Talk:Ombuds commission/Archives/2020

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

Announcing the 2020 Ombuds Commission

The application period for new commissioners for 2020 recently closed. The Wikimedia Foundation is extremely grateful to the many experienced and insightful volunteers who offered to assist with this work.

As with last year, this year’s OC will consist of eight members, with a two-member advisory team who will guide the new commission and also, if necessary, fill in in the event that the OC is unable to act due to incapacity or recusal.

I am pleased to announce the composition of the 2020 OC:

Extended content
user:Ajraddatz

Ajraddatz has been an active user on Wikimedia since 2010, and has served in various roles of community trust in that time, including as a Wikidata Oversighter since 2013, a steward since 2014, and a Meta CheckUser since 2015.

user:Emufarmers

Emufarmers has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2005. He is a Metapedian who primarily edits the English Wikipedia; he is also a bureaucrat and sysop on MediaWiki.org, and has provided software support to many third-party, non-Wikimedia wikis over the years. He has served as an OTRS administrator since 2015. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2019.

user:DeltaQuad

Amanda has been editing Wikipedia since 2009, when she made her first edits to English Wikipedia. She has served many roles in the past including being a sysop, holding advanced permissions and serving on an Arbitration Committee for 4 years. Her work now focuses on the Ombudsmen Commission and the re-development of a Global Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS).

user:Kelapstick

Kelapstick has been a Wikimedian since 2006. He is primarily active on English Wikipedia, where he is an Admin and former Oversighter and was an Arbitrator between 2016 and 2018.

user:Taketa

Taketa has been a Wikimedian since 2008 and has held a number of positions in his time here, including Administrator and Bureaucrat on the Dutch Wikipedia, Arbitrator on Dutch Wikipedia, Administrator on Wikidata, Steward, and member of the Ombuds Commission. He has created about 7000 new articles in several language Wikipedias. He currently serves on the board of Wikimedia Belgium.

user:Teles

Lucas became a Wikipedian in 2007 and started to engage with CheckUser rights in 2009, when he became a local CU on the Portuguese Wikipedia. He held both Oversight and Checkuser rights on Ptwiki between 2015 and 2017, when his term with the rights expired. He is currently an administrator on Commons and Ptwiki. His traditional main focus has been on anti-vandalism work. In 2012, the global community elected him as a steward, a position he has held since. He served on the Ombuds Commission for 2018.

user:Uzoma Ozurumba

Uzoma Ozurumba has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2017. She contributes primarily to Meta, Commons, and the Igbo Wiktionary, of which she is a founder. She is a co-founder of the Igbo Wikimedians User Group and serves as a Strategy Liaison for that group.

user:Wikilover90

Rupika has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2014. A free knowledge advocate, she edits primarily on Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata and is administrator on Punjabi Wikisource. She organizes events such as Wiki Loves Folklore and Wiki Loves Women. She has been supporting in activating the Open Movement in North India via various Open GLAM initiatives such as Heritage GLAM. She has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2019.

The 2020 OC’s advisors are:

Extended content
user:Elmacenderesi

Elmacenderesi has been working on Wikimedia projects since 2007, primarily on the Turkish Wikipedia. There, he has been a CheckUser and a Bureaucrat since 2008 and an Oversighter since 2011. He is also a member of Wikimedia OTRS and serves as a global outreach coordinator, working with academic institutions and GLAMs, for The Wikipedia Library. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2018.

user:Galahad

Carlos, currently editing as user:Galahad, has been contributing to Wikimedia Projects since 2009. He is a member of Wikimedia Venezuela and Wikimedistas de Perú User Group. He primarily contributes to Spanish-language projects including Spanish Wikipedia and Spanish Wikivoyage. He has been an administrator and bureaucrat of Spanish Wikivoyage since 2013. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2019.

Their willingness to remain, to bring their familiarity with processes and their experience to the new arrivals, is greatly appreciated!

Please join me in thanking the following volunteers who are leaving OC, who have given substantially of their time to serve the commission:

Extended content
user:Dyolf77

Habib started editing in 2010 and has been heavily engaged in community affairs, both onwiki and as part of user groups, for years. A native of Tunisia, he has been a free-culture advocate on a wide range of issues in and beyond the movement. Onwiki, you can mainly find him helping out on Commons, where he is a sysop, as well as the Arabic and French language editions of Wikipedia. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2018.

user:EVinente

Edilson has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2013. He is primarily active on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where he is a checkuser, oversighter, and administrator. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2019.

user:Jamie Tubers

Sam, who edits as Jamie Tubers, joined the English language Wikipedia community in 2011 and has over the years expanded his activities into a wide range of movement activities including co-founding the Wikimedia user group Nigeria and helping to organize events like Wiki Loves Africa and Wiki Loves Women. He is dedicated to correcting our content gaps and biases related to Africa and raising awareness of the projects on the continent. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2018.

user:Krd

Krd, who is primarily active on German Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and also serves at the Volunteer Response Team as an agent and OTRS admin, and was a member of the German Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2017.

