Talk:Ombuds commission

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Information

We welcome speakers of all languages in this discussion. Please comment here in any language you wish; staff or other volunteers will translate your comments to English if possible.

This page is for discussions related to the ombudsman commission page and about the Commission itself.

Please remember to:

For older conversations you can see the archive index. SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 60 days.

Ombuds Commission
Wikimedia Ombudsmen logo.svg
Activity reports

Why do you require the exposure of personal information, in order to complain about invasion of privacy?[edit]

I am disappointed to find I am not able to report an issue to the Ombudsman without revealing my email address.

My complaint is relatively simple, at least as far as these issues presumably usually go. An en.wiki CheckUser, Materialscientist, performed an illegitimate "fishing" check, to justify a local block that he could not have otherwise made without invading my privacy, and two of his CheckUser colleagues, Jpgordon and Yunshui, prevented me appealing it on that basis by simply pretending not to even hear that aspect of the block appeal, and locking me out to prevent further appeals. The primary issue for the Ombudsman appears to be that they seem to believe invading my privacy was justified, not because there were grounds to suspect block evasion, which there was not (as per recently clarified advice from the local ArbCom about the local rules against use of the CheckUser tool for "fishing"), but because the illegitimate check showed a connection with a blocked account. They have also ignored local policy which requires more than just a technical match (from a legitimate check) to prove block evasion, but they seem to have gotten away with this precisely because their status as local CheckUsers seems to make other local users reluctant to investigate abuses, or worse, believe it is not even within their power, which should also obviously concern the Ombudsman. Overall, they seem happy to ignore anything unless it comes from a superior, and seem quite happy to even hold the rules laid down by their own ArbCom, their nominal managers in the first instance, in utter contempt. This is perhaps less relevant to the Ombudsman, save to refer it to the Foundation for corrective action.

While investigating the issue obviously involves confidential information, the reporting of the issue, and informing the community of the results of the investigation, does not.

BarryBoggside (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for raising this concern. We have opened an investigation (and did on 15 May 2020). We typically do not publicly post the results of an investigation, but we will discuss a mechanism for informing you of the result. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

A proposal has been presented to rename to "Ombuds commission". In my opinion this is perfectly reasonable and I support such a renaming. Anything I am missing or should consider before such a move? Also discussed here. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I support this proposal. "Ombuds commission" is the name how I refer to the OC in communications. —AronM🍂 edits🌾 00:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Link to the thread. Esteban16 (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Libcub (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support a rename to either "Ombuds commission" or "Ombudsperson commission". Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this is fine. More inclusive language is always better. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this proposal. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support logical Mardetanha talk 15:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The current Commission, or at least myself, have already been using Ombuds in our communications. I think we could rename this page as well. But action is required by the board to update the name of the group in resolutions, etc. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Why? "Ombudsman" is recognized as a gender-neutral term. And "ombudsperson" sounds silly. Natureium (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    The same way the use of "firefighter" instead of "fireman", and "police officer" instead of "policeman" have become the accepted terms in the spirit of inclusivity. Ombuds works fine if ombudsperson is too much of a mouthful. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The word "Ombudsman" -likewise, "Chairman"- lacks precision as it is not gender-neutral. For this reason, it makes sense for "Ombuds" to replace "Ombudsman" in the same way that "Chair" has replaced "Chairman". --Rosiestep (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Ombuds sounds good.--HakanIST (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Meh. Neither Ombudsman nor Ombuds are accurate to describe the tasks of this commission. While I can see the analogy between the IRL ombudsman and the tasks of this commission, it does not really fit IMHO. I suggest an entirely new name as suggested here. For example, the enwp body that used to investigate complaints about CU/OS use was called "Audit Subcommittee" until it was repealed and merged into the ArbCom instead. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with this; I've previously suggested Privacy Commission, but I don't think that's an explicit enough word choice either. Nonpublic Information Commission? Seems unwieldy. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    I agree as well. --MF-W 12:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    FYI NIC is used for the National Institute of Corrections. -- (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Privacy Policies Commission. A bit unwieldy, but more accurate than just “Privacy Commission” since OC can’t do stuff like suppress private information, etc. The plural is there to acknowledge the relationship of the CU/OS policy to the larger privacy policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the minor name change to Ombuds or Ombudsperson, and agree that a different name altogether might make sense. But I don't think that needs to stall making this common-sense change first. Legoktm (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: There is support from the board of the WMF to do this move to "ombuds commission". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe "integrity commission" or "integrity investigation". — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 17:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • With respect to secondary moves to a completely new title might make most sense to start a new section for this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Ombuds sounds perfect and logically make sense.--Rajeeb (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Is 'Ombuds' even a word? It doesn't seem to appear in any of the dictionaries I consulted, always 'Ombudsman'. --Vogone (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'm seeing 'ombud' in w:Ombudsman and wikt:ombud, so if the decision is to rely on an 'informal clipping' it should be 'Ombud commission' rather than plural 'Ombuds commission'. --Vogone (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Rosiestep's proposal. And as for @Vogone:'s above statement. "ombuds" is a plural, so the naming proposal makes sense: it's a commission of multiple ombuds. ミラP 01:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    It was Ombudsman Commission before, not Ombudsmen Commission. Nor would anyone have the idea to name it Ombudspersons Commission. These names are always in singular. --Vogone (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)