with privacy policy identification at the m:Identification noticeboard. Individuals who become administrators during their term of service may continue to serve out their term, but must run under the administrator classification for re-election.
• OmbCom members serve a 2 year term.
• Membership in OmbCom is excluded to current members of the Arbitration Committee and Mediation Committee. Also excluded are former and emeritus members of the Arbitration Committee and Mediation Committee who continue to have access to the private mailing lists and/or private wikis.
• Membership in the OmbCom is by a popular vote.
• Voting in OmbCom elections is limited to auto-confirmed members with a minimum of 250 edits and at least 3 months editing.

OmbCom's charter includes:

• Upon request and acceptance, reviewing cases which have been decided upon by the Arbitration Committee, which includes
• Reviewing cases where the judgments are considered to be incorrect or process irregular
• Investigation and issuing findings of fact pertaining to those cases, and
• Issuing opinions
• Requests relation to Oversight and Checkuser
• Requests may only be made by an aggrieved party, proxy requests and amicus curiae requests will not be heard.
• Requests may only involve final decisions of the Arbitration Committee, cases currently open or under consideration may not be reviewed.

OmbCom's charter does not include:

• Being able to overrule the Arbitration Committees or administrator;
• Sanction users or apply sanctions to articles;
• Require editors to perform certain tasks;
• The ability to disclose non-public information;
• Immunity from any policies or community procedures, as
• OmbCom is solely to be the conscience of the community but not be able to overrule

Comment

I think it needs to look at wrong processes only because it is too subjective to decide if a judgment is wrong. And I think that other requests related to oversight and checkuser should be looked as well even if it was not an ArbCom case. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FloNight, one aspect of this I am trying to think through is how private data is handled? Checkuser X makes a block per CU data, based on a request made via email and/or IRC. OmbCom is asked to evaluate the propriety of the block. How does it do that? Would it have CU rights? Could it require the disclosure of private communications? etc. Any ideas there? MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I eagerly await Flo's response to this as it should help to clear up this question. The two options, as I see it, are giving OmbCom access to the CU and oversighted information or limiting them from it. In the earlier, it would require identification to the Foundation, IDing, etc. In the latter it would mean that all opinions would be based on only public information. Bstone (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that as well. Firstly, the members of OmbCom would have to be able to met the requirements of the Foundation for seeing private user information and following the privacy policy. I think to be effective it would need to be able to review all the data obtained already and do some follow up checkuser type work to recheck something. Hard to compel some types of needed information, so sometimes CU and ArbCom decide without it. Need to understand the way that checkusers and arbcom customarily handles issues when we don't have complete information but must decide anyway. We can talk more about that later. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom cases with the most potential for problems are those involving checkuser data and will have privacy issues. This part is going to be the trickiest getting the Community to accept. Do we as a community want many more users with access to private data? FloNight♥♥♥ 00:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My thinking was a smaller panel of members rather than a larger group. Maybe 3 people. But I was thinking of more limited reviews. Nothing related to judgment just process. And I had not planned to include MedCom stuff. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've since removed the MedCom stuff. Bstone (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We've elected members of ArbCom because we trust their judgement to come to the right conclusion. I certainly agree that if we want to move in this direction, the role of the ombudsmen committee should be limited to making sure the correct process takes place in decisions. It shouldn't be another last method of appeal. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be about the way cases are handled not about the decision that was reached. I think that's the same as you mean, but "correct process" sounds a bit like a rulebook. So for example if the issue was whether someone had adequate time to respond to accusations made about them it shouldn't be a matter of seeing that rule 13b requires 4 days to respond and 4 days were given so that's okay, it would be a question of whether adequate time was given to respond given the circumstances of the actual case. And so on. A check on reasonable exercise of discretion. One other thing is that as written above it only looks like actual cases that have been accepted and reached a decision are considered. It clearly should cover e.g. rejection of cases and other arbcom actions. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are describing is similar to a judicial panel being asked to consider declaring a mistrial. I agree that the key to solving some of WP's problems lies in removing any intentional and unintentional abuses and misuses of "process", but again I state I think Ombudsman is the wrong approach since it fixes the problem after it has occured, rather than preventing the problem from occuring in the first place. See Continuous improvement and Zero defects for more on this concept of prevention as used in the real world (also see my mini-essay above under Isn't it time ?) Low Sea (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Independence from Arbcom?

How would the Ombudsmen as planned relate to these thoughts I put on the rfc? "As long as the Arbcom has no access or influence to private deliberations/reviews of the Ombud people, and any findings the Ombud people post are not required in any way to be vetted by the Arbcom. The Ombuds have to answer to the community, not the Arbcom. Arbcom would have to be enforced hands-off going back the other way for official Ombud business, no exemptions. If so, it could work." If the Arbcom has any authority over them, it won't work. rootology (T) 01:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OmbCom is, by design, independent of ArbCom and answerable only to the community. ArbCom cannot overrule or otherwise tinker with OmbCom doings. If the community doesn't like that OmbCom is doing then the community can make that clear during the next round of direct elections. Bstone (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think it is also important to remember that the Ombudsmen Committee policy would be owned by the community. The Arbitration and Mediation policies are owned by the respective committees MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's questionable at best. Any "ownership" of Arbcom pages is derived either directly from the community (in which case the community can take it back any time i.e. in actuality the community retains "ownership") or is derived from Jimmy Wales on the basis of him having been given such authority by the community (in which case, again, the community can take it back any time i.e. in actuality the community retains "ownership"). The Foundation sure doesn't assign policy page control to the Arbcom. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, this can work then, if the Arbcom can't quash findings or investigations by the Ombuds, no matter what they end up looking into. rootology (T) 02:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The obvious question

