Talk:Ombuds commission

In May 2020, the French Wikipedia voted to amend its method for granting checkuser and oversight permissions to a volunteer. At the vote, community members were presented with three options for the future method of granting advanced permissions:

1. 1. Creating a 'selector' role within the French Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (CAr),
   2. Creating a 'nominations committee' (CNom), or
   3. Directly approving future nominees through the use of elections.

The community selected the second option and in October 2020, members were elected to the first CNom.

The Ombuds Commission has concluded that this option is not acceptable, for the reasons set out below. We are issuing recommendations in relation to appointments already made by the Nomination Committee and the future function of the Nomination Committee. We are also recommending changes that the French Wikipedia community could make to the terms of reference for the CNom which would allow it to validly appoint advanced permissions holders.

The policy position

The vote on establishing a CNom and giving it responsibility for advanced permissions appointments was strongly attended, by 113 users <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Prise_de_décision/Méthode_de_nomination_des_CU_et_OS#Vote_2>.

After the CNom was established <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Comité_de_nomination>, seven members were elected <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Comité_de_nomination/élection_2020_09> to 3-year terms on the CNom. Their election was attended by more users than the most recent Arbitration Committee election and the CNom members enjoy the legitimate support of the French Wikipedia community.

Appointment of the advanced permissions on any Wikimedia projects are subject to the global Oversight policy <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy> and the global CheckUser policy <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy>. The Oversight policy states:

On wikis with an Arbitration Committee elected with 25–30 members' approval, users may also be appointed by the Arbitration Committee, unless the local community prefers independent elections. After agreement, a member of the local Arbitration Committee should place a request on Steward requests/Permissions.

The CheckUser policy states:

On wikis with an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) whose members have been elected with the support of at least 25–30 members of the local community, CheckUsers may be directly appointed by the Arbitrators. After agreement, a member of the Committee should simply list the candidate on Steward requests/Permissions.

Both policies envisage that appointments on wikis without an Arbitration Committee will be made by direct election of the community.

Nomination Committees which are not part of an Arbitration Committee are not authorised to assign the advanced permissions. As the French Wikipedia has separated the Nomination Committee from the Arbitration Committee, its Nomination Committee does not have authority to assign the advanced permissions.

Under global Wikimedia policy, Arbitration Committees have a special organisational purpose. At least one Meta-wiki page describes the committees as "a small group of trusted users who serve as the last step of dispute resolution" <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_Committee> and that is a fair description of an Arbitration Committee/CAr.

The global CheckUser policy and the global Oversight policy envisage there are only two valid method of appointing the advanced permissions. The first is to subject candidates to the scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee, who may have non-public information about the candidate that has a bearing on their suitability for appointment. The second valid method of appointment is to let every user on the project make the appointments by election.

The French Wikipedia are proposing a third method of appointment: a Nomination Committee that is neither the CAr nor the whole French Wikipedia community. This combines the disadvantages of both methods. Nomination Committee members are not members of the Arbitration Committee, so they have no access to the non-public information which Arbitration Committees are empowered to collect or to the serious disputes which can be expected to end up before an Arbitration Committees. At the same time they are a relatively tiny group of users. Whereas elections can call on a wide pool of experience, memory and resources, Nomination Committees are made up of less than a dozen users, some of whom may be inactive; they are like having an election with a very low turnout. The global policies specifically require that an advanced permissions election be attended by at least 25 users. The only alternative is for a CAr to appoint the advanced permissions. A CNom is not equivalent to a CAr.

Conclusion

Under current global policy, Nomination Committees are not currently a satisfactory method of appointing an advanced permissions user.

Recommendations

The global CheckUser and Oversight policies are revised in such a way that the French Wikipedia's Nominations Committee complies with the revised policies.

Should the global CheckUser and Oversight policies not be modified in such a way, all checkuser and oversight permissions assigned by order of the French Wikipedia's Nominations Committee should be removed, without prejudice to reappointment in a policy-compliant manner, and future requests on behalf of a Nominations Committee not complying with global policy are to be refused by the Stewards.

-- Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC) for the Ombuds CommissionReply

• Thanks for posting this. I have some concerns that I laid out at Talk:Ombuds commission/2024/French Wikipedia Nominations Committee, but can be copied here if needed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Reply
  • Copying the feel free to, I have seen those comments and they are certainly relevant. There is a discussion to be had there. Also the discussions in previos proposal to amend the Policy to deal with this may be perinent for some. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

Moved from Talk:Ombuds commission/2024/French Wikipedia Nominations Committee by Arcticocean

I am concerned with a very rigid interpretation of policy here. The CUOS policies were designed decades ago, when most projects either did direct CUOS elections or had their arbcom make those appointments. It codified, to an extent, existing practice and set a template for the future.

However, there is no consideration given here to a flexible interpretation that respects the spirit of the policy. There is no normative reason why ArbComs, which are dispute resolution bodies, should be the only group empowered to appoint CUOS. I think there is a way to read those policies to say that a nominations committee, endorsed by the local arbcom and meeting the other criteria (i.e. that the members of the nominations committee itself are elected with 25-30 votes), would meet the criteria and be able to issue legitimate appointments. The policy is silent on delegation of responsibility, which has been decided by the community in this case.

I am also slightly concerned with activist activity by the Commission. Practically speaking, which policy issues are addressed by this decision/recommendation? Is there really a concern with privacy or handling of non-public information here? This sort of work does not strike me as particularly useful in light of your overall mandate.

