Mailing List Archive: Update on ombudsman issue

Update on ombudsman issue

Anthere9 at yahoo

Jul 19, 2006, 8:16 AM

Post #1 of 44 (2329 views)

So that it is clear that discussions do not always get buried and
forgotten :-)

Some time ago, we discussed the possibility to create an ombudsman
commission to deal with complaints related to abuse of the Foundation
privacy policy, associated to checkuser activity or not.

A resolution(*) has been written to describe the role of the commission
and the extent of its delegation. 3 members have been proposed.

Angela and I approved that resolution early july. The quorum for a
resolution to pass is 3 approval. We are waiting for another board
member to vote.

Anthere

(*) For those who wonder what this "resolution" stuff is and coming to
Wikimania in 2 weeks, I'll try to explain how the Foundation is
functionning (or not functionning) on sunday the 6th of august (open and
free ad)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

geniice at gmail

Jul 19, 2006, 8:17 AM

Post #2 of 44 (2306 views)

On 7/19/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So that it is clear that discussions do not always get buried and
> forgotten :-)
>
> Some time ago, we discussed the possibility to create an ombudsman
> commission to deal with complaints related to abuse of the Foundation
> privacy policy, associated to checkuser activity or not.
>
> A resolution(*) has been written to describe the role of the commission
> and the extent of its delegation. 3 members have been proposed.
>

So is it now time to froce a name change on user:ombudsman?
--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

mboverload at gmail

Jul 19, 2006, 10:50 PM

Post #3 of 44 (2312 views)

Or we could just use [[WP:NOTTHATUSER]]

=D

On 7/19/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/19/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So that it is clear that discussions do not always get buried and
> > forgotten :-)
> >
> > Some time ago, we discussed the possibility to create an ombudsman
> > commission to deal with complaints related to abuse of the Foundation
> > privacy policy, associated to checkuser activity or not.
> >
> > A resolution(*) has been written to describe the role of the commission
> > and the extent of its delegation. 3 members have been proposed.
> >
>
> So is it now time to froce a name change on user:ombudsman?
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

Anthere9 at yahoo

Jul 20, 2006, 4:06 AM

Post #4 of 44 (2312 views)

geni wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>So that it is clear that discussions do not always get buried and
>>forgotten :-)
>>
>>Some time ago, we discussed the possibility to create an ombudsman
>>commission to deal with complaints related to abuse of the Foundation
>>privacy policy, associated to checkuser activity or not.
>>
>>A resolution(*) has been written to describe the role of the commission
>>and the extent of its delegation. 3 members have been proposed.
>>
>
>
> So is it now time to froce a name change on user:ombudsman?

Are you aware that I was at some point the owner of this account ? :-)

ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

beesley at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 4:12 AM

Post #5 of 44 (2301 views)

On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So is it now time to force a name change on user:ombudsman?
>
> Are you aware that I was at some point the owner of this account ? :-)

I think you're mistaking it for User:Mediator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ombudsman doesn't
seem like you.

-- User:Arbitrator ;)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

Anthere9 at yahoo

Jul 20, 2006, 10:02 AM

Post #6 of 44 (2295 views)

Angela wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>So is it now time to force a name change on user:ombudsman?
>>
>>Are you aware that I was at some point the owner of this account ? :-)
>
>
> I think you're mistaking it for User:Mediator.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ombudsman doesn't
> seem like you.
>
> -- User:Arbitrator ;)

oh, true true true. My mistake.

Ant

PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

oldakquill at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 10:33 AM

Post #7 of 44 (2303 views)

> PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?

I don't think the name "User:Ombudsman" instantly strikes someone as
an official position. In Britain, the position "Ombudsman" tends to be
reserved as a governmental complaints mechanism and watchdog on
trading standards and banking.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

messedrocker at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 10:33 AM

Post #8 of 44 (2311 views)

Yes... if we're going to have ombudsmen, they should either get individual
accounts (Ombudsman01, Ombudsman02, etc) or use their account.