I'd also like to say a big thank you to those returning and those coming aboard for the first time, as well as to all those applied. Again, it was an extremely able group of volunteers, and while this mix of users may best serve the need for this year, I hope that those who applied will consider applying again for future commissions. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the 2020 Ombuds Commission

The Wikimedia Foundation would like to thank user:Kelapstick for their service on the Ombuds Commission. Unfortunately, Kelapstick has had to step back from this role; in their place, and in consultation with the rest of the Ombuds Commission, the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed user:AGK. AGK will serve for the remainder of this OC's term, through the end of January 2021. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Ombudsman commission/2019/Report Oct-Dec

The report says that there are 7 cases that are over 1 year old. How does this happen? --Rschen7754 04:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

After being logged and acknowledged, matters tend to stall unless at least one member investigates the facts and summarises them. In those cases that has not happened. AGK ■ 11:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Does this mean that the commission does not have many members who are interested in investigating the actual cases? --MF-W 22:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You are asking, and we are talking, about the OC's activity in October–December last year. At that time I was not a member and so I cannot really answer your question. I can only comment on the activities of the OC from April 2020 and onwards. AGK ■ 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, I see! --MF-W 16:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Note that Ombudsman commission/2020/Report Jan-Mar says there are 9 cases over a year old at the end of March --DannyS712 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
In the time since joining the OC, I have been working with colleagues to make headway on the older cases. Without wanting to overpromise, I think that the next activity report will indicate a turnaround. AGK ■ 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

2021 Ombuds Commission nomination process now open!

Hi everyone! It's coming close to time for annual appointments of community members to serve on the Ombudsman commission (OC). This commission works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of CheckUser and Oversight tools, and to mediate between the complaining party and the individual whose work is being investigated. They may also assist the General Counsel, the Executive Director or the Board of Trustees in investigations of these issues. For more on their duties and roles, see Ombuds commission.

This is a call for community members interested in volunteering for appointment to this commission. Volunteers serving in this role should be experienced Wikimedians, active on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tools OR who have the technical ability to understand these tools and the willingness to learn them. They are expected to be able to engage neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when other roles and relationships may cause conflict.

Commissioners are required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation and must be willing to comply with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation board policies (such as the access to non-public data policy and the privacy policy). This is a position that requires a high degree of discretion and trust.

If you are interested in serving on this commission, please write me an email at kbrown@wikimedia.org to detail your experience on the projects, your thoughts on the commission and what you hope to bring to the role. The commission consists of ten members; all applications are appreciated and will be carefully considered. The deadline for applications is end of day on 31 December, 2020.

Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think may be qualified and interested. Thank you! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kbrown (WMF): You noted that the deadline is precisely the end of the day, but didn’t mention the time zone. Is it UTC? PST? Maybe something else? Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tacsipacsi: To be honest, I don't really pay attention to the time zones for this. I'm in the US, which means most people's day is well over by the time mine ends, and I allow a little bit of grace period for applications exactly because I know time zones are a thing. So basically I'd say aim for whenever the end of the day is in your own time zone, but don't worry too much that you'll be disqualified over a few hours' difference. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): In this case I’d probably write something like “Applications are accepted on or before December 31”. This keeps the uncertainty you need without being overly specific. (Although this is merely for future reference, as there’s no need to rephrase your above comment, everything’s clear from the replies.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Naming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The proposal was successful. The metawiki pages have been renamed, as has the user group. I have sent the following message to my Commission colleagues:
Dear members, Just a heads-up that we have renamed from Ombudsmen Commission, and we are now the Ombuds Commission. The community held a vote on the issue at Meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ombuds_commission> in which no members objected. It was a well-attended vote, left open for some time. The new name is regarded as being less exclusionary, not least in terms of gender. The old name adopted the word "men" in referring to members, of course. I just wanted to ensure that all members know about our new name.
Further comments may still be made underneath the archive box. AGK ■ 17:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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)
    Oppose Ombudsman is a term taken from Swedish and is gender-neutral in that language. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:35, 16 July 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The -s is the Swedish genitive.

(ON umboð = "commission")
the ombuds commission = the "of the commission commission" (or "commission of the commission", since really the space is extraneous). :)

As suggested in the phabricator thread, "mediator" is a better word, since everyone knows what it means. The faux posh circularity is kind of fun, though. SashiRolls (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Activity reports

Do we have any activity reports since March? --Rschen7754 01:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

14 cases left, 4 with motions to close in progress. If AGK doesn't make some sooner I'll probably do reports for the end of the term in Dec/Jan. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Email awaiting moderator approval

Hi. I've sent an email with a claim and immediately I received a message telling it's awaiting moderator approval to be posted in the list. I've not yet been notified about the receival of the email by the group nor it's admission or not as a new case. I ask for any information you could have. Thanks in advance. Millennium bug (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@AGK, Ajraddatz, AmandaNP, Elmacenderesi, Emufarmers, Galahad, Taketa, Teles, Uzoma Ozurumba, and Wikilover90: Could one of you answer me? Thanks a lot! Millennium bug (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Millennium bug: pings are not working without sign,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. :@AGK, Ajraddatz, AmandaNP, Elmacenderesi, Emufarmers, Galahad, Taketa, Teles, Uzoma Ozurumba, and Wikilover90: Could one of you answer me? Thanks a lot! Millennium bug (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, we recieved your mail 6 days ago and it's already been passed on to the list. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Millennium bug (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MrJaroslavik (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)