What happens when people can't accept this committee's decision? Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee Ombudsmen? —Giggy 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's non-binding and answerable to the community in the form of elections. Don't like what the committee is saying? First, it won't hurt you, but, second, feel free to get involved by running for a spot. Bstone (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It won't hurt me? Heh. Regardless of how non-binding it's made out to be, people will use the opinions it gives against ArbCom to say "you're wrong, I'm right, OmbCom said so, so I'll just go back to being a POV pushing troll". "Feel free to get involved" is not a response - I am getting involved now by questioning the process. Answer my questions. —Giggy 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy, an OmbCom case and opinion is meant to be specific and unique to the case which is files. Ideally, OmbCom only gets involved in cases where there has been major irregularities in process and/or verdict. Thus, OmbCom should rarely, if ever, invoked in an ArbCom or other case (assuming one of the appeals committees gets approved). I am forseeing that OmbCom will be accepting cases with great discretion and ideally not have a large caseload at all. However, please bear with us as we figure this out as we go along. There is no precedent for this sort of committee and it may change wildly in the next many months. As far as people using OmbCom views for justifying their actions, well, that just wrong. OmbCom may differ in opinion or say there has been a major fault in process, but ArbCom's ruling remains firm and intact until such a time where ArbCom themselves agree to vacate/change it. Bstone (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"OmbCom may differ in opinion or say there has been a major fault in process, but ArbCom's ruling remains firm and intact until such a time where ArbCom themselves agree to vacate/change it." - then what's the point? Surely we editors are capable of pointing out faults in the process - we've been doing that since the OM case and via the ArbCom RfC. We don't need a backroom committee to do for us something we are capable of doing, and something that already has precedent. —Giggy 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy, I've attempted to answer this question on the main project page. While it's true that individual editors can opine their opinion, the OmbCom take those individual opinions and makes it into a formal, official opinion. This can be especially effective when there has been a major irregularity in process (like in the OM case) or highly unusual verdict. Many voices together are always more powerful than many scattered. Bstone (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, if the Arbcom has zero power or authority to stop published findings by the Ombudsmen or the Ombudsmen investigating anything that the Arbcom did, that's the defense. Shaming, and people citing that to force the Arbcom to change or vacate their ways. If they don't, well, thats their own fault, and will lead to the Arbcom getting marginalized and rendered powerless over time. At least thats how I'm reading this. rootology (T) 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Individual editors can and do give their opinions freely already. One thing that would be different is that OmbCom members would be cleared to access private data (though they should not have routine access) and Arbcom would be required by policy to cooperate with their investigations. This would mean that OmbCom would have information at their disposal that inividual editors don't and could make (more) fully informed decisions.

I'd see it working something like this:

Example Scenario (the details are invented, this hasn't been based on any particular controversy although it does draw on concerns that are occasionally expressed): Arbcom have just decided a heated case and have issued remedies involving User:Sanctioned. There have been long running tensions between User:Sanctioned and User:Insider, who is an ex-arbitrator and retains access to the arbcom-l mailing list. User:Sanctioned suspects that User:Insider has made use of his privileged position to poison the case against him, since he's better able to measure the private reactions of the arbitrators User:Sanctioned makes a formal complaint to the OmbCom. After reviewing the initial information and arguments presented to them, OmbCom decide to look into this formally. OmbCom request Arbcom to provide them with copies of relevant communications between themselves and User:Insider. Possible conclusion 1: Arbcom refuse to provide the details. The OmbCom publicly issue their finding, which is that they consider investigation to be merited but that Arbcom refused to give them necessary information. Assuming the community do want a watchdog then it's up to the community to hold ArbCom to account. If the community doesn't care then this has achieved nothing, of course, but if the community doesn't care then presumably there will never be an OmbCom. Possible conclusion 2: Arbcom provide all the information requested. OmbCom review everything they have, they discuss with various participants, they publicly issue their finding which is that everything was handled properly (though they don't say the final decision was right or wrong - that's not in their remit). User:Sanctioned may still feel aggrieved but the hope would be at least that other members of the community would be reassured that Arbcom were handling matters properly. Possible conclusion 3: Arbcom provide all the information requested. OmbCom review everything they have, they discuss with various participants, they publicly issue their finding which is that the Arbcom did indeed effectively allow User:Insider's mailing list access to give him undue influence over the case (though they don't say the final decision was right or wrong - that's not in their remit). At that point the ball would be back with Arbcom, and again if they don't want to make changes then it would be up to the community whether to insist on them. The practical effect of all of these is that the community is better able to make informed decisions. (NB I believe that there's now a separate email list for sitting arbitrators, how these two lists interact is exactly the sort of thing that OmbCom could actually see working, for purposes of investigating a particular matter, rather than just hearing theoretcial descriptions)

