Talk:Ombuds commission

Add topic
Active discussions
(Redirected from Talk:Ombudsman commission)
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.


Opportunities open for the Ombuds commission and the Case Review CommitteeEdit

Hi everyone! The Ombuds commission (OC) and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for members. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to do so. There is more information below about the opportunity and the skills that are needed.

About the Ombuds commission

The Ombuds commission (OC) works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of CheckUser and Oversight (also known as Suppression) tools. The Commission mediates between the parties of the investigation and, when violations of the policies are identified, advises the Wikimedia Foundation on best handling. They may also assist the General Counsel, the Chief Executive Officer, or the Board of Trustees of the Foundation in these investigations when legally necessary. For more on the OC's duties and roles, see Ombuds commission on Meta-Wiki.

Volunteers serving in this role should be experienced Wikimedians, active on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tools OR who have the technical ability to understand these tools and the willingness to learn them. They must be able to communicate in English, the common language of the commission. They are expected to be able to engage neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when other roles and relationships may cause conflict. Commissioners will serve two-year terms (note that this is different from past years, when the terms have been for one year).

About the Case Review Committee

The Case Review Committee (CRC) reviews appeals of eligible Trust & Safety office actions. The CRC is a critical layer of oversight to ensure that Wikimedia Foundation office actions are fair and unbiased. They also make sure the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t overstep established practices or boundaries. For more about the role, see Case Review Committee on Meta-Wiki.

We are looking for current or former functionaries and experienced volunteers with an interest in joining this group. Applicants must be fluent in English (additional languages are a strong plus) and willing to abide by the terms of the Committee charter. If the work resonates and you qualify, please apply. Committee members will serve two-year terms (note that this is different from past years, when the terms have been for one year).

Applying to join either of these groups

Members are required to sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and must be willing to comply with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation board policies (such as the access to non-public information policy and the Foundation privacy policy). These positions requires a high degree of discretion and trust. Members must also be over 18 years of age.

If you are interested in serving in either capacity listed above, please write in English to the Trust and Safety team at ca wikimedia.org (to apply to the OC) or to the Legal Team at legal wikimedia.org (to apply to the CRC) with information about:

  • Your primary projects
  • Languages you speak/write
  • Any experience you have serving on committees, whether movement or non-movement
  • Your thoughts on what you could bring to the OC or CRC if appointed
  • Any experience you have with the Checkuser or Oversight tools (OC only)
  • Any other information you think is relevant

There will be two conversation hours to answer any questions that potential applicants may have:

The deadline for applications is 31 December 2022 in any timezone.

Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think may be qualified and interested. Thank you!

On behalf of the Committee Support team,
Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  • What is the raw workload for this role?
  • I wonder what "any experience you have serving on committees, whether movement or non-movement" could mean.
Leaderboard (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Leaderboard, and thanks for your questions. The most recent time-commitment estimates I've gotten from OC members is that most spend about 2-5 hours per week on OC work, though the amount of work each member takes on is to some extent customizable based on their availability (for instance, if you're short on time, you could choose to not take a lead role in investigating a new case). The request for information about applicants' committee experience is because we've found that users who are used to working on committees sometimes have an easier time adapting to working with, or even taking a leadership role on, OC. So while not having committee experience is not a disqualification, committee experience is something that it's nice for at least some OC members to have. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Regarding "Languages you speak/write", is there any occasion where the committee members make spoken communication (=by voice) to each other or to people outside of the committee? If so, how frequent is it? An applicant might be confident in written communication but not in spoken communication (this can be true especially for second language), so clarification on this point would be great to have. whym (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Whym. Spoken communication, both within and outside the committee, doesn't happen terribly often. The biggest examples I can think of where this has happened in the past were a) a voice-only meeting among OC members around the time of their appointments to introduce themselves to each other (hasn't happened via voice in a couple of years; we tend to use text chat nowawdays instead) and b) a video meeting between OC members and other functionaries like the Stewards (these don't happen regularly, it's more like "if there's something really important that needs to be talked out" and I can think of it happening once in the past few years). The vast majority of what OC does, both within the committee and outside of it, is conducted in writing. We can and have appointed OC members who told us that they're confident with written English but not so much with spoken English, so not being a fluent out-loud speaker isn't necessarily a disqualifier. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I forgot to mention but I believe this would be useful to people with hearing loss, too. whym (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

BDR - but now for policy pages!Edit

Well, close enough - I thought rather than than have a slow well-meaning edit war between us, we should perhaps apply some article-space working practices and take it to the talk page :) @Jdx and Tacsipacsi:.

Wikipedia titles use sentence case, which is why I'd gone Privacy policy, but I concede that is somewhat odd. Making it Privacy Policy here makes it clearer, but kind of weird when compared with the actual page it links to. So privacy policy might make more sense, but I don't know how that plays ball with general grammar for specific things.

I do believe it would remain CheckUser policy (or CheckUser Policy if the others all end up capitalised) because for whatever reason, that's what the actual CU policy page on meta is doing. En-wiki, and quite possibly other local projects has standardised so checkuser and oversighter are treated the same, but for whatever reason, no-one thought to do that back on meta when the docs were made. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Actually, the only two places on wmf:Privacy policy that use sentence case are the page title and the navigation links at the bottom – the actual policy (including the repetition of the title below the language links) consistently uses title case when referring to itself. I think if the goal is stressing that that these refer to specific documents, title case stresses it more; while if we assume that the reader knows that we don’t refer to the privacy policy of Facebook, we can use the common noun, i.e. lower case – the Privacy Policy is indeed a privacy policy. (Also, it wasn’t even sentence case: in case of wmf:Privacy policy, it happened to be sentence case, because it’s only two words, but “Access to Nonpublic Information policy” is neither sentence case nor title case, rather something in between.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Second Allie Awards ceremonyEdit

 

Allie Sapphire (Impressive group work)

Dedicated to teams of members who are sometimes criticized, sometimes admired, but whose work is indispensable. For that reason, the Allie Sapphire is for you!

 

On behalf of the Allie Awards Academy, Galahad (WMSP) (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Return to "Ombuds commission" page.