(inserted for readability Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

Not with a name like "Ombudsman" ! 68.39.174.238 05:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What name do you suggest? The Ombudsman is a structure that is found in most democratic countries of the world, where it is called just that - the Ombudsman. I suppose the only downside to the term is that it's a bit sexist, even though it comes from Old Norse via Norwegian, so it isn't technically "Ombuds-man". For this reason, ombudsperson sounds a bit awkward. Anyway, the name isn't that important. In Romania, the ombudsman is called Avocatul Poporului (People's Advocate, but translated into English as "ombudsman") Ronline ✉ 05:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The word is Swedish, not Norwegian. I think it's a good idea and I think we should have two ombudsman, in case the complainer wants to complain against the ombudsman himself. Then, the other ombudsman can act as ombudsman against the other ombudsman. --Anittas 13:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read somewhere it was Swedish, and then somewhere else that it was Norwegian! Sweden was the first country to have an ombudsman, that's true. Under your proposal, Anittas, would that mean having two ombudsman all the time, or basically having an "Ombudsman of Appeals" where people can go if they think that the Ombudsman wasn't fair or they want to complain against him. I think the second model is a tad too bureaucratic. Ronline ✉ 13:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Swedish and Norwegian are more or less mutually intelligible, and it's often hard to say that a particular word is one or the other. I have a cousin in Norway, a much-published author in both English and Norwegian (mostly on midwifery), and she tells me that you could pretty much drop any given word from one of the languages into the other, and at worst it would sound like a regionalism. And certainly this word now exists in both, whatever its origin.

BTW, in English at least, we do have the gender-neutral "ombudsperson". -- Jmabel | Talk 20:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's from Swedish. --Anittas 03:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard the term before, though I'm a bit surprised that most countries - even the most politically-correct, still refer to the structure as "ombudsman". Probably because the "man" came from the Scandinavian "mann" and hence, being a foreign neologism, isn't in the same boat like words such as "chairman" Ronline ✉ 02:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Ombudsman ≈ Peoples Tribune without legal powers except to start a judical process.

2. "man" in Swedish is in endings generally gender-less with some exceptions, so women are ombudsmen, or is anyone proposing changing "woman" to "woperson?" Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think is a great ideea. We certainly need something like this. Bonaparte talk 14:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur, good idea Ronline. Herostratus 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think that a function of this project may be to help users who wish to file for meditations, arbcom, etc; i.e. the process of filling out the pages for some of these is rather involved, and the process alone may chase some people off from reporting, opting to just leave the project instead. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's an interesting suggestion, and I think it would work very well within the structures of the ombudsman. The ombudsman should be someone who is very well acquainted with dispute resolution, and his secondary function - apart from dealing with complaints post-ArbCom decisions and admin decisions - could be to act as an information point for people who feel hard done by and want to make a complaint to other structures. In fact, I think most ombudsmen in the world do that. There is, however, the Association of Wikipedian Advocates which already seeks to represent users when dealing with dispute resolution, particularly ArbCom. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 02:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea whose time has come. Originally some people thought the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates would function to do some work along these lines, but the membership there is not very well organized (I know I am the AMA Coordinator, so I should know). I support this attempt fully. Anything I can do to help it along, let me know. Alex756 00:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We have a dispute resolution system, with arbitration at its top and Jimbo Wales and the board performing the function of dealing with appeals in the cases of the type proposed here. This would simply provide yet another path that would only be popular with trolls. On Xaosflux's suggestion, this is the function that is already performed by a number of individuals. For instance in my work in the Maoririder case, and in the Baku Ibne case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Jimbo already has the function of "the highest court" to go to if one feels the ArbCom has not given them a fair trial. But, realistically, Jimbo has no time to go hunting around for evidence and to prepare reports to the community about the actions of the ArbCom and admins. And, a lot of people may not feel that it's OK to appeal to Jimbo considering his status as the founder of Wikipedia. The Ombudsman structure provides a much more "grassroots" way of appealing and I think people would be more comfortable with that. As to giving trolls a gift - I think any system must have it's checks and balances and, to be honest, the current system of dispute resolution just doesn't have enough of them. I have also heard from a user who has contacted me in regards to an ArbCom case he was involved in that, when he informed Jimbo of the case, Jimbo replied once and didn't reply afterwards. This is natural, considering that Jimbo should really have better things to do than go around investigating appeals.