Thoughts? 87.254.72.195 (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good description of what I envision OmbCom doing. Thanks! While OmbCom usually should not comment on verdict, it's currently built into the charter of OmbCom that they can when the verdict is also highly irregular, tho I forsee that being a very rare thing indeed. Bstone (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

IRC channel

IRC: #wikipedia-en-ombcom on the Freenode network

Bstone (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the current purpose of that channel? --Allemandtando (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

See also

I have created Wikipedia:Ombudsmen_Committee/Reference_material. Collecting this sort of reference material (but related to recall, admin removal and the like) at Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Reference_material has proven useful. Please add as you see fit. I suggest it be linked in as part of an overall "see also" navigation aid which points to the case archive, templates, discussion pages, etc, as these additional pages are developed. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank, Lar! This is very useful indeed! Bstone (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ObmCom member involved in Arbcom case?

What happens in the following cases?

1. If I were such a suggested obmcom member, could I still reflect my opinion in Arbcom cases as an uninvolved party ?
2. If I comment as an "uninvolved party" and the case comes before obmcom do I have have to "standdown temporarily"?
3. What happens if the obmcom member IS an involved party in the arbcom case ?
4. What happens if an obmcom member wants to try a case before the Obmcom ?

My opinion

1. yes (but should avoid in order to remain as "neutral" as possible)
2. no
3. stand down for the particular case.
4. retire from ObmCom

May sound stupid defining these things now, but we all know that it is almost bound to happen eventually with all our wikidrama :D Especially #3 seems likely since many active editors become involved in one way or another with an Arbcom case at one point or another. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There would need to be rules established about the participation of ObmCom members in cases where they were involved. A definite recuse in cases where they were directly involved as a party, I think. The rest depends. If as an uninvolved party or interested community member, the obmcom member wrote significant parts of the arbcom ruling on the workshop page or provided evidence, or analysis of the evidence, then I think that they should not participate in that case. Because of this, obmcom members likely should avoid participating on arbcom case pages. I see no need to step down if they are bringing an obmcom case. Just to recuse on that case. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a bad idea

This seems like a road to nowhere to me. Arbcom are the most trusted editors at Wikipedia, what's the use in less trusted editors sitting in judgment of them? What conclusions can they come to that a community of interested observers here can't? Certainly a popular vote isn't good enough to allow (otherwise non-vetted) users access to private data outside of a Arbcom election. And speaking of elections, how does a popular vote help editors whose opinions and/or policy views are in the minority and marginalized? And what is the meaning of a respected (?) and official group making formal and official non-binding findings? Do we really have that many idle cycles here?

What good is an opinion that differs from one produced by Arbcom when the basis of that decision (private data in some cases presumably) can't be shared? Can't the general community do that on their own? Especially when there's zero enforcement role for the Ombudsmen Committee? It's just another (smaller) group with an opinion, they are not necessarily more trusted, just more popular. This all seems like a very well meaning B-Ark kind of thing. And now there's an IRC channel?

The problems that ARbcom has (and there are some for sure) can be fixed by more openness when possible and more commitment to the role they volunteered for. We don't need another forum to issue criticize how they do their business. They get plenty of that as it is, they just need to be more attuned to already high volume of messages they are getting. RxS (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My number one concern about this idea is that it gives too many more users access to private information. I feel that the Community may not be willing to do it for that reason. My original idea was a smaller panel of 3 users for this reason. The number on ObmCom was adjusted down form 10 to 5 in the proposal after my comment. I still think the number could go lower.

Currently, the Community considers that checkuser access and overight access will be granted to ArbCom members as part of their vote for them during the election. I see no reason that the Community would not do the same when electing members to this committee.

I do not think that complete transparency is possible in ArbCom, Checkuser, and Oversight work. Having a small panel to review whether ArbCom, Checkusers, or Oversighter made significant breaches in policy or practices in a particular instance would benefit Wikipedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Flo, to use a US example, to whom does one appeal when the Supreme Court rules against you? There has to be a final authority. Otherwise we get Quid custodiet ipsos custodes ad infinitum. ArbCom is now our tentative final arbtor, with the Jimbo exception. If we start making a "Super-ArbCom" or "Über-Arbcom" there will be no end. The idea is that there are enough ArbCom members to ensure that a fair shake is had. If anything increase the size of ArbCom to ensure a quorum of eyes on the situation, do not create a new level of bureaucracy. -- Avi (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No way, this is not acceptable as a policy without much broader consultation

