Hi to all!
I'd just like to let you know that I have proposed the structure of a Wikipedia Ombudsman, that would deal with any complaints leading from admin action and ArbCom cases. I think in recent times there has been a significant growth in the number of users who have either left the project or felt very badly treated due to administrator actions and ArbCom rulings. I'm not trying to blame either the administrator function - I'm an admin myself - or the ArbCom; however, I think an Ombudsman is necessary to deal in an effective and fair way with all of the complaints. To compound this, I think the transparency and accountability of some admin and ArbCom actions is quite unacceptable, IMO. The Ombudsman structure would seek to redress this in a neutral and fair way, to ensure more decentralisation and stability for the community (remember: alienation breeds conflict).
So, please take a read of the Ombudsman proposal, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ombudsman
Please make any comments on the talk page and feel free to add any main points to the project page.
Thanks,
Ronline 2006. Hea energia aasta.
"Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)" wrote
I'd just like to let you know that I have proposed the structure of a
Wikipedia Ombudsman, that would deal with any complaints leading from admin action and ArbCom cases.
Might be the way to go. Obvious issues - how to stop this being an appellate court by another name (the legalism of the English Wikipedia is becoming quite frantic); workload; and finding anyone suitable willing to act.
Charles
On 1/7/06, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) rowikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi to all!
I'd just like to let you know that I have proposed the structure of a Wikipedia Ombudsman, that would deal with any complaints leading from admin action and ArbCom cases. I think in recent times there has been a significant growth in the number of users who have either left the project or felt very badly treated due to administrator actions and ArbCom rulings. I'm not trying to blame either the administrator function - I'm an admin myself - or the ArbCom; however, I think an Ombudsman is necessary to deal in an effective and fair way with all of the complaints. To compound this, I think the transparency and accountability of some admin and ArbCom actions is quite unacceptable, IMO. The Ombudsman structure would seek to redress this in a neutral and fair way, to ensure more decentralisation and stability for the community (remember: alienation breeds conflict).
So, please take a read of the Ombudsman proposal, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ombudsman
Please make any comments on the talk page and feel free to add any main points to the project page.
Thanks,
Ronline 2006. Hea energia aasta. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I like this idea, but this sounds more to me like a PR spindoctor for the ArbCom than anything else. I don't know if we need more officials right now, we're already pretty sticky in the beauracracy.
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
I'd just like to let you know that I have proposed the structure of a Wikipedia Ombudsman, that would deal with any complaints leading from admin action and ArbCom cases.
What happens when people complain about the Ombudsman?
I think we should be avoiding bureacracy creep.
Cheers,
N.
Honestly sounds like an attempt to subsume or parallel functions that already rest with Jimbo Wales. I also have serious concerns about adding yet more bureaucratic positions to Wikipedia.
"Tony Sidaway" wrote
Honestly sounds like an attempt to subsume or parallel functions that
already rest with Jimbo Wales.
Well, yes, Jimbo would now have the power to review what the ArbCom does (as nobody can deny). He is de facto the Ombudsman around the English Wikipedia. If he wanted to devolve some responsibility to a trusted person, that would sound OK to me. It's not as if Jimbo has no further calls on his time, and can put hours into reviewing diffs without any impact on those other matters.
I also have serious concerns about
adding yet more bureaucratic positions to Wikipedia.
Ah, but your bureaucrat may be my useful and committed person taking some of the strain of matching WP's ideal and practice. And vice versa, I suppose.
Charles
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
Honestly sounds like an attempt to subsume or parallel functions that already rest with Jimbo Wales. I also have serious concerns about adding yet more bureaucratic positions to Wikipedia.
So you wouldn't be happy to volunteer for the position and take some of the workload off Jimbo?
Peter, not sticking his hand up, neither
On 1/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
So you wouldn't be happy to volunteer for the position and take some of the workload off Jimbo?
The main trouble is that Jimbo does have some kind of monarchical authority, that no appointed ombudsman could have. Especially as the community would demand an election.
-- Sam
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn
On 1/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
So you wouldn't be happy to volunteer for the position and
take some
of the workload off Jimbo?
The main trouble is that Jimbo does have some kind of monarchical authority, that no appointed ombudsman could have. Especially as the community would demand an election.
