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:

The 2020 OC’s advisors are:

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:

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)