[1] Sorry, but no. Where is this RfC? Oh yes, it's part of the larger discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#View_by_Bstone, where all of 10 people said it was worth looking at. Policy needs to be broadly discussed by the community, and this discussion is in its infancy. This is a major change in the dispute resolution process at a time when our dispute resolution process is being discussed in its entirety in many places. None of this "we'll talk about it again in two years" nonsense, either. What if the community decides to move in a completely different direction, such as Wikipedia:Devolution, a proposal that makes more sense than this and has more teeth? Not acceptable to proclaim this as policy at this stage, sorry. Bstone, you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to pull this off at this time. Risker (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I was just in the middle of writing the same thing. This hasn't gotten anywhere near the level of discussion/support needed to create an official policy. RxS (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How would it get wide support without a massive vote? No, I'm not joking. And voting ain't evil. It's the only way to fairly get the pulse of a thousand plus people. rootology (T) 04:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dead set against a vote, voting has it's uses. On the other hand there have been polices enacted with clear consensus that didn't involve voting. It can go either way, but there's always some resistance to a straight up vote. RxS (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think discussion is the way to go too, since I'm sorta technically still an old-timer, small, uh, break notwithstanding. I was just throwing it out there since no one had brought up the heinous v-word yet. It's not that scary. :) rootology (T) 05:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, even if voting is the method of choice, it is way too soon to make a final decision on this particular proposal when there are so many others on the table at the same time, some of which directly conflict with this one. It's going to take some time to sort out which ones are worthy of further consideration, and then see how those mesh together before any of the proposals have a chance of obtaining consensus. Or a successful vote. Risker (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier this evening I saw what amounted to an ad for the new main page layout on the top of the page. Can we somehow get that to announce this proposal? So far the normal venues have mostly failed to get large numbers of people. Bstone (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think MediaWiki:Watchlist-details is the page you want. —Giggy 07:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean large numbers of people who support it. I count at least 20 people on the WP:VPP discussion and nearly 40 on this page. 200 people discussing this isn't likely to change the outcome, its just going to make a bigger mess. Mr.Z-man 18:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy

Based off of this RfC which showed unanimous support, this discussion on AN showing great interest and support and the several admins, arbitrators and many other editors who support and continue to support this proposal, it is clear that consensus has been reached. I realize some still oppose it, but the community has made it's intentions and desires clear. OmbCom is policy. Bstone (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. You don't speak for the community, and it hasn't come close to speaking clearly enough on this. RxS (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If an RfC and lots of individual support doesn't mean consensus then I am not quite sure what does. I think the disputedpolicy}} tag is a good one for now as we can all agree on it, and that it's currently being discussed. Bstone (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, only policies that have received consensus approval can be "disputed". I have put the proposed tag back on. Do not remove it again. Risker (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Risker, huh? The status of this proposal as policy is disputed. I am uncertain why you are claiming the disputed policy tag isn't the most appropriate one. A proposal which has consensus is policy, not disputed. I am not going to add anything more as I self limit myself from ever violating 3RR. However, Risker, I urge you to view the RfC and AN discussion which, again, clearly shows consensus. We've been discussing this for 7 months and based upon all available information, the community support this. Bstone (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion started about this unilateral attempt to declare consensus here. Risker (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ridiculous 10 comments doth not consensus make of a community measured in the hundreds of thousands. This "OmbCom" or whatever it is is a bad idea. We do not need more bureaucracy, we do not need another "committee", especially one with no teeth. As it is ArbCom, which HAS community acceptance, has floated ideas about creating groups to help them. Completely exogenous quasi-committees will do nothing more than INCREASE the paralysis, ("Well ArbCom says this, Well OmbCom says that). Bstone, there are plenty of people who oppose this issue. Please make absolutely no assumptions about anything with such little data and time. -- Avi (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Avi, thank you for your well thought out and mild mannered opinion. It is duly noted. Bstone (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, you have been discussing this for seven months. What this talk page shows is that there was a brief flurry of interest for about a week in January, then the proposal was moribund. You mention that you will discuss it on Not the Wikipedia Weekly in March, and nobody responds to you. Then you resurrect it on June 30th, it gets some interest as one of many proposals to reform the dispute resolution process, and you proclaim it as having received consensus six days later. In addition. This is still a proposal, Bstone; only policies that have received the stamp of approval from the community at large (for example, WP:V or WP:NPA) and have already been in place get to have "disputed" tags on them. Risker (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a straight-up goofy proposal. I do support a structured venue to critique/refute/overturn ArbCom findings. I would also support a gradual reform or radical overhaul of ArbCom itself. Creating another "committee" is not the answer, especially if that committee is to be powerless.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• To use a US example, to whom does one appeal when the Supreme Court rules against you? There has to be a final authority. Otherwise we get Quid custodiet ipsos custodes ad infinitum. ArbCom is now our tentative final arbtor, with the Jimbo exception. If we start making a "Super-ArbCom" or "Über-Arbcom" there will be no end. The idea is that there are enough ArbCom members to ensure that a fair shake is had. If anything increase the size of ArbCom to ensure a quorum of eyes on the situation, do not create a new level of bureaucracy. -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your employment of the bureaucracy argument does not hold water, Avi. Bureaucracy only exists when you must go through the various hoops and channels in order to achieve your desired outcome. OmbCom is outside of bureaucracy as it is optional and not required. It is purely consultative. You do realize this, right? Bstone (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bstone, within a matter of days it will be used, and misused, as an ArbCom appeals board. -- Avi (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Very true, Avi. He already has the template ready. Risker (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Avi, that would be simply beyond the scope and charter of OmbCom. Since the community owns OmbCom- and no one else- OmbCom would be immediately answerable to the community for these issues. To suggest that OmbCom would overrule Arbcom is a great use of imagination but simply not reality. It can't, wouldn't and won't happen. If the community truly values openness, then you should be supporting this. Two current arbitrators do. Why don't you? Bstone (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

