Talk:Ombuds commission/Archives/2024
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2024, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Announcing the 2024 Ombuds Commission
Hello, everyone! I'm writing with information about the Ombuds Commission (OC), the small group of volunteers who investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, and in particular concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight tools, on any Wikimedia project for the Board of Trustees. I apologize for the length of the announcement. :)
The application period for new commissioners for 2024-26 recently closed. The Wikimedia Foundation is extremely grateful to the many experienced and insightful volunteers who offered to assist with this work.
This year’s OC will consist of thirteen members and one Steward-Observer. We are experimenting this year with expanding the committee's "regular" member headcount and leaving vacant the "advisor" positions, which historically have basically functioned as alternates in case of committee member attrition.
I am pleased to announce the composition of the 2024 OC:
Ombuds Commission members
- だ＊ぜ
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=%E3%81%A0%EF%BC%8A%E3%81%9C>
だ＊ぜ, who also may be referred to as Dasze, has been contributing to Wikimedia since 2015. He's primarily active on Chinese Wikimedia projects, where he later served as a director of Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong from 2019 to 2023 while users in Hong Kong were suffering various affection in and out of Wikimedia projects. His expertise is international law, human rights law, and statistical and quantitative analysis thereon. He speaks Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, English and some Japanese. This is Dasze's first year on the Ombuds Commission and he has been appointed for a 2-year term.
AGK has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2008. He is primarily active on English Wikipedia, where he has been an administrator, Checkuser, and Oversighter and has served as an Arbitrator. AGK served on the Ombuds Commission in 2020 and 2021 and again in 2023. AGK's term on the Ombuds Commission expires in 2026.
- Ameisenigel
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Ameisenigel>
Ameisenigel has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2015. He is primarily active on German Wikipedia, where he served as an Arbitrator from 2020 to 2022, and on Wikidata and is an administrator on both projects. He is also active as a translation admin in several projects. Ameisenigel speaks German and English. He has been on the Ombuds Commission since 2021 and his current term expires in 2026.
Bennylin has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2004. He's primarily active on Indonesian and Javanese Wikiprojects, where he's sysop in 6 of them, Checkuser in Indonesian Wikipedia, bureaucrat in Indonesian Wiktionary, and also active in Commons, Meta, Wikidata, and MediaWiki. He has previously served as a global Steward. He speaks Indonesian, English, Javanese, Chinese and some Spanish. Bennylin has been on the Ombuds Commission since 2023 and his term expires in 2025.
Daniuu has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2019. They are primarily active on Dutch Wikipedia, where they are a sysop and have been a member of the Arbitration Committee. They are also a global sysop and focus on counter-vandalism work. Daniuu speaks Dutch and English. Daniuu has been on the Ombuds Commission since 2023 and their term expires in 2025.
- Doǵu
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Do%C7%B5u>
Doğu Abaris (Doǵu) has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2012. He is primarily active on Turkish Wikipedia, where he has served as an administrator, interface administrator, and oversighter. Additionally, he is a volunteer MediaWiki developer and is currently working on the Auditor MediaWiki extension. He is studying software and data engineering at Singidunum University in Belgrade. His term on OC runs through 2026.
- Emufarmers
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Emufarmers>
Emufarmers has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2005. He is a Metapedian who primarily edits the English Wikipedia; he is also a bureaucrat and sysop on MediaWiki.org, and has provided software support to many third-party, non-Wikimedia wikis over the years. He has served as a VRTS administrator since 2015 and has been on the Elections Committee since 2023. He served on the Ombuds Commission from 2019-2021 and again in 2023. His current term expires in 2026.
- Faendalimas
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Faendalimas>
Scott Thomson, user:Faendalimas, has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2006. Originally Australian though based in Brazil, he is a taxonomist and evolutionary biologist with a background in International Wildlife Policy, his main editing interest is reptiles and amphibians. He is most active on WikiSpecies, where he is a bureaucrat, Checkuser, and administrator. Faendalimas speaks Portuguese and English. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2021 and as Chair from 2022 to 2023, and has been appointed for a two-year term this year.
MdsShakil has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2019. He is active on Bengali Wikipedia, Bengali Wikibooks, Wikidata, and Commons. He is an administrator on Bengali Wikipedia and Bengali Wikibooks and serves as a global renamer, global rollbacker, and global sysop. He speaks Bengali and English. MdsShakil has been on the Ombuds Commission since 2023, and his term expires in 2025.
Minorax has been active on Wikimedia projects since 2019. They are a Metapedian who is active on a large number of projects, including Commons, where they have over 400,000 edits, English Wikipedia, and Meta, where they are a Checkuser. They are also a global sysop. Minorax speaks English and Chinese. Minorax has been on the Ombuds Commission since 2023 and their term expires in 2025.
