On 7/29/07, Florence Devouard
<Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Greetings,
I got several requests about this, so this mail is mostly to get the
ball rolling. Nothing urgent !
Checkuser ombudsmen have been appointed now a year ago by the board.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Ombudsperson_checkuser
I guess it is time for a renewal and little feedback on this, and more
generally, on checkusers.
So, please reflect on the following points if appropriate
1. is there any change to the checkuser policy that you might wish to
suggest ? If so, please comment here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Checkuser (talk page)
I believe that the current Checkuser policy is adequate and explains rights
and responsibilities well.
3. are they inactive checkusers ? If so,
according to policy, they
should be removed. Can someone make a summary of activity, in the same
way that stewards activity perhaps ?
We should be reviewing inactive Checkusers
periodically
4. is there any change to the privacy policy that
you might wish to
suggest ? If so,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
(talk page)
Same as the Checkuser policy
5. is there any change to suggest about the
ombudsmen committee role ?
Clarifications ? If so, please here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_committee (talk page).
I would like to
request some clarification on our role as I am sure the
community at large wishes. Going by the number of complaints I feel that it
has only been recently that users have become aware of the ombudsman
committee, that said there is confusion over what it does. Do we only
investigate privacy issues or Checkuser policy violations as well? My
interpretation is that we are certainly empowered to deal with the first but
the second is unclear. At the moment I deal with the second as more of an
educatory role, liasing between CUs and the user involved.
6. last year, ombudsmen committee was appointed
by the board. Maybe this
year, we can do it differently, and have the community approve/vote
people and Foundation "sanctify" the community choice ? If so, how would
you suggest doing that ? Similar that steward election ? Or is there
another preferred solution ?
I am happy either way for this...
Cheers,
Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)
Ombudsmen committee member
As a reminder, current text of the resolution
The ombudsman commission will offer a sympathetic ear to those reporting
an abuse of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy on any of Wikimedia
project.
The ombudsman will take charge of investigating cases of privacy policy
breach or checkuser abuse for the board in an official manner. He will
mediate between the complainant and the respondant (checkuser, arbcom
member, bureaucrat or sysop). When legally necessary, the ombudsman will
assist the legal commmittee or the legal officer or the executive
director to handle the case.
When the case is litigious, the ombudsman will be in charge to educate
checkusers or others about the Foundation privacy policy.
When the privacy policy has been breached, the commission should report
to the Executive Director and recommand a course of action (such as
removal of checkuser status).
Additionaly, the commission might have a sort of "overview" over the way
the checkuser system works and should offer suggestions of suitable
modifications of policies or recommandations of software changes.
An Ombudsman's Investigation shall be conducted in a manner determined
by the Ombudsman and which will be fair and impartial .
I am not convinced it is entirely clear if the role is limited to
investigating abuse related to "privacy policy" or if it also includes
abuse related to misuse of the tool (eg, deciding to investigate a case
without ground).
ant