With 2 year terms I don't see how this group would be immediately answerable to the community. This really is a needless increase in bureaucracy with no apparent benefit. RxS (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed with the others (as an admin), I am quite opposed to this idea in the present form, and it is most definitely not policy (remember WP:ATT, anyone?). I am in general supportive of a review of administrative actions and with Fat Man's comments above, but have you thought about the possibility of the same sort of disagreements within OmbCom that made ArbCom ineffective in the MatthewHoffman case? Also, a body with the power to criticise but not to act and with no official recognition is just going to be another Wikback or WR but internalised. I am not seeing the benefits. Orderinchaos 04:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is policy yet. (I think it's an interesting idea that needs further exploring and fleshing out to see if it is likely to work, rather than a bad idea that absolutely we should not do... it's just not policy at this time). I don't think it is disputed that it's not policy yet (per Risker, et al), either.

Normally policy here is made by doing it, and then we write up how things now are done (descriptive). This proposal, since it would presumably have some teeth of some sort, hast to be prescriptive, I think. There has nowhere near been the wide discussion and broad consensus that would be needed. I think it's a shame that there has been edit warring over whether this is policy. Usually if 3 different editors revert a policy tag state change, it is a sign that the state change doesn't have wide support. So I suggest more talk. ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has gone down in flames at the pump - damn fucking right it doesn't have "wide support". --Allemandtando (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your mildly worded opinion on the manner. Bstone (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me less mild then - the messages coming out of the pump are clear - we don't want project wikilawyer, project wikilawyer is NOT to become policy. Another attempt by you to try and strongarm it into existence should lead to an instant block. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now it's threats? What a way to start a day. Sheesh. Bstone (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What threats? I'm just telling you the course of action I'd like to see if you attempt a stunt like the other day. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's the need?

Where's the need for this? ArbCom decisions can already be appealed to Jimbo, they can be overturned by the community of admins refusing to enforce decisions, and most sanctions can be circumvented simply by making another account and not making the same mistakes as last time. Do we really need yet another system? --Carnildo (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Carnildo. I am curious if you have read, in full, the OmbCom proposal. Under no circumstances can OmbCom overrule and overturn an ArbCom verdict. Thus, I am entirely confused why you think it can. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's one thing human history has taught us, it's that a committee with no power is useless. Give it veto power or some-such and we risk ending up with something like the mess that was republican Rome. I see no need for this at this time. If implemented, I predict it will be used as another tool to game the system by banned users with infinite time on their hands (and by-Dog we've got enough of those). - Merzbow (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here here! *sound of nail very firmly being struck on head* Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I rather agree with Merzbow. I also don't think this is policy, has been or has anywhere near consensus on that fact. I would advise Bstone not to try to play around with the tag again. John Smith's (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, my prediction has already come true. - Merzbow (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I not, or did I not say above that it would be a matter of days before this is turned into an ArbCom appeals board? It has now been done BEFORE this even exists!? I think I can rest my case now. This is a bad idea, Giovanni's actions just go to show how this would have been so totally misused, and I believe we can say that this has anything but consensus; rather, there is pretty sound consensus to reject this idea for once and for all. -- Avi (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst trying to force the issue...

...don't forget the ton of cold water that has been dumped on it over at WP:VPP#Ombudsmen Committee formal proposal. It strikes me that this is conveniently ignored in #Policy on this page. I would also suggest remembering that there is not a policy currently in force which has been jammed through in the kind of way implied at #Policy, and for good reason. Splash - tk 21:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has been rejected

From the comments here and at the pump - I would argue that this proposal has been rejected and should be marked as such. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular vote

Running with the previous discussions, I think that this proposal might want to go through a general, popular vote in order to determine community-wide consensus. Less than 50 editors have opined thus far and it seems to be evenly split (or abouts) with support and oppose. If possible, a talk subpage should be created with Support and Oppose categories. Further, in order to spread the word, if an admin could put a note that appears at the top of the screen indicating we are soliciting community consensus on this. I will abide by whatever the community feels is appropriate for the course of this proposal. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Less than 50 editors have opined thus far and it seems to be evenly split (or abouts) with support and oppose. I do not think this is true and will run the numbers. I would oppose a vote as redundant at this stage. This just seems to be a desperate attempt to stave off the end. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no, take it to a vote. The easiest way to dispel confusion about how many people stand where is to ask them where they stand. So let's vote. —Giggy 11:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If we have to do this, can we get it over and done with as soon as possible? What is the limit for this popular vote - I say 5 days. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think 5-7 days is about enough. A full week, 7 days, is not a bad idea. What's the rush, afterall? Bstone (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it 7 days then - someone want to create the sub-pages. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Object. m:Voting is evil applies here. Unless there is a super-majority in support of this its simply not going to happen. There clearly is no supermajority here and a vote will simply distract even more editor's time and attention away from encylopedia building. Consensus is developed by discussion and right now, the side wanting this project togo forward need to start addressing the concerns raised on the anti side rather then seeking yet another forum to allow them to ignore them. Consensus is not developed by voting. So, No, No and thrice No. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• "This is an important essay written by the community. Although it doesn't have the force of policy or guideline,....." Bstone (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