- Nehaoua
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Nehaoua>
Nehaoua holds a master's degree in Highway and Bridge Engineering and currently works as a Civil Engineer. However, his true passion lies with knowledge and its free access for all. Since 2009, Nehaoua has been an active Wikimedian, contributing significantly across various projects like French and Arabic Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wikisource, and Wiktionary. Nehaoua is fluent in Arabic and French, and is actively improving his English language skills. Nehaoua's term on OC expires in 2026.
- Renvoy
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Renvoy>
Renvoy has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2014. He is primarily active on Ukrainian Wikipedia, where he serves as administrator. Also he holds roles of global sysop and global rollbacker. Renvoy speaks Ukrainian, Russian, English, Polish and Lithuanian. His current term runs through 2026.
- RoySmith
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=RoySmith>
Roy Smith has been editing Wikipedia since 2004. He has been an admin on English Wikipedia since 2005 and a checkuser since 2021. Previously an active sockpuppet hunter, as of late 2023, he has dialed that back to concentrate more on content creation. He is looking forward to working on the Ombuds Commission and meeting new colleagues from other wiki projects. His term on OC runs through 2026.
Steward-Observer
The Steward-Observer serves as a liaison between the Ombuds Commission and the Stewards. The Steward-Observer is a non-voting, advisory role. The Steward-Observer was nominated by the Stewards and is appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation to a one-year term. This year's Steward-Observer is…
Vermont (they/them) has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2016. They have been a steward since February 2022, and previously a global sysop and rollbacker. Vermont is an administrator and checkuser on Meta-Wiki and the Simple English Wikipedia, and formerly volunteered on the UCoC Phase 2 and Revisions drafting committees. They served as Steward-Observer for the Ombuds Commission in 2023-24 as well. Vermont's term as Steward-Observer expires in 2025.
Departing members
Please join me in thanking the following volunteers who are leaving OC, who have given substantially of their time to serve the commission:
JJMC89 has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2015. He is primarily active on the English Wikipedia, where he has more than 300,000 edits and is an administrator and bot operator, and Commons. He also serves as a tool administrator on UTRS. He speaks English. He has been on the Ombuds Commission since 2021.
Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: —MdsShakil (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
you guys need anything from me?
(I used to called Beeblebrox) I've been informed, actually all of en.wp has been informed that you are investigsating my actions. I find this a little odd as usually nobody knows what you guys are doing. It seems that a lot of exceptions to the usual policies are being made here, I'd be interested to know why you apparently told the committee to go ahead and broadcast that I was being investigated, when I was not even informed of that.
Getting to my actual case, I've spelled it out over on en.wp but I'm totally an open book if you need anything else. My basic stance is that I don't see anything in that agreement that even hints that it covers the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee mailing list, which makes sense since the WMF is not in any way in control of that list and has no ovesight of it. If that's incorrect then we've got a bigger problem than my big mouth. Just Step Sideways (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Meaning no offense, I would also ask, since we're being so open all the sudden about Ombuds proceedings, if AGK is recused in this matter? Because he should be. Just Step Sideways (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, I emailed you guys like a week ago and have yet to receive a reply of any kind. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Open letter to the commissison and the en.wp arbcom
Statement of the Ombuds commission
The Commission has been asked whether or not a volunteer may retain their access rights on one project after being banned from another, in terms of the global CheckUser, Oversight, Privacy, and Access to Non-Public Data policies and the Confidentiality Agreement to which the volunteer has subscribed.In short, our decision is that:
- Loss of trust on one project is not a ground for removal of access rights or of permissions on another project.
- The decision to remove permissions is for the community where the rights are held.
- The Commission will not interfere with the local community's decision unless the decision is manifestly unreasonable.
- The right to access other systems, like wikis and mailing lists, is separate from holding a wiki permission.
- In extreme circumstances, administrators of other systems are entitled to revoke an untrustworthy person's access even if they retain the permission.
- The Commission will consider complaints about loss of trust but it may dispose of them summarily in accordance with the principles above.
Our reasons for this decision follow.
Removal due to loss of trust
The starting point for this question is that each community is responsible for granting permissions on its own project. That can occur by election or appointment and the process may differ across projects. The culture and norms of each community will also differ. Protecting the diversity and autonomy of Wikimedia projects is an implicit objective of the global policies.
When a volunteer with access rights loses the trust of their community, the primary responsibility for removing the access right lies with the community on the project.
It is implied in the global CheckUser and Oversight policies that the holders of advanced permissions should be both trusted and competent. It is for this reason, for instance, that the Commission has on past occasions recommended removal from advanced permissions holders whose use of the tool has been careless or inaccurate. Those occasions were an enforcement of the requirement to be 'competent'.
The requirement to be 'trusted' is also enforceable by the Commission. Volunteers do not need to have actually misused their data access in order to have breached the policy. If it would be unreasonable to continue having confidence in the user, the Commission is entitled to treat the data access agreement as untenable and recommend the removal of access.