On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Angela wrote:
> > On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>So is it now time to force a name change on user:ombudsman?
> >>
> >>Are you aware that I was at some point the owner of this account ? :-)
> >
> >
> > I think you're mistaking it for User:Mediator.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ombudsman doesn't
> > seem like you.
> >
> > -- User:Arbitrator ;)
>
> oh, true true true. My mistake.
>
> Ant
>
> PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

andrew.lih at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 10:36 AM

Post #9 of 44 (2310 views)

On 7/21/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?
>
> I don't think the name "User:Ombudsman" instantly strikes someone as
> an official position. In Britain, the position "Ombudsman" tends to be
> reserved as a governmental complaints mechanism and watchdog on
> trading standards and banking.

Well, when I ran into the name User:Ombudsman recently, I thought the WMF
had found someone to fill that role. But alas it was not true.

I think the name should be reclaimed and the individual should choose
another.

-Andrew
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

geniice at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 11:21 AM

Post #10 of 44 (2295 views)

On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?
>

The issue has been raised from time to time (I think it got a mention
in the user's RFC). Since the user has refused to change there hasn't
really been much that can be done.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

poore5 at adelphia

Jul 20, 2006, 11:32 AM

Post #11 of 44 (2317 views)

I think it should be changed. Too confusing.

Could someone write a nicely worded explanation about why it is going to be changed on a certain date?
Then do it. It will be over and done.

Regards,
Sydney

---- geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?
> >
>
> The issue has been raised from time to time (I think it got a mention
> in the user's RFC). Since the user has refused to change there hasn't
> really been much that can be done.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

lordbishopvoldemort at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 11:43 AM

Post #12 of 44 (2311 views)

On 7/20/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5@adelphia.net> wrote:
> I think it should be changed. Too confusing.
>
> Could someone write a nicely worded explanation about why it is going to be changed on a certain date?
> Then do it. It will be over and done.

Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says
no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near
the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_
ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages. And if he refuses
that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate
username, and be on with it. Too harsh? --LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

messedrocker at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 11:47 AM

Post #13 of 44 (2310 views)

Well, certainly not the most harsh thing Lord Voldemort has ever proposed.
;)

If I owned the User:Ombudsman account, and refused to change it, I probably
wouldn't mind a box at the top of my page.

On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5@adelphia.net> wrote:
> > I think it should be changed. Too confusing.
> >
> > Could someone write a nicely worded explanation about why it is going to
> be changed on a certain date?
> > Then do it. It will be over and done.
>
> Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says
> no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near
> the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_
> ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages. And if he refuses
> that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate
> username, and be on with it. Too harsh? --LV
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

oldakquill at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 11:48 AM

Post #14 of 44 (2310 views)

> Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says
> no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near
> the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_
> ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages. And if he refuses
> that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate
> username, and be on with it. Too harsh? --LV

Well, there is no reason to block his account and deprive him of his
past edits, whether he complies or not. We will simply have to force
rename him (User:The User Previously known as Ombudsman).

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

mbimmler at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 11:52 AM

Post #15 of 44 (2299 views)

On 7/20/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > PS : is it a good idea to have a user named ombudsman ?
> >
>
> The issue has been raised from time to time (I think it got a mention
> in the user's RFC). Since the user has refused to change there hasn't
> really been much that can be done.
>
Wait, a bureaucrat doesn't really need the user's approval to do the
name change...
On dewp, there is now a policy which allows bureaucrats to do forced
name changes for offending usernames ("User:XYZ_is_an_idiot"). I'm not
saying that "Ombudsman" is literally offending but it might be
considered if the user constantly refuses and if consensus is reached
that his username could be misleading.
Michael
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

lordbishopvoldemort at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 11:59 AM

Post #16 of 44 (2304 views)

On 7/20/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not
> saying that "Ombudsman" is literally offending but it might be
> considered if the user constantly refuses and if consensus is reached
> that his username could be misleading.

Well (and I don't really care about this subject, and can't really
believe I am even involved in the discussion) all I know is that
[[Wikipedia:Username]] states that one type of inappropriate user name
is "Names that include commonly used Wikipedia software or community
terms, or imply an official position on Wikipedia."

When we actually get some type of ombudsman, the name may become
"inappropriate". But what do I know, my user name probably violates
the "Trademarked names" clause (which must have been added since my
start here. Off to check. ;-) --LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

lordbishopvoldemort at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 12:02 PM

Post #17 of 44 (2309 views)

On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com> wrote:
> But what do I know, my user name probably violates
> the "Trademarked names" clause (which must have been added since my
> start here. Off to check. ;-) --LV

A-ha, the take on me is that it was broadened by an anon a couple of weeks ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Username&diff=63071619&oldid=63071339

Hmmm... Just thought I'd throw that out there. --LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

messedrocker at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 12:05 PM

Post #18 of 44 (2309 views)

Did you intend on making such a nice pun? :)

On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But what do I know, my user name probably violates
> > the "Trademarked names" clause (which must have been added since my
> > start here. Off to check. ;-) --LV
>
> A-ha, the take on me is that it was broadened by an anon a couple of weeks
> ago:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Username&diff=63071619&oldid=63071339
>
> Hmmm... Just thought I'd throw that out there. --LV
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

lordbishopvoldemort at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 12:27 PM

Post #19 of 44 (2310 views)

On 7/20/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you intend on making such a nice pun? :)

Of course. ;-) It's a gift, what can I say? --LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

essjaywiki at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 12:53 PM

Post #20 of 44 (2296 views)

Oldak Quill wrote:
>> Why not just ask nicely (which has been done before), and if he says
>> no, ask him to place a big, flashy, gawdy, super-duper shiny box near
>> the top of his pages explaining that he is not the _official_
>> ombudsman with a link to the real users' pages. And if he refuses
>> that, tell him sorry, block the account based on an inappropriate
>> username, and be on with it. Too harsh? --LV
>>
>
> Well, there is no reason to block his account and deprive him of his
> past edits, whether he complies or not. We will simply have to force
> rename him (User:The User Previously known as Ombudsman).
>
>
I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat
doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that
en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the
Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just
don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is
also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

oldakquill at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 1:07 PM

Post #21 of 44 (2314 views)

> I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat
> doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that
> en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the
> Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just
> don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is
> also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.

If you ban him the name will never be available for Wikimedia to use.
A forced name change is far preferable.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

messedrocker at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 1:11 PM

Post #22 of 44 (2309 views)

Or maybe Ombudsman can keep his name, and Wikimedia can register "Wikimedia
Ombudsman" -- far more official sounding.

On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat
> > doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that
> > en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the
> > Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just
> > don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is
> > also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.
>
> If you ban him the name will never be available for Wikimedia to use.
> A forced name change is far preferable.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

essjaywiki at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 1:12 PM

Post #23 of 44 (2305 views)

Oldak Quill wrote:
>> I may have been mislead on this (not a good situation for the bureaucrat
>> doing 95% of the namechanges on en.wiki) but my understanding is that
>> en.wiki does not permit forced name changes. Barring an order from the
>> Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Foundation Board, I just
>> don't think we can do it. I'd be interested to hear from Angela, who is
>> also an en.wiki bureaucrat and has far more inside experience than I do.
>>
>
> If you ban him the name will never be available for Wikimedia to use.
> A forced name change is far preferable.
>
>
It may be preferable, but if it's not allowed by policy, it's not
allowed. Bureaucrats are not permitted to set aside policy when they
deem it preferable; we're required to follow the rules regardless. If
the matter is extreme enough to override the policies of the English
Wikipedian, then it's an important enough issue for the Arbitration
Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Board to order it done.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

oldakquill at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 1:15 PM

Post #24 of 44 (2310 views)

On 20/07/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or maybe Ombudsman can keep his name, and Wikimedia can register "Wikimedia
> Ombudsman" -- far more official sounding.

This would be my choice. We shouldn't aggravate a user when a far more
easy, and friendly, option is available.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Update on ombudsman issue [ In reply to ]

george.herbert at gmail

Jul 20, 2006, 1:26 PM

Post #25 of 44 (2314 views)

On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/07/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or maybe Ombudsman can keep his name, and Wikimedia can register "Wikimedia
> > Ombudsman" -- far more official sounding.
>
> This would be my choice. We shouldn't aggravate a user when a far more
> easy, and friendly, option is available.

I would like to second this. Why were people so willing to advocate
shoving User:Ombudsman around with official power or sanctions on this
issue?

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l