why is the rejection of it at the appropriate forum the pump not enough to close this down? what was the point of the pump discussion if it wasn't get to the views of the community? or is that bstone just doesn't like what the community is saying about his powerplay (and their rejection of it)? The more I think about this, it should still be marked as "rejected" due to the discussion at the pump. So I'll agree with Spartaz and say Opppose --Allemandtando (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you no longer support a 5-7 day voting period? Bstone (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I've thought about it some more and have come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time - the community has spoken - this idea sucks, it's not becoming policy. This consensus was reached at the pump, the correct venue for such a discussion. So to repeat the process with a popular vote when we already have consensus is a waste of editor's time. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

and a quick scan of the pump suggests that it's about 3 FOR - 16 AGAINST (with a couple that are neutral). You put the idea to the community, the community said "no thanks". --Allemandtando (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Add the 10 supports on the ArbCom RfC and another 5 on the AN page, and there is a net support. However, I believe we should turn this over to the community and solicit many opinions. Bstone (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tell lies - those things are easy to check in the history - the arbcom supports are for further discussion, they are in no shape, way or form !votes for making this policy (and per usual, you forget to mention that 5 people said it was a bad idea). --Allemandtando (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First you threaten me with a block and now accusing me of lying? And it's only 0830 EST. What a day! Bstone (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the VP is great because it puts ideas in front of a (at least partially) representative sample of Wikipedians who care about policy, not a group of people who care about one particular issue. Sure, you could say the same thing about the RfC or AN, but I think 3 supports out of 20 or so people who commented at the VP is pretty clear and there's no need to put this to a vote. Darkspots (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose to popular vote - Voting is not how you generate consensus. Furthermore this has been extensively discussed at Pump/Policy. The attitude there was quite generally against it. Guys, just accept there is not consensus for this and it has been rejected. This is starting to resemble the European Union's attitude to failed referendums over their treaties - keep asking the question until everyone gets tired and says "yes" just to stop the question being asked. John Smith's (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, BStone, you should never take supportive comments from a multiple of venues and then try to claim that makes a "majority" against a consensus formed in a single arena. The Pump was always the best place to discuss this first because it is a neutral place where people go to discuss policy rather than show an interest in a particular topic. If you have such clear consensus against a proposal like this then it is clear you should respect it and not seek to ignore it by asking for votes somewhere else. John Smith's (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bstone, no one thinks that you did something wrong by floating the idea, please do not take it personally. However, based on the responses at the pump and other places, the discussion of this proposal as policy have been overwhelmingly clear as to their direction: the community does not feel that this is a good idea at this time. The votes on the RfC were to pursue this further, and it has been pursued on this page and at the pump, and it is clear that at this time, this proposal will not pass community approval. What the future holds, who knows, but I believe that it is time now to put this to bed, and any number of further "votes" or "non-voting-opinion-gathering-procedures" would be neither helpful nor appropriate, so I too opine Close as rejected with no vote. -- Avi (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: Nor should it be called an essay that has "community approval"; it does not. However, by all means, if you wish to userfy it and call it a user essay about how you feel wiki should be run, there is a long and honorable tradition of userspace essays, such as User:Avraham/RfA-B. -- Avi (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Even though I feel this is worth a trial, I think it's fairly clear that those supporting even this are in the minority. A vote is not necessary to determine this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Sam - a trial might make sense, could in fact be conducted informally by volunteers anyway, but there is no need at this point for a vote. I think the attempts at hierarchy, formality and mimicking the ArbCom format really doomed this idea and prevented a really engaging discussion of its merits. Avruch 13:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, someone wants to run an RfC they can do it, and, unless the matter has been clearly rejected -- I haven't investigated but from a brief review above, it seems that isn't the case --, it would proceed, possibly with Village Pump notice. But my strong suspicion, based on review of the history of similar proposals, it doesn't have a snowball's chance, the present No Consensus is based on selective participation. However, better can be done without policy and without bureaucratic structure, and if anyone wants to participate in that, ping me on my Talk. No policy changes are needed, just willingness to participate voluntarily. Organized fact-finding activity, which is what it seems OmbCom was about, can be done without bureaucratic structure, elections, etc., and, in my opinion, it can be done better and more efficiently than that. People simply have to want to do it and be willing to do it. A collection of individuals who want to organize ombudsman activity can form a wikiproject to coordinate, or can coordinate less formally. Individuals already take on that role when they see a problem situation, perhaps an RfC, and take on independent investigation as to what happened. A wikiproject would avoid duplication of effort, would develop consensus about procedures and perhaps recognize successful efforts. (A "successful effort" would be one that resulted in consensus and the resolution of dispute, either directly, or through later confirmation of ombudsman conclusion by RfC or ArbComm. -- if the dispute involved an ArbComm decision, success would be modification of the decision by ArbComm, acceptance of the decision in spite of ArbComm by WMF (unlikely, but theoretically possible), or clear rejection of the ArbComm and WMF decision by the community (highly unlikely, unless the matter became really clear). (One intermediate possibility would be that an ArbComm decision is challenged, an ombudsman (individually) or the ombudsman community (if appealed) finds that the findings of fact by ArbComm were improper, the ArbComm decision is presented for review and no consensus is found at ArbComm to either sustain or modify. Technically, the prior ArbComm decision would stand, but this is an outcome where WMF or broader community consensus would ultimately decide.

