Talk:Ombuds commission

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 60 days.

French Wikipedia Nominations Committee

See also: w:fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/17 décembre 2024#Processus de nomination des CheckUsers et Oversighters sur Wikipédia en français

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 Commission

---

• 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)
  • 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)

Concerns

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)

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 ■ 21:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 ■ 13:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

"Even if individual CNom members were highly trusted, they are not performing the duties of an arbitrator."

• Check fr:WP:CUABUS: a member of CNom is an arbitrator in cases that do not involve confidential matters.

I have the impression that you are inventing new rules for CheckUser_policy#Appointing_local_CheckUsers and Oversight_policy#Access based solely on a personal interpretation of what an Arbitration Committee should be. It is not stated anywhere that an arbitration committee must have this capacity in order to appoint CheckUsers or Oversighters. So "It is, however, important that your local policy complies with the global one." makes no sense.

Stricto sensu, CNom is an ArbCom under these policies (all criteria are met).

If we were to follow your logic, simply renaming CNom to ArbCom would make CNom comply with global policy. So what's wrong with CNom, except its name? LD (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You are claiming that the fr.wp CNom is an ArbCom, in the sense that global policy requires it be. Your support for that claim is a reference to w:fr:WP:CUABUS, which provides that complaints about checkusers can be referred to the CNom but no confidential information should be provided. I am unable to understand your argument, so I cannot accept your conclusion that the CNom would be an ArbCom in the global policy sense.

I also disagree that renaming the CNom would fulfil the requirement. Arbitration works differently on each project, but words have meanings. For Wikimedia's purposes, arbitration means the adjudication of community disputes. I do not think you, