Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee/proposal

Take two

I've moved the first proposal to Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee/archive 1 given how the consensus was running and created a new suggestion for how ombcom could work. It's much less bureaucratic and in effect acts as a big third opinion, but in meta issues and as a committee, rather that one person making the suggesitons. Anyway, it's just a thought and I'd appreciate outside opinions. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How this could work

I think Bstone has had a good idea here, but I think he's taken it in completely the wrong direction for it to be useful. The way it currently stands, it's a little too bureaucratic for most peoples likings. I think a more informal approach could work well. The committee could self regulate who joins, with no set numbers and a simple nomination procedure similar to WP:MEDCOM where the current committee decides to support or oppose a candidate, with members of the community weighing in as well if they wish. Any user can ask them to take a look at situations and if the committee accepts, they could take a look at the whole situation and make recommendations about how things could done better and the underlying problems that caused the dispute to escalate. They don't just have to look at arbcom issues, they could look at things such as community bans, admin actions or request for comments. The way I see it is that they would act like a huge third opinion, but in meta-issues. Of course they would be non-binding, but they could give good advice for the future and how to handle similar situations. It would allow an outside body to look at the deep root of problems and hopefully everyone would be able to learn from their recommendations/findings. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds great on the surface, but don't active users concerned with meta issues already play that role? In community ban discussions, for instance, it seems to me that plenty of people weigh in, play devil's advocate, research, contribute. If an arbcom decision is unpopular, it is discussed and analyzed by the community. Why partition those discussions into Ombudsmen Committee / community? Darkspots (talk:) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but my idea behind that is that we often need a neutral group of people to look at the whole situation and make recommendations about how discussions should be closed, or if they've been conducted correctly. A group working together would give better advice that 20 users working alone, who are most probably involved in the dispute/discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need any more selfselecting elites to tell the community what they think. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to be interested in this but wikilawyers? why do we need a process for something any editor can do at any time? --Allemandtando (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between this and Wikipedia:Devolution, I'd go with Devolution. The latter has a clearcut structure, authority and scope. User:Mackensen was planning on putting this on WP:CENT, but I guess he hasn't got that far yet. I shall go nudge him. Risker (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I hadn't see that - it actually looks like a very good idea. Give Mackensen that nudge! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, doesn't the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements demonstrate the beginning of a form of devolution, especially as regards Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Appeals Review List? -- Avi (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a use for this...

... unlike the last proposal. But it really doesn't seem to be one worth the extra process. Besides the fact that I've never cared for MedCom's self-selection system, the primary uses I can see for this are determining consensus in large discussions like rollback or controversial RFCs. For relatively small discussions like community ban proposals, this would seem to be unnecessary. However, these large discussions are few and far between, I don't see why we need a special committee to handle them. As for other parts of the charter, I think the ArbCom part will suffer the same uselessness as the previous proposal (why do I want a toothless committee to tell me what my opinion is?). And for admin actions, existing forums such as DRV and AN seem to work fine in the vast majority of cases, why take the decision away from the community? Mr.Z-man 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move

On the grounds that there is clearly neither consensus nor appetite for this proposal or any that have preceded it, I suggest that this page is moved. There is considerable room for confusion between this page and m:Ombudsman commission and I think it would be sensible to clarify the distinction. I suggest, therefore, that Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee be moved to Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee/proposal and that Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee become a sort of disambiguation. It would probably say something like:

You may be looking for the inter-wiki ombudsman commission, whose purpose is to investigate violations of the privacy policy. See m:Ombudsman commission.

There have also been proposals in the past to establish an ombudsman on the English Wikipedia to investigate allegations of abused authority. See Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee/proposal.

The current situation is confusing and easily leads to misunderstanding of the inter-wiki body's remit. Hopefully this would reduce this confusion. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. -- Avi (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me as well. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good thing. I there is another proposal with a different focus, a link can be added to that disambiguation page. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea--can always be revisted if the situation changes. Darkspots (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Bstone (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]