Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee/proposal/archive 1

message: __TOC__
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Admins? 

message: 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:
# Be an independent observer
# Have an extremely strong working knowledge of Wikipedia 
# Not hold, nor ever have held, any other position in the organization (sysop, arbcom, 'crat, dev', office staff, foundation)
# Be willing to permanently swear off ever becoming one of the above
# Completely avoid ever participating in any debates about policy, guidelines, deletions, content, consensus, blocks, bans, or anything else at all
# Be of the personal nature where they can criticise without inflaming
===Why This can never work===
# 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
# 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
# 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
# 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//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern with this, however, is that each and every project has slightly different rules, we would need to be satisfied that they are fully aware of all our policies and the finer points of the way we do things here. There's also the problem of moving cabalism to other projects, not everybody has the same username across projects, we wouldn't want a user under investigation here being very friendly with the Ombudsman on their home project, for example, and ensuring impartiality in that sense is going to be extremely difficult. Nick (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ombudsman: An overview on my thoughts by [[User:CastAStone|CastAStone]][[User talk:CastAStone|/<sup>/₵₳$↑₳</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/CastAStone|<sup>₴₮ʘ№€</sup>]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: The Only Possible Option

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discuss my thoughts below this line

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This is not 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Not rejected, seems to be leaning to some manner of acceptance

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Soliciting ideas for potential case

message: 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)
thread_title: Discussion on SkypeChat about proposal

message: I am all for this, and would like to ratify it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am not however how formal we need to make it. DGG (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  All for this 

message: 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: <P>
: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)
thread_title:  Isn't it time ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Independence from Arbcom? 

message: :IRC: #wikipedia-en-ombcom on the Freenode network </div> Bstone (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the current purpose of that channel? --Allemandtando (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC channel 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank, Lar! This is very useful indeed! Bstone (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: What happens in the following cases? 
# If I were such a suggested obmcom member, could I still reflect my opinion in Arbcom cases as an uninvolved party ?
# If I comment as an "uninvolved party" and the case comes before obmcom do I have have to "standdown temporarily"?
# What happens if the obmcom member IS an involved party in the arbcom case ?
# What happens if an obmcom member wants to try a case before the Obmcom ?
My opinion
# yes (but should avoid in order to remain as "neutral" as possible)
# no
# stand down for the particular case.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ObmCom member involved in Arbcom case? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  No way, this is not acceptable as a policy without  much broader consultation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

text:  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)
replies: text: Thank you for your mildly worded opinion on the manner. Bstone (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Now it's threats? What a way to start a day. Sheesh. Bstone (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Policy 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Lol, my prediction has already come true. - Merzbow (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where's the need? 

message: ...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)
thread_title:  Whilst trying to force the issue... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This proposal has been rejected 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A suggestion on moving forward 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  How this could work