Talk:Ombuds commission
Add topic | 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 Ombuds 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 or sections whose most recent comment is older than 60 days. |
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 60 days.
|
local CU policy
[edit]Dear commission,
when investigating and deciding a case, do you take local CU policies into account or consideration, or do you decide strictly on basis of the global policies? Isderion (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Isderion Thank you for that excellent question (which I'm responding to in my individual capacity, not as an official option from the Commission). The answer is "both". It's not often that some action is in compliance with the global policy but contrary to local policy, but it's certainly possible and we do look into that. We are also empowered to look at local CU (and OS) policies to ensure they themselves are in compliance with the global policy.
To use a rather fanciful example, a local CU policy might say "No checks may be run unless a panel of three local checkusers endorse running the check". That's a stricter requirement than the global policy, but a project would be within their rights to enact that locally and if they did, the OC would enforce it. On the other hand, if the local policy said "If three local checkusers agree, the results of a check may be disclosed publicly on the wiki", that would be an example of a local policy which was not in compliance with the global policy and the OC would (strongly) recommend that the local policy be changed. RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- @User:RoySmith: Thank you for your answer. I appreciate that you also look in local CU-policy violations, I wouldn't know who otherwise should be responsible.
- For the sake of clarity, however, I think this should be mentioned on Ombuds commission and in the replies that you give when you communicate decisions. Isderion (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, Isderion. I've now edited our front page, making clearer we won't consider complaints that a local policy has been violated, where the provision of local policy is not found in global policy. This wasn't a straightforward suggestion, as the local policy itself is within our scope as a meta question, and the distinction has to remain clear. The edit is here (still English only at the time of this comment). Arcticocean ■ 11:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- thank you, but isn't the change you made not in line what @RoySmith: wrote earlier? Isderion (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, Isderion. I've now edited our front page, making clearer we won't consider complaints that a local policy has been violated, where the provision of local policy is not found in global policy. This wasn't a straightforward suggestion, as the local policy itself is within our scope as a meta question, and the distinction has to remain clear. The edit is here (still English only at the time of this comment). Arcticocean ■ 11:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Ombuds Commission nomination process now open!
[edit]Learn more at Wikimedia Foundation/Legal/Committee appointments --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)