WP:Ombudsmen Committee Options

[theseoldshades]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ombudsmen_Committee

A proposal for a Committee to examine process irregularities in Arbcom decisions...but with no power to do anything other than offer 'opinions'.

It seems to be a bit of a toothless sop to calls for more regulation

[Giggy]

There was some discussion about this on IRC including a request for suggestions for better names for it (so as to not confuse it with the meta thing).

I've suggested Just-Accept-ArbCom's-Decisions-And-Go-Write-An-Article-Committee and Powerless Review Committee. Frankly, it's a stupid idea.

This post has been edited by Giggy: Fri 4th July 2008, 12:50am

[Bob Boy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ombudsmen_Committee

A proposal for a Committee to examine process irregularities in Arbcom decisions...but with no power to do anything other than offer 'opinions'.

It seems to be a bit of a toothless sop to calls for more regulation

Idiotic idea. We need an equivalent of the Supreme Court (or, if ArbCom is already the Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment).

[ThurstonHowell3rd]

On any controversial issue, the one thing Wikipedia is not short of is people expressing opinions. I don't see how Ombudsmen expressing more opinions is helpful.

[prospero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ombudsmen_Committee

A proposal for a Committee to examine process irregularities in Arbcom decisions...but with no power to do anything other than offer 'opinions'.

It seems to be a bit of a toothless sop to calls for more regulation

Idiotic idea. We need an equivalent of the Supreme Court (or, if ArbCom is already the Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment).

Yes! I'd go farther and say resurrect KarmaFist!'s ideas about governance reform.

[that one guy]

better than sitting around and doing nothing though if you ask me.

[Giggy]

That's not what's happening, though. People are doing stuff; criticising the ArbCom, taking it to RfC, etc. No need for another committee to do that for them.

[Kelly Martin]

That's not what's happening, though. People are doing stuff; criticising the ArbCom, taking it to RfC, etc. No need for another committee to do that for them.

It creates more badges for people to collect. That's about it.

[Proabivouac]

That's not what's happening, though. People are doing stuff; criticising the ArbCom, taking it to RfC, etc. No need for another committee to do that for them.

It creates more badges for people to collect. That's about it.

What is needed is a separation of powers, along the following lines: 1) content editors (in the real world sense of the term) 2) mediators/arbitrators 3) administrators (citzendium's "constables")/checkusers, with relative power in that order. Nobody can be a member of more than one.

[Jon Awbrey]

Idiotic idea. We need an equivalent of the Supreme Court (or, if ArbCom is already the Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment).

Wrong Model.

As a rule in the real world, a publication will not have a Chief Justice or a Commander in Chief. What it will have is an Editor.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Fri 4th July 2008, 2:01am

[Proabivouac]

As a rule in the real world, a publication will not have a Chief Justice or a Commander in Chief. What it will have is an Editor.

Bingo.

Ultimately, the way to check the administrators class is to marginalize them through the creation of overt content management, with officers selected for real-world expertise more than wiki-experience, to which administrators cannot belong.


It's probably no coincidence that overt content management is needed for a whole host of other reasons, including to make edit-wars, flame wars, ritualized character assassination, sockpuppetry etc. - things of the past.

Removing that crucial piece from the design has proven disasterous.

[GlassBeadGame]

As a rule in the real world, a publication will not have a Chief Justice or a Commander in Chief. What it will have is an Editor.

Bingo.

Ultimately, the way to check the administrators class is to marginalize them through the creation of overt content management, with officers selected for real-world expertise more than wiki-experience, to which administrators cannot belong.


It's probably no coincidence that overt content management is needed for a whole host of other reasons, including to make edit-wars, flame wars, ritualized character assassination, sockpuppetry etc. - things of the past.

Removing that crucial piece from the design has proven disasterous.

This would be a reform that might actually help.

[Rootology]

The one thing this can work on is if the Arbcom has zero power over the Ombudsmen people. If the Arbcom also has zero power in any way, shape, or form to hinder the Ombudsmen from publishing any unfavorable findings (that happen to come up) or in any way to limit what the Ombudsmen can look at or review, it could work.

If the Arbcom are unwilling to give up or share authority, and a vocal minority are unwilling to limit the Arbcom, then a group with the sanctioned unstoppable mandate and authority to review "classified" information (which the Ombudsmen would) and to publish unpleasant findings without the Arbcom being able to stop them, it could work.

No one wants to shamed in public for doing stupid things. Thats how this could work, potentially.

[guy]

So how do you get on the Ombudsmen Committee? Be an ex-ArbCom member? Be elected? Be appointed by Jimbo?

[Lar]

So how do you get on the Ombudsmen Committee? Be an ex-ArbCom member? Be elected? Be appointed by Jimbo?

The actual Ombudsmen (Mack, Hei-ber, Rebecca) were appointed by the board, I believe. I'm not sure of the exact process.

I think this wp:en thing would likely be by popular election but I confess I only skimmed this, there may be other proposals that are more favored.

[No one of consequence]

So how do you get on the Ombudsmen Committee? Be an ex-ArbCom member? Be elected? Be appointed by Jimbo?

The actual Ombudsmen (Mack, Hei-ber, Rebecca) were appointed by the board, I believe. I'm not sure of the exact process.

I think this wp:en thing would likely be by popular election but I confess I only skimmed this, there may be other proposals that are more favored.

Wrong ombudsmen. The we-hate-arbcom committee probably needs a different name. And Kelly is right about this being mostly about collecting badges.

[Moulton]

So is there or isn't there a functional Obmudsman Commission on the English Wikipedia?

[GlassBeadGame]

So is there or isn't there a functional Obmudsman Commission on the English Wikipedia?

I think they are talking about an entity that is created by the board of directors of WMF that is principally charged with making investigation about violations of the privacy policy. I remember how completely ineffectual they were when Slim's pal Jayjg disregarded the policy and disclosed private information about CharlotteWebb.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ombudsmen_Committee

A proposal for a Committee to examine process irregularities in Arbcom decisions...but with no power to do anything other than offer 'opinions'.

It seems to be a bit of a toothless sop to calls for more regulation

Many moons ago, I made a proposal called Wikipedia:Ombudsmen, which fell flat.

[GlassBeadGame]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ombudsmen_Committee

A proposal for a Committee to examine process irregularities in Arbcom decisions...but with no power to do anything other than offer 'opinions'.

It seems to be a bit of a toothless sop to calls for more regulation

Many moons ago, I made a proposal called Wikipedia:Ombudsmen, which fell flat.

When someone requests that a dispute be handled by a neutral outside third party it is usually a pretty good bet they are acting in good faith (ordinary meaning used here not the Wikipedian meaning). When the other side declines it usually means they believe they are more likely to prevail in the existing environment than one deliberately arranged to be fair.