So you wouldn't be happy to volunteer for the position and take some of the workload off Jimbo?
Pete, now even more curious
On 1/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
So you wouldn't be happy to volunteer for the position and take some of the workload off Jimbo?
Take some of the workload off Jimbo, yes. Take the crap that would come with the position, no.
-- Sam
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn Sent: Monday, 9 January 2006 10:45 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Wikipedia Ombudsman
On 1/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
So you wouldn't be happy to volunteer for the position and
take some
of the workload off Jimbo?
Take some of the workload off Jimbo, yes. Take the crap that would come with the position, no.
<grin> good point!</grin>
Food for thought, though. Just how much crap does Jimbo get, just for being who he is? My guess is that it's a lot.
Peter
I like this idea, but this sounds more to me like a PR spindoctor for the ArbCom than anything else. I don't know if we need more officials right now, we're already pretty sticky in the beauracracy.
The Ombudsman should actually be quite "ArbCom sceptic" if you know what I mean - he or she should in no way succumb to the ArbCom interests, since the whole point of an Ombudsman is to act as a structure of appeal and review for the ArbCom and to a lesser extent admins.
As to bureaucracy - I agree that the Ombudsman's role is already carried out to an extent by Jimbo. However, I presume Jimbo is already overloaded with work, and that he simply doesn't have the time to investigate and report on cases in depth. It is pretty unreasonable to expect him to be an ombudsman and last-step-of-appeals person, and do all of the other work he does in terms of the Wikimedia Foundation, and promotion, etc.
I guess many people would like to take on the function of the ombudsman, at least those of us who are committed to justice on Wikipedia in the light of recent admin and ArbCom action.
Food for thought, though. Just how much crap does Jimbo get, just for being
who he is? My guess is that it's a lot.
Yes, I suppose it's a lot. That's why I don't think he should deal with cases that sometimes may seem quite trivial in the greater scheme of Wikipedia, but may be very important to particular users or the community.
Ronline
Actually I think you kind of have this backwards. Usually an appeal is from a decision made by a specialized group to a larger group which represents broader community opinion. You have an appeal from a pretty large group to one person. How about appeals being to the administrators as a group? If there really is a consensus perhaps some way could be found to express it.
Fred
On Jan 8, 2006, at 10:23 PM, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
I like this idea, but this sounds more to me like a PR spindoctor for the ArbCom than anything else. I don't know if we need more officials right now, we're already pretty sticky in the beauracracy.
The Ombudsman should actually be quite "ArbCom sceptic" if you know what I mean - he or she should in no way succumb to the ArbCom interests, since the whole point of an Ombudsman is to act as a structure of appeal and review for the ArbCom and to a lesser extent admins.
As to bureaucracy - I agree that the Ombudsman's role is already carried out to an extent by Jimbo. However, I presume Jimbo is already overloaded with work, and that he simply doesn't have the time to investigate and report on cases in depth. It is pretty unreasonable to expect him to be an ombudsman and last-step-of-appeals person, and do all of the other work he does in terms of the Wikimedia Foundation, and promotion, etc.
I guess many people would like to take on the function of the ombudsman, at least those of us who are committed to justice on Wikipedia in the light of recent admin and ArbCom action.
Food for thought, though. Just how much crap does Jimbo get, just for being
who he is? My guess is that it's a lot.
Yes, I suppose it's a lot. That's why I don't think he should deal with cases that sometimes may seem quite trivial in the greater scheme of Wikipedia, but may be very important to particular users or the community.
Ronline _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder Sent: Monday, 9 January 2006 17:06 To: English Wikipedia Cc: Fred Bauder Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Wikipedia Ombudsman
Actually I think you kind of have this backwards. Usually an appeal is from a decision made by a specialized group to a larger group which represents broader community opinion. You have an appeal from a pretty large group to one person. How about appeals being to the administrators as a group? If there really is a consensus perhaps some way could be found to express it.
An [[ombudsman]] isn't a judge or a government bureaucrat. An ombudsman is independent, not part of some appeals process or another knot of red tape. Nor do they have any special powers. Instead the function of an ombudsman is to investigate complaints and facilitate redress through existing channels.