Be that as it may, the Commission affords a margin of discretion to the individual communities. It would not interfere with a community's decision to elect or appoint a user to an advanced permission unless it was manifestly unreasonable to have trust in that user. Equally, a community is entitled to at any time remove the permission from one of its elected or appointed advanced permissions holders.
If a community has not exercised its right to remove permissions from a user, the Commission will seek to treat that as an expression of the community's will. It would not interfere with the community's decision unless the decision is manifestly unreasonable and no other course is open than to remove access rights.
In general, communities are better placed to assess the trustworthiness of its permission-holders. The community's members will tend to have more experience with the individual with access rights. They will all speak the same language. They may work together and regularly communicate. The community can dedicate more people and time to assessing the individual's past contributions, questioning them, and discussing the candidacy (or proposal to remove permissions). The Commission lacks those strengths.
There is also the risk of importing one community's standards into another community. If one community bans a user, it does not follow that they need to be banned on another project. Bans are issued for various reasons and numerous users banned on one project have contributed happily and productively elsewhere. Even bans for loss of trust on one project do not necessarily indicate that the user cannot be trusted with advanced permissions on another project. The decision to trust a user sits with the individual community. The Commission will interfere only if no reasonable community, whatever its nature or subjective norms, would take the decision to trust the volunteer with access rights.
Any case of loss of trust can be brought to the Commission for review in accordance with our jurisdiction and procedures on case handling. However, in general, if a volunteer has lost the trust of another community but committed no other breach of the global or non-public data policies, the Commission will not uphold the complaint.
In accordance with its case handling procedures, the Commission may also in those circumstances summarily dismiss the complaint without seeking a view from the user being complained of, on the grounds that it can dismiss the complaint without troubling them for their input.
Removal from ancillary inter-community systems
Certain access rights are conventionally granted alongside the checkuser or oversight permission. For checkuser, this includes access to the wiki, IRC channels, and mailing lists. For oversight, this includes access to mailing lists and VRT. The Commission has universal jurisdiction over any system which is subject to the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy and no jurisdiction over other systems. It would be open to the Commission to remove access from these systems but not the access rights.
However, for the reasons given in relation to access to the permission itself, the Commission will also decline to remove access to other systems solely because of loss of trust on another project.
Parallel management structures may be available to consider any complaint that a checkuser has lost trust. For example, the global checkuser community can remove a checkuser from the global mailing list if it finds that checkuser disruptive or untrustworthy. IRC or Discord administrators can remove a checkuser from the community checkuser channels. VRT administrators can remove an oversight from the VRT system. Provided that removals on Wikimedia systems, such as mailing lists or VRT, are subject to appeal to the Commission, the respective community administrators are entitled to remove such checkusers. It should be emphasised that this would be a serious decision not to be taken lightly.
For the Ombuds Commission, Daniuu (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The above answers are more or less common sense, so nothing to worry about. In general, though, OC is no arbcom, and I fail to see any mandata for the OC to officially answer such abstract what-if questions and provide interpretations that serve as policies. Am I mistaken? Krd 08:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is an interesting, complex question – thanks for asking! The terms of reference require the OC to "educate CheckUsers, Oversighters or others about applicable Foundation and community policies". Policies are not mathematical functions; interpretation and application is required. In the present case, we were asked whether a hitherto-unimagined situation falls in breach of a global policy, specifically whether a loss of trust on one project amounts to a loss of trust in terms of global policy. That requires the policy to be interpreted and applied. We cannot exercise our mandate without answering the question. The question is an abstract one but I do not think that prevents it being answered.
- The role of an ArbCom varies across projects and changes over time, so your tag, 'OC is no arbcom', could perhaps mean a number of things. I shall attempt to give my view regardless. ArbCom is a general problem-solving body which can interpret any policy relevant to disputes before it. The OC has a more narrow mandate, and only particular policies, all of global nature, fall within its mandate. arcticocean ■ 10:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Applications are open to join the Ombuds Commission
I am cross-posting this recent announcement on the Wikimedia-l mailing list by the Wikimedia Foundation:
Greetings,The annual appointments round for the Affiliations Committee, the Ombuds Commission, and the Case Review Committee are now open. You can find out more about the appointments and information for applying on the appointments page on Meta. [1] Applications are accepted for all three committees starting today, 16 October 2024. Applications for the Affiliations Committee close on 18 November 2024, and applications for the Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on 2 December 2024.
You can learn more about these committees on their Meta pages:
- Affiliations Committee (AffCom) [2]
- Ombuds commission (OC) [3]
- Case Review Committee (CRC) [4]
You can post to the appointments information talk page [5] or email cst@wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.
The current members of the Ombuds Commission would be happy to answer any questions from prospective candidates about their experience of serving on the Commission. These questions may be asked on this talk page, by email to the Commission or directly to any commissioner. Questions about the application process or role itself should be referred to Wikimedia Foundation staff using the links in the announcement email. arcticocean ■ 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)