Now, I am not entirely critical - CUOS are the most sensitive permissions and I do think it is good to have a consistent interpretation of the policies surrounding their use. But I am concerned and to an extent confused why linking CUOS to ArbCom, without the possibility for delegation of that responsibility within the framework and spirit of the policy, wasn't considered. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

Speaking for myself, I agree that the global CU/OS policies are now old policies and deserving of both review and interpretation. The role of an ArbCom varies across the projects, but at minimum they are a private group of experienced users with a dispute resolution function. ArbCom members get familiarity with project disputes and community standards and access to private evidence and information. Indeed, ArbCom members typically gathers a great deal of information during their terms – private evidence, reported concerns. NomCom members have no dispute resolution function and are as well-informed as the typical community member, which indeed they are. The global policies specify only well-attended elections and appointment by an ArbCom as the only means of appointment. I do not think this is because nobody had yet invented another type of committee when the policies were written. An ArbCom has a particular function on a project: complaints go to its members, who consequently know a great deal of information that would otherwise have to be shared with a favoured admin or the community as a whole. That makes them good decision-makers. Give the candidacy to a NomCom and the decision is being made by a very small group of individuals who may be quite poorly-informed about a candidate's history. I always seek pragmatic and mission-forward interpretations of global policy; I think that the other commissioners do the same. This was a case, however, where a novel practice clearly created a risk of inadequate scrutiny of applicants for the CU/OS permissions. arcticocean ■しかく 21:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hi,

• "NomCom members have no dispute resolution function and are as well-informed as the typical community member, which indeed they are." This is not true for fr-wp: Cnom members are experienced members (more than some previous CAr members), that's why they have been elected by the community...
• "An ArbCom has a particular function on a project: complaints go to its members, who consequently know a great deal of information that would otherwise have to be shared with a favoured admin or the community as a whole." It's not the case on fr-wp for years...
• "Give the candidacy to a NomCom and the decision is being made by a very small group of individuals who may be quite poorly-informed about a candidate's history." This is not relevant for fr-wp. Moreover, the CU/OS applications are public (there and there + talkpages), so the community can express any concern if needed.
• "This was a case, however, where a novel practice clearly created a risk of inadequate scrutiny of applicants for the CU/OS permissions." Again, the risk came from an understaffed (and then not staffed at all) CAr...

Your comments are theorical and, imho, irrelevants for fr-wp community. — Jules* ^talk 21:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for your replies which I am responding to in the same order:

• Even if CNom members have dispute resolution experience, they do not have a dispute resolution function. The global policy calls for community election or ArbCom appointment. Even if individual CNom members were highly trusted, they are not performing the duties of an arbitrator.
• The global policy does not provide that if an ArbCom is inactive, a CNom can act in its place. The only choices are community election or ArbCom appointment.
• It is greatly relevant. As for public advertisement, I agree that it could reduce the risk, but not by as much as an election or an ArbCom appointment process.
• I think that the alternatives here are the three outlined in the Commission's written decision. When your ArbCom became inactive, elections were available as an alternative method of selecting permissions holders.

We are keen to discuss the global policy position with you and assist your community to develop a policy-compatible method of appointments. It is, however, important that your local policy complies with the global one. The global policy is fairly limited in the requirements it imposes, but those it does impose are there for what I believe to be good reasons. arcticocean ■しかく 13:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

See WMF's proposed amendment that formal defines an "Appointments Committee", though CU and OS policy has not yet been formally amended. I believe the WMF's proposed version is still ambigous and I once had my proposed version. GZWDer (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hi,

As I explained in a long reply on the fr-wp Village Pump, I consider this is a disrespectful decision in its wording, and that it does not solve any existing problem.

Disrespectful because, back in 2019-2020, before the whole fr-wp community voted to create the Cnom:

• we took a close look to the OS and CU policies in order to check that the Cnom would respect these policies;
• and we (and, in fact, I, in the name of others) aksed both WMF Legal and... you, the Ombuds commission (I understand the ombuds are not necessarly the same now, but I think you have access to email archives), if it was OK, and Legal said yes, and the OC said nothing.

You don't even aknowledge that in your decision, and that is disrespectful.

Moreover, your decision seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the French Wikipedia situation: we had for several years a CAr a very small number of elected members, so it couldn't even handle arbitrations most of the time. And then with 0 member; this is still true currently. Creating the Cnom was in fact a remedy to this situation. The Cnom has more members than the CAr have had for a long time. And Cnom elections gathered well above the "25 voters" quorum required by OS and CU policies. Cnom elected members are experienced editors (more than some of old CAr members).

I don't understand that decision. For me, it tries to solve a problem that does not exist.

Please refer to my comment in french (you can use DeepL for an automatic translaton) on fr-wp Village pump for a more elaborate argumentation.

— Jules* ^talk 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

And did the OC inform fr-wp community about this 2022 proposal of change for the CU policy? Why is this matter only brought to fr-wp community now, in a rather top-down manner? — Jules* ^talk 22:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

It was listed here on Meta which all CU's should be aware of. It was also listed several times on the CheckUser-L where discussion also took place. Last discussions was in September 2022 on the list. Also WMF made the proposal to change the Policy, not the OC. We were involved in it and agreed to proposing it etc, however the proposal was made by WMF. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Reply