There is another proposal for a representative body, a kind of Wikipedia Assembly, that has had support of ArbComm members. If that proposal is eventually accepted, it would be able to constitute an Ombudsman Committee without fuss, by appointing it. As far as I watched that proposal, it was technically unsophisticated; for example, voting method was not seriously considered. There are three voting methods that I know of which could easily elect a representative assembly, two of which are, in my opinion, spectacularly suited for Wikipedia: the traditional one, Single transferable vote is in common use, but a modification of STV was proposed over a hundred and twenty years ago by Lewis Carroll, the modern name for it is Asset voting. Except for Asset electing a peer assembly (every member has the same voting power), there is a similar direct method recently proposed, Delegable proxy, and see WP:Delegable proxy, which was Rejected, but which actually wasn't understood, since it really wasn't about voting, as such, but about a method of finding consensus on a large scale. That's the goal, not mere majority of votes or even supermajority (i.e., a relatively small supermajority such as 2/3 vote.) It would be a poor decision that had 1/3 of those who actually consider it (beyond dropping a vote without reflection and investigation) seriously opposed. What I've seen, here, is that consensus, at a higher level, usually appears after the lapse of time. In the meantime, I actually favor prevalence of the majority, for what I've seen is that requiring higher consensus for decisions results in minority rule when some oligarchy has become established, as almost always happens even in very highly cooperative societies (which are the very ones that tend to go for consensus rules). To me, mere "majority rule" is only proper as a default, pending negotiation of wider consensus. One sign of an improper "majority rule" decision is that it is difficult to maintain, it constantly encounters opposition and disruption and, even, eventually, vandalism.

A Wikiproject which is successful at modifying results is going to encounter opposition and efforts to shut it down, both through legitimate means and illegitimate ones. So, while I'd suggest a Wikiproject, and such a body should be as open as possible, it may also be necessary for participants to connect independently of the project. (And that is not difficult to do; ArbComm has set up independent mailing lists for some deliberative purposes, administrators do it, and it doesn't require bureaucracy, merely *prudence.*) If the ombudsman community depends on official (open) Wikipedia structure, it can be vulnerable to opposition from some significant faction which opposes its findings. ArbComm is protected from that -- mostly but not entirely, see the sad situation of User:Newyorkbrad -- by WMF support, but an independent body could have great difficulty. It is important that ombudsmen be rigorously independent. They have, properly, no enforcement power at all, in themselves. They recommend. This is the faculty of judgment, and we have learned to separate judgment and enforcement, as rigorously as possible. (Courts may issue rulings, but if the executive ignores them, they do not generally have, except in limited circumstances, the power to enforce them.)

There is also an intermediate option, which would be that deliberations take place in user space, where the user can be a kind of defacto administrator, that would be more difficult to disrupt; this depends, though, on interpretations of user power in their user space that I haven't seen explicitly confirmed, though they see to me to be likely to be so confirmed if the matter is tested. Off-wiki structure (as a backup) is more secure, and disruption more easily handled. (One probable requirement for off-wiki participation would be a willingness to reveal email address to all participants, and ombudsmen might be required to validate real-world identity as well. What might be called "investigators," who would prepare evidence for ombudsman review, used at ombudsman option and responsibility, would not need to be open, and the real power is with accurate investigation; deceptive investigation can be rather easily exposed, discrediting both the investigator and any ombudsman who relies solely upon it without investigation.--Abd (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Any attempts to sidestep the community and magic this quango into existence by making it a wikiproject will be AFD'd in seconds of it entering project space. As for the rest, I skimmed it but I'd suggest that you don't beat that deadhorse here because it's irrelevant to *this* discussion. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Allemandtando is a contentious, disruptive editor; one sign of this is that I essentially agreed with him as to the rejection of this proposal and the waste of time involved in voting on it, yet he regards my comment as beating a dead horse, when the horse hasn't even been born yet. Further, he is correct, except that, of course, it would be MfD and not AfD, and MfDs do not actually delete, ordinarily, for projects that have any legitimacy at all, nor do they shut down discussion. (The attempt to actually delete WP:Delegable proxy was serious, determined, and failed utterly, and discussion remains possible, and the creation of a delegable proxy network remains possible and would be almost impossible to shut down without major damage to Wikipedia traditions. It isn't happening because very few editors even realize how it might work and what it could do. In my experience this kind of idea takes about a year for people to even begin to understand. As to an MfD, this possibility is very real, and even likely, as I actually noted. Allemandtando typically regards my writing as too much, and often dismisses it as such. I'd suggest that if he doesn't want to read my writing, he ignore it. It will only have an effect if others find it of value, pick up on it, and act on it. Which is happening, commonly, I'm getting supportive mail from administrators and other users, commonly, and comments on-wiki as well. So some people, experienced users, actually do read it, and get it, "tomes," even.