Peter (Skyring)
True, but he has it set up more as an appeals court. A ombudsman in the sense you set forth would be welcome. I wouldn't mind at all someone dropping me a note, saying "Hey, cool it, you're getting carried away [with whatever]." We all need feedback. We don't need a second-guessing czar. Things are hard enough the first time.
Fred
On Jan 8, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder Sent: Monday, 9 January 2006 17:06 To: English Wikipedia Cc: Fred Bauder Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The Wikipedia Ombudsman
Actually I think you kind of have this backwards. Usually an appeal is from a decision made by a specialized group to a larger group which represents broader community opinion. You have an appeal from a pretty large group to one person. How about appeals being to the administrators as a group? If there really is a consensus perhaps some way could be found to express it.
An [[ombudsman]] isn't a judge or a government bureaucrat. An ombudsman is independent, not part of some appeals process or another knot of red tape. Nor do they have any special powers. Instead the function of an ombudsman is to investigate complaints and facilitate redress through existing channels.
Peter (Skyring)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/9/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
True, but he has it set up more as an appeals court. A ombudsman in the sense you set forth would be welcome. I wouldn't mind at all someone dropping me a note, saying "Hey, cool it, you're getting carried away [with whatever]." We all need feedback. We don't need a second-guessing czar. Things are hard enough the first time.
As happened with the first jguk case, I think the community already performs that role adequately.
-- Sam
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder
True, but he has it set up more as an appeals court. A ombudsman in the sense you set forth would be welcome. I wouldn't mind at all someone dropping me a note, saying "Hey, cool it, you're getting carried away [with whatever]." We all need feedback. We don't need a second-guessing czar. Things are hard enough the first time.
OK, I didn't read the proposal. I don't think we need an appeals court that isn't Jimbo. Not just yet, anyway. But I'd like to see an independent person, possibly with a staff of helpers, review cases of perceived injustice.
I'm not going to bring up old meals again, but I could certainly have used someone like that a few months ago.
However, I don't think that there's much point in having an ombudsman, because the community would want to elect him or her, and the end result would be that the community would elect exactly the same sort of person that they had elected to the ArbCom, resulting in an unsurprising groupthink.
I've just cast my eye over the voting process for the ArbCom and I have got to say that it sucks. Every editor gets multiple votes, because they can support or oppose every single candidate. That's like a single voter being able to vote twice over in every voting district in the country. The end result will be a remarkably uniformly thinking ArbCom that has the support of a majority, while the minority will find that their views are unrepresented.
To put it in party political terms, this is like having a Republican elected in every single voting district (supposing the country to have a majority of Republican voters), because any local differences will be smoothed out.
While I realise that WP is not a democracy, and we aren't quite at the stage of organised factions or political parties, I cannot view such an situation as leading to tranquility and stability.
Peter (Skyring)
I liked that as I was able to vote for a number of people, including some that have no chance at all of being elected. If we could only vote for a few people I would then have to engage in grim calculations, trying to be very careful when I really don't know all those people very well. I think I would probably make some mistaken votes in those circumstances and then have to live with them. Using this approach I was able to vote for a wide variety of candidates including some whose views differ from mine.
The thing is, the questions that we really have about arbitrators can't be answered abstractly. You know something when you see them in action in that role. It is very difficult to predict. Almost everyone who ran might be a good arbitrator. Or might be a good arbitrator for two weeks then we have to beg them to look at cases. One thing I did consider very negative, lengthy and wordy responses to questions. I can't stand written or oral filibusters.
Fred
On Jan 9, 2006, at 6:21 AM, Peter Mackay wrote:
I've just cast my eye over the voting process for the ArbCom and I have got to say that it sucks. Every editor gets multiple votes, because they can support or oppose every single candidate. That's like a single voter being able to vote twice over in every voting district in the country. The end result will be a remarkably uniformly thinking ArbCom that has the support of a majority, while the minority will find that their views are unrepresented.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder
I liked that as I was able to vote for a number of people, including some that have no chance at all of being elected. If we could only vote for a few people I would then have to engage in grim calculations, trying to be very careful when I really don't know all those people very well. I think I would probably make some mistaken votes in those circumstances and then have to live with them. Using this approach I was able to vote for a wide variety of candidates including some whose views differ from mine.