As to trolls, I agree that the ombudsman may be flooded in complaints due to trolls and even vandals using it when they have no legitimate claim. However, the ombudsman should have the professionalism and experience to decide whether some cases should or should not be taken on, and when it's clear that a user has been a significant impediment to the community and was treated fairly for their actions, then those complaints should be dismissed. Ronline ✉ 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding anouther line of appeal to arbcom? Doesn't that take long enough already? Complaints about admins are already handled by arbcom.Geni 15:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a fundamental flaw in the ArbCom when dealing with admin action disputes - it's a punitive form of justice, rather than one that tries to genuinely solve conflict. This is because the ArbCom is a last resort, as it should be. Last resorts should be punitive, but there are many cases in which users feel wronged by an admin but do not want to go through the stress of an ArbCom case that may result in them being mistreated as well, especially considering the quite elitist nature of the ArbCom. The advantage of the ombudsman would be that, unlike the ArbCom, which is in effect a court, users would be immune from "punishment" if they make a complaint. Ronline ✉ 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Or to put it another way users are concernded that their case against an admin isn't completely solid. Why should users makeing a complaint be immune. Most dissputes have two sides.Geni 10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo currently performs this function. Perhaps you should ask Jimbo if he should delegate it to someone else, if you feel that Jimbo is not doing a good enough job of it. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

however the odds of the community accepting anyone else are pretty much zilch.Geni 16:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How do ombudsmen work in the real world then? The ombudsman is almost never a highly-ranked official, but still has the trust of a society or community. In fact, that's the advantage of the ombudsman - he is apolitical and is not involved in the hierarchy of structure. He or she is hence the best structure to deal with any complaints against authority. Ronline ✉ 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No one on wikipedia exists who fits your description. We have quite enough outlets for people to complain about admins. We don't need any more.Geni 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How many levels of bureaucracy do we need? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

comment: see User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, Jimmy Wales' statement of principles in which the seventh is: Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity -- Zondor 00:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My two cents - I actually like this idea quite a lot, but feel it is doomed to implement because of scalability. The previous posts on WikiEN-L were about how the Wikipedia OTRS system is filling up with queries and Wikivolunteers cannot keep up. So I feel an individual would be swamped. Also, I worry about this part: "After each case, the Ombudsman will create a report," which is not what I would typically view as a responsibility of an ombudsperson. At a newspaper or university, the ombudsperson would have a a liaison function and a consultative role, but not as a formal "report" writer. If this "report" function would be required, then I can guarantee the ombudsperson would be overwhelmed or would quit. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've raised some very good points. I think that it may be good to have a board of ombudspeople, but that may end up looking too much like the ArbCom. If you have, say, three ombudspeople, it would cause problems if some of them don't agree, in which case it will end up being similar to the ArbCom in terms of negotiation and argument between ombudspeople. Consider, however, that Jimbo is currently the last step of the dispute resolution process, and so having an ombudsman would actually take some of the workload off Jimbo and be an improvement in terms of efficiency to the status quo (and it seems Jimbo isn't necessarily swamped by complaints, so it may just be that the ombudsman won't be either). As to the report, this shouldn't be a formal piece of writing, but something that clearly states what actions should be taken. I mean, if the ombudsperson's role is consultative - which it is - how will they inform the community of the results of their consultation? Scalability is, however, the most important issue of the proposal, so any suggestions on this would be most welcome. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What specific powers should the Ombudsman have?

One possibility: no formal powers. If we can get Jimbo or whomever to convince a respected long-timer to serve, the reports could simply be -- when everything was not found to be order, hopefully rare -- an apology to anyone treated poorly, on behalf of the Ombudsman speaking for the community, and probably a request to the ArbCom or whomever for alleviation of sanctions, backed my moral force only. Ignorable, but at some cost of reputation, perhaps.

My local newspaper's ombudsman works like this. Most of her reports basically "we goofed up and we shouldn't have done that" and a promise to try to make it not happen again. This at least makes the person feel better, I guess.

One advantage of this, it would make it a lot easier to get the community to implement it. Later, if needed, formal powers could be added. Herostratus 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what you're saying. I also think that no formal powers should be given to the ombudsman - in fact, the ombudsman should probably resign from adminship (and ArbCom of course) before he or she is placed in this function. The ombudsman is generally a very respected role wherever they function, and I think in Wikipedia, there should be a strong enough moral imperative for the ArbCom and admins to respect the ombudsman's decisions, even if they're not enforceable. In fact, any form of power given to the ombudsman could prove to be controversial, since by nature this role is mainly consultative. Ronline ✉ 00:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman should not be on ArbCom, but I can't see any conflict with having admin powers. I would think it would be important to have these, so the ombudsman can see deleted pages. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The role of ombudsman is just to review those in authority and report wether they are following the rules of their authority. The purpose is just to provide a neutral and respected witness, so that the reviewer of authority is neither the self or the judge. An ombudsman effectively removes the need for those in authority to accuse each other which breeds serious division and errors.

If you think this project is still important for Wikipedia, as it is for every other real world authoritative structure, please sign your name below with #~~~~ to show that this proposal still has value,

1. ~ R.T.G 13:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Party of one. Though Ombudsman would be a small office, one is probably too small.
• Jimbo Approval. Mr Wales does appoint the ARBCOM it says but, IMO, that is a sort of ceremonial effort. The essay currently say Jimbo, vote or, Wikimedia Board. It is just an opinion, but I believe it could be reasoned that Wikimedia would be the most impartial or meta or, off the site even which would be the genuine ombudsman approach that they are not involved in any shape or form with the project other than to be ombudsman. This seems a bit out of our remit but in fact, it has been becoming more and more prevalent for WMF to grant funding to offsite professional structuring efforts.
• The recentism part of the Rationale section is obviously dated
• Telling admins what to do. The role of ombudsman is usually to tell people what they have not done, or what they have done wrong. What they should do is expected to be already provided in the guidelines. An ombudsman should be able to say that an admin has not followed particular guides, but not have to arbitrate. They should be outside the arbitrary functions such as sanctions and punishments because that is a truly neutral role. However, should the ARBCOM be found in gross misconduct, this editor cannot say where further instructions to that should come from.
• ARBCOM. ARBCOM is a very small group under full scrutiny. An effective ombudsman is needed where the rules may be swept away unnoticed. If ARBCOM is directly contravening their purpose in public, it should be at once obvious, and probably the forte of meta.

The ombudsman should have been set up with the ARBCOM. It would dampen any noise made by outing of abusive admins. In the past, serious challenges to admins have required massive RFCs just to decide if any wrong has taken place. This places a certain degree of notoriety upon any abusive admin, a subversive badge of honour. When such things fester, they become cool for people who identify with the particular one, and toxic failed editors are born rather than editors who are apologetic, acknowledging of wrong and ultimately possible to recover. Why admit you are wrong to 50 people who have been punishing you, when you can just claim you don't care, and receive praise and acceptance from 40 people brought to you from the RFC? But if the RFC was given to an ombudsman it would be cut and dry, and if you wanted to support someone about something contrary to the guides, you'd have to take an interest in the guides and try to get them improved and find your rebels rather than at a battleground.

NOTE: The WMF is now giving out grants of thousands for the purpose of employing professionals to help structure the site and its participants. This year the surplus funding was several millions, and it's not always going to be that, but there's surely enough to employ a couple of professional researchers if they directly influence the stability and integrity of the site. ~ R.T.G 14:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)