Is it "irrelevant to this discussion"? That is the kind of comment I see, frequently, from those who don't read what I write. They conclude it is irrelevant without reading and considering it. It's their right; however the judgment of irrelevance under such conditions can be pretty shaky. It's relevant because there is a way (actually there are many ways) to implement the substance of this proposal without the bureaucratic process and fixed hierarchy that will result, I predict, in the rejection of this proposal. From what I've seen of Allemandtando, I could speculate that he doesn't want such informal but effective structure, because, in my opinion, it would notice him, quickly, chew him up and spit him out. I'm not making formal charges against him, simply because I consider it a waste of time and not necessary, at least not yet. If he had let my comment lie, I'd certainly not have made any specific comment on him. But his behavior here makes comment necessary. There are two basic reasons for rejection: (1) true consensus about bureaucratic solutions, voting, etc., and (2) fear of consequences, personally or for some faction, of a solution. Editors who have, in fact, consciously or unconsciously, the second reason active, will, of course, try to present their position as being within the first category. The clue, to me, that Allemandtando is involved with the second aspect of rejection is the vehemence of his rejection of a nonbureacratic solution, that does not involve voting, that only develops recommendations, and that fully respects the real Wikipedia traditions. I expect that, to him, the idea of some user independently investigating a situation, with care and without the adversarial process of RfCs, in order to develop a recommendation, is threatening, because he already considers such threatening, see his Talk page! He started to compile, at one point, an evidence page on me, and I made no complaint; rather I told a friend of his to warn him that it could be wiki-suicide to actually file an RfC based on it. When I saw enough that I simply created a page to examine an AN/I incident in which he was involved, with evidence about that incident, most of which had little or nothing to do about him, but I made a comment about his involvement, he filed an AN/I report on how it was an "attack page," which found no serious support. And when I created another page, then, to be used for evidence which *might* be used for an RfC on him if the behavior continued, and even though I didn't actually compile evidence, he reacted with hysterical blinking warnings on his Talk page, telling editors what is simply true for all of us: our on-wiki behavior is all recorded and can be used against us if it is improper. So, yes, I think that Allemandtando very much does not want something like OmbComm to be created, especially if it is efficient. ArbComm and RfC and also AN/I are so inefficient (the first two) or ineffective, too-often, that some abusive editors can take months before they are found and, then, they can "retire," and return. Is this what happened before with Allemandtando? It's a reasonable conjecture: an editor who creates a new account and sets out swinging, with obvious knowledge of procedure. Only when challenged did he admit being a returned editor; he refused to follow procedures to allow returned editors to safely establish that they were not problem editors from before, and, I suspect, because he is seen as somewhat of a hero in the deletionist community because of his bold deletion of material, he was able to find sufficient support to avoid immediate blocking (the initiative didn't come from me!). 'Nuff said, perhaps even too much. But it is relevant. Some of the opposition to OmbComm or similar solutions may be coming from those who would have something to fear. But not most of it, I'd say. --Abd (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't drag your obsession with me here (which is why I guess you appeared here, part of your fixation with me) - it's nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. I don't plan to reply any further to you here as it just seems to feed your.. well whatever you issue is. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Abd, are you familiar with tl;dr? Sometimes short and sweet has its advantages. Avruch 16:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes. Depends. If my goal is to push some idea, you'll see very short and maybe very sweet.--Abd (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is long and complicated enough without bringing in off-topic things. Please take user conduct issues to user talk or another appropriate venue. Friday (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion on moving forward

(I said this several months ago, but it might be worth saying again.) If there are those who think an ombudsmen committee can do useful things, you don't have to wait for some official approval to demonstrate this. Anyone who wants to can run around calling themselves "ombudsmen" and doing ombudsmenly things. So, why not go ahead and do it? If you make yourselves useful, maybe support for this idea will grow. If you don't make yourselves useful, well, at least you got to try out your idea. Friday (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the idea. But without access to privacy protected info the opinions of OmbCom will be based solely on public info. Thus, the ability to establish checks and balances for ArbCom has just diminished. Bstone (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Users already have the ability to request things like adminship, checkuser, or oversight. So, get some users with those levels of access to participate. Of course, if they're sharing said privileged information inappropriately, they may lose this access. So care needs to be taken. Friday (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Piece-meal it? Not likely to ever succeed. It's a shame- wikipedia's openness and transparency has just taken a major hit. Bstone (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How this could work

I think Bstone has had a good idea here, but I think he's taken it in completely the wrong direction for it to be useful. The way it currently stands, it's a little too bureaucratic for most peoples likings. I think a more informal approach could work well. The committee could self regulate who joins, with no set numbers and a simple nomination procedure similar to WP:MEDCOM where the current committee decides to support or oppose a candidate, with members of the community weighing in as well if they wish. Any user can ask them to take a look at situations and if the committee accepts, they could take a look at the whole situation and make recommendations about how things could done better and the underlying problems that caused the dispute to escalate. They don't just have to look at arbcom issues, they could look at things such as community bans, admin actions or request for comments. The way I see it is that they would act like a huge third opinion, but in meta-issues. Of course they would be non-binding, but they could give good advice for the future and how to handle similar situations. It would allow an outside body to look at the deep root of problems and hopefully everyone would be able to learn from their recommendations/findings. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds great on the surface, but don't active users concerned with meta issues already play that role? In community ban discussions, for instance, it seems to me that plenty of people weigh in, play devil's advocate, research, contribute. If an arbcom decision is unpopular, it is discussed and analyzed by the community. Why partition those discussions into Ombudsmen Committee / community? Darkspots (talk:) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need any more selfselecting elites to tell the community what they think. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)