Talk:Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

message: Thanks for the Chipperfield cite, Mucky Duck. Hansard is a wonderful thing! :-) Tom Harris 10:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: You make it sound like an eternal mystery. Of course this number is "known". The LGO keeps staff records; and if there was any commitment to openness and transparency this number would be published. Mucky Duck 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we might be talking about different things. Of course they could work it out by trawling their records. We (the public) certainly don't know, though, and it's quite possible nobody at the LGO does off-hand, either - they may well never have bothered to check, as there's no reason to unless you're going to release it to the public. I'm happier with the new wording than the old, anyway, so thanks for the edit. Tom Harris 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of staff Recruited from Local Government 

message: A number of problems with the external links:
*there are too many. Four anti-LGO links is far too much. One might be suitable.
*they are highly biased. Although three of them are titled with the neutral-sounding word "Watch", the opening sentence of one reveals its true purpose: "The objective of Local Government Ombudsman Watch is to motivate others into campaigning for the abolition of the LGO...". The fourth, the blogspot site, is horrendously one-sided and not worthy of inclusion at all.
*none of them are remotely representative. There is no significant minority view that the LGO is the spawn of the devil, or whatever it is that these sites are trying to imply.
In short, they are in breach of part of our guideline on external links, and also part of that on undue weight. Although we should make an attempt to include all points of view, these are so minority-based and extreme that they simply are not worthy of inclusion at all, and I suggest they are removed. ninety:one   19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at the ombudsmanwatch website and it make no such claim as "the LGO is the spawn of the devil" and to suggest it does is highly disingenuous. It also makes clear that it is a campaigning website - there is no attempt to hide that - but it also presents significant amounts of evidence about the LGO. I agree that it is unnecessary, counter-productive even, to provide all of these links but neither should we be suppressing criticism or disparaging the critics. Bagunceiro (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I just removed all of those links after they were re-added.  We do not achieve neutrality by having links from opposing sides; rather, if there are verifiable criticisms found in reliable sources, those belong in the actual text.  It is explicitly not allowed to link to highly partisan sides (except, say, to the official web page of a highly partisan subject).  For example, we provide the link to the Westboro Baptist Church homepage on Westboro Baptist Church, but not on pages about homosexuality, funerals, etc.  Those EL cannot be in this article.  The two in the article are acceptable as they are official government links--one the link to the main ombudsman homepage, and another to a report on them.  If Bagunceiro disagrees, I recommend asking at the External Links noticeboard for input. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you feel the need to personalise this. Bagunceiro (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't mean anything bad. I just meant that "any editor who wants to add the links" should try WP:ELN; since you're the only editor I see trying to add them, that's why I referred to you by name.  But I didn't mean anything bad by it; rather, I was giving advice for how to proceed if you think that Ninetyone and I are wrong.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I should add that I am not "the only editor trying to add them" - I am not trying to do anything of the sort, I was restoring them after they were removed without adequate explanation. Bagunceiro (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (I was unsurprisingly not actually stating that any of the websites imply that the LGO is the spawn of the devil; rather it is disingenuous for you to suggest that I was so stating because I was clearly using it as a metaphorical device. Anyway, enough of that and apologies if it was confusing.) The links were removed with the explanation "rm wholly inappropriate links", which is adequate enough given how they are in flagrant breach of our guidelines - I have no objection to giving a further explanation as to why they were removed, but to say I first did so "without adequate explanation" is I think a little unfair. Bu anyway, yes, I agree with what Qwyrxian said. ninety:one   13:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Pursuant to Ticket:2011022110005743, some of the information in this article has been updated and some blogs that do not clear WP:IRS and WP:BLP have been removed. Accusations regarding the behaviors of living people must be scrupulously sourced. While it is an important function of articles to note what criticism has been documented in reliable sources (as long as they are clearly attributed and not presented as fact), we have to make sure that the content strictly adheres to WP:V and WP:NPOV. While specific complaints have been evaluated, it looks as though the rest of the article could do with a good cleaning. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tackle it later today as long as nothing else pressing comes up.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and reliable sources

message: As I make changes to the article, I'll provide comments on some of them here so that the can be reviewed by other editors, especially when I remove text that may be reference-able by others. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made that need input

message: This article needs a warning about the heavy bias introduced by only permitting the LGO's own self promotional material ("reliable" (sic)) and excluding the first hand experiences of their victims ("unreliable" (sic)). Adding this warning is not vandalism and it is extremely offensive to suggest that it is. Suppressing criticism is not helpful to an informed article. 194.202.213.254 (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources that meet our reliable sources guideline (which you can read at WP:RS) which should be added to the article. Note that self-published advocacy website, web forums, personal letters/opinions, etc., do not meet this criteria.  You need things like newspaper articles (though not from gossip rags), books printed by reliable publishers, articles in scholarly journals, etc.  Don't worry if you don't know how to format the information; just put it here and I will be happy to help.  Wikipedia has absolutely no problem with including criticism of article subjects so long as that criticism is reliable, properly attributed, and meets our other policies (like WP:DUE). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no more reliable source than the first hand experience of victims. The sources you have removed and claim as unreliable are exactly that (and, incidentally, nothing to do with me despite your suggestion.) On the other hand the source that you claim as "reliable" - the LGO itself - very clearly IS a "self-published advocacy website". The article needs a health warning because this interpretation of policy makes it heavily biased. And when adding this health warning I was careful to include your rationale for the censorship. 194.202.213.254 (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works.  We don't include "first hand experiences", unless they've been published in reliable sources. Note that the LGO itself is only being used to cover factual information, not to express opinions about its quality or effectiveness.  As for a "health warning", such warnings aren't allowed.  I'm going to add the closest equivalent, which is an NPOV warning.  If, though, in the next week, you don't produce a reliable source supporting your position, I'll remove it.  If you want to rant to the world about how bad you think the LGO is, start your own website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with policies and guidelines that require that information come only from reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Whoops, I forgot there's already an NPOV tag on the article, at the very top. Well, like I said, if no sources are forthcoming that dispute the neutrality of the discussion, I'll remove it in about a week. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vandalism" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Local government ombudsman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060529184331/http://www.yourrights.org.uk:80/your-rights/chapters/how-to-get-redress/local-government/local-government.shtml to http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/how-to-get-redress/local-government/local-government.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051226191759/http://www.lgo.org.uk:80/pdf/annual-report-2004-05.pdf to http://www.lgo.org.uk/pdf/annual-report-2004-05.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060908150558/http://www.planningportal.gov.uk:80/england/professionals/en/1115314018487.html to http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115314018487.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Local government ombudsman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lgo.org.uk/pdf/annual-report-2004-05.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Local government ombudsman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810050623/http://www.lgo.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do to http://www.lgo.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110407161526/http://www.lgo.org.uk/training-councils/ to http://www.lgo.org.uk/training-councils/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928065855/http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAxADMANgB8AHwAVAByAHUAZQB8AHwAMAB8AA2 to http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAxADMANgB8AHwAVAByAHUAZQB8AHwAMAB8AA2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified