Talk:Ombudsman commission

Active discussions

We welcome speakers of all languages in this discussion. Please comment here in any language you wish; staff or other volunteers will translate your comments to English if possible.

This page is for discussions related to the ombudsman 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 and sections whose most recent comment is older than 60 days.

Ombudsman Commission
Wikimedia Ombudsmen logo.svg
Activity reports

Ombudsman commission/2019/Report Oct-DecEdit

The report says that there are 7 cases that are over 1 year old. How does this happen? --Rschen7754 04:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

After being logged and acknowledged, matters tend to stall unless at least one member investigates the facts and summarises them. In those cases that has not happened. AGK ■ 11:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Does this mean that the commission does not have many members who are interested in investigating the actual cases? --MF-W 22:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You are asking, and we are talking, about the OC's activity in October–December last year. At that time I was not a member and so I cannot really answer your question. I can only comment on the activities of the OC from April 2020 and onwards. AGK ■ 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, I see! --MF-W 16:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Note that Ombudsman commission/2020/Report Jan-Mar says there are 9 cases over a year old at the end of March --DannyS712 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
In the time since joining the OC, I have been working with colleagues to make headway on the older cases. Without wanting to overpromise, I think that the next activity report will indicate a turnaround. AGK ■ 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do you require the exposure of personal information, in order to complain about invasion of privacy?Edit

I am disappointed to find I am not able to report an issue to the Ombudsman without revealing my email address.

My complaint is relatively simple, at least as far as these issues presumably usually go. An CheckUser, Materialscientist, performed an illegitimate "fishing" check, to justify a local block that he could not have otherwise made without invading my privacy, and two of his CheckUser colleagues, Jpgordon and Yunshui, prevented me appealing it on that basis by simply pretending not to even hear that aspect of the block appeal, and locking me out to prevent further appeals. The primary issue for the Ombudsman appears to be that they seem to believe invading my privacy was justified, not because there were grounds to suspect block evasion, which there was not (as per recently clarified advice from the local ArbCom about the local rules against use of the CheckUser tool for "fishing"), but because the illegitimate check showed a connection with a blocked account. They have also ignored local policy which requires more than just a technical match (from a legitimate check) to prove block evasion, but they seem to have gotten away with this precisely because their status as local CheckUsers seems to make other local users reluctant to investigate abuses, or worse, believe it is not even within their power, which should also obviously concern the Ombudsman. Overall, they seem happy to ignore anything unless it comes from a superior, and seem quite happy to even hold the rules laid down by their own ArbCom, their nominal managers in the first instance, in utter contempt. This is perhaps less relevant to the Ombudsman, save to refer it to the Foundation for corrective action.

While investigating the issue obviously involves confidential information, the reporting of the issue, and informing the community of the results of the investigation, does not.

BarryBoggside (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Ombudsman commission" page.