I spotted that and it outweighed some of the negative feelings I've had about you. It was very kind and thoughtful, and I would not have expected that from you.
The fact remains that the voting system is flawed and easily manipulated. I'm seeing editors advertising on their user pages which candidates they support or oppose, and you can then check on the voting pages which way they voted. The "factional" vote is easily determined, and because the vote is public, votes can, in effect, be bought and sold. Not for money (though that would be possible), but in political terms of deals done and favours exchanged.
The way the system is set up, this will inevitably lead, barring some sort of revolt, to cronyism and concentration of power in the hands of those best at gaming the system.
Let me put it another way. The term "Gerrymander" refers to the drawing of boundaries of voting districts to favour one side (typically those already in power). Even if an overall electorate is split 50:50, clever drawing of boundaries can result in concentrating supporters for Party B in a small number of voting districts, so that Party B will overwhelmingly win those districts with margins of 90% or so, leaving Party A to scoop up the large number of remaining voting districts with majorities of (say) 55% - because most of their opponents have been concentrated elsewhere.
The Roman Republic had a similar deal, where voters were divided into urban and rural "tribes". Urban tribes were vast in numbers, so each individual vote was of small value, but the smaller rural tribes gave each voter a much larger say. At the end of the day the *overall* votes of tribes were tallied, much like an electoral college system where each State returns just one delegate instead of a several based on population, and surprise, surprise, the rural tribes usually ended up supporting the winning candidate.
The system of ArbCom voting is one big gerrymander, with the difference being that Party B cannot win a single district. Not unless they can somehow mobilise enough voters to gain an overall majority, in which case they will win every single contest.
As I say, so far WP has not progressed to overt parties or factions, so there is no formal mechanism in place, but the evidence of informal manipulation is easily seen.
The thing is, the questions that we really have about arbitrators can't be answered abstractly. You know something when you see them in action in that role. It is very difficult to predict. Almost everyone who ran might be a good arbitrator. Or might be a good arbitrator for two weeks then we have to beg them to look at cases. One thing I did consider very negative, lengthy and wordy responses to questions. I can't stand written or oral filibusters.
That's command of language rather than judicial ability, IMHO. If someone can summarise a situation in a completely wrong fashion, then that's a big strike against them as a magistrate. And incidentally, the source of my negative feelings toward you, dating back to my own case.
WP doesn't (yet) have a system of junior magistrates, unless you stretch the role of an admin well beyond the "mop and bucket" role, so it is difficult to say how someone will perform in an ArbCom position.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/9/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
While I realise that WP is not a democracy, and we aren't quite at the stage of organised factions or political parties, I cannot view such an situation as leading to tranquility and stability.
That eventuality is my greatest fear for Wikipedia. If it were to happen, I think Jimbo/Board would need to take drastic action. I hope it isn't necessary.
-- Sam
"Fred Bauder" wrote
Actually I think you kind of have this backwards. Usually an appeal is from a decision made by a specialized group to a larger group which represents broader community opinion. You have an appeal from a pretty large group to one person. How about appeals being to the administrators as a group? If there really is a consensus perhaps some way could be found to express it.
Looking at the section at [[Ombudsman]] on how the UK Parliamentary Commissioner works, in WP terms it would be something like this:
- investigation of 'unfairness' - all applications must come through an admin - no remedies offered, just the publication of a report.
Charles
If someone with substantial authority is selected for this position, such a report will be, in effect, a decision.
Fred
On Jan 9, 2006, at 4:23 AM, charles matthews wrote:
"Fred Bauder" wrote
Actually I think you kind of have this backwards. Usually an appeal is from a decision made by a specialized group to a larger group which represents broader community opinion. You have an appeal from a pretty large group to one person. How about appeals being to the administrators as a group? If there really is a consensus perhaps some way could be found to express it.
Looking at the section at [[Ombudsman]] on how the UK Parliamentary Commissioner works, in WP terms it would be something like this:
- investigation of 'unfairness'
- all applications must come through an admin
- no remedies offered, just the publication of a report.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Actually I think you kind of have this backwards. Usually an appeal is from a decision made by a specialized group to a larger group which represents broader community opinion. You have an appeal from a pretty large group to one person. How about appeals being to the administrators as a group? If there really is a consensus perhaps some way could be found to express it.
To 700 admins?????
Ec
Yes, rather like an appeal to the House of Lords. The administrators would need to work out who among them has clout in such a case. There would be a protected page only administrators could edit.
Fred
On Jan 9, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Actually I think you kind of have this backwards. Usually an appeal is from a decision made by a specialized group to a larger group which represents broader community opinion. You have an appeal from a pretty large group to one person. How about appeals being to the administrators as a group? If there really is a consensus perhaps some way could be found to express it.
To 700 admins?????
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
I guess many people would like to take on the function of the ombudsman, at least those of us who are committed to justice on Wikipedia in the light of recent admin and ArbCom action.
Those who would most want the job may ipso facto not be the best for the job.
Food for thought, though. Just how much crap does Jimbo get, just for being
who he is? My guess is that it's a lot.
Yes, I suppose it's a lot. That's why I don't think he should deal with cases that sometimes may seem quite trivial in the greater scheme of Wikipedia, but may be very important to particular users or the community.
I would expect that a lot of that would be from outsiders who send him private e-mails.
For insiders Jimbo would probably need a boilerplate response like, "I have referred your complaint to the ombudsman, all future correspondence on this matter should be directed to him." As long as that Jimbo even sporadically deals with user problems they will roll the dice to get his attention.
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
For insiders Jimbo would probably need a boilerplate response like, "I have referred your complaint to the ombudsman, all future correspondence on this matter should be directed to him." As long as that Jimbo even sporadically deals with user problems they will roll the dice to get his attention.
My point being that Jimbo must be getting a lot of crap *now*. Having an ombudsman (and assistants) to deal with the crap, make investigations and recommendations, without actually having the power to implement their recommendations, would take a load off him.
Peter (Skyring)
Sam Korn wrote:
On 1/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
So you wouldn't be happy to volunteer for the position and take some of the workload off Jimbo?
Take some of the workload off Jimbo, yes. Take the crap that would come with the position, no.
Such an ombudsman needs the authority to take unpopular actions without fear that someone will whinge his way into having Jimbo overrule what he does. He needs to be able to confront anybody, but be seen as fair at the same time.
Ec
Sam Korn wrote:
On 1/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
So you wouldn't be happy to volunteer for the position and take some of the workload off Jimbo?
The main trouble is that Jimbo does have some kind of monarchical authority, that no appointed ombudsman could have. Especially as the community would demand an election.
Jimbo could also overrule such a demand for a popularity contest.
Ec
Am I just missing the point again, or wouldn't this concept of a "Wikipedia Ombudsman" duplicate much of what a member of the Mediation Committee would do?
Maybe an Ombudsman would have a special power or two that the average Admin wouldn't have or need (say, the ability to force both parties to negotiate in good faith or suffer sanctions), but I wouldn't be surprised that whatever shape the position might have, it'd have a rate of turnover somewhere between the ArbCom & the Mediation Committee -- that is, we'd burn thru one Ombudsman every 4-7 months.
Just my $0.02,
Geoff
If we had a real ombudsman (as opposed to what is being proposed, which is not an ombudsman, but a sort of appeals court) the ombudsman could accept a complaint about official action, and whether or not the parties had requested or agreed to mediation, investigate it, contact the users involved and enter into negotiations designed to resolve any difficulties or bad feelings. It's a good thing.
It would not be designed or intended to punish or expose wrong doing, but to resolve the bad consequences of lapses in judgement, misunderstanding or unintended consequences.
Fred
On Jan 9, 2006, at 9:26 PM, Geoff Burling wrote:
Am I just missing the point again, or wouldn't this concept of a "Wikipedia Ombudsman" duplicate much of what a member of the Mediation Committee would do?
Maybe an Ombudsman would have a special power or two that the average Admin wouldn't have or need (say, the ability to force both parties to negotiate in good faith or suffer sanctions), but I wouldn't be surprised that whatever shape the position might have, it'd have a rate of turnover somewhere between the ArbCom & the Mediation Committee -- that is, we'd burn thru one Ombudsman every 4-7 months.
Just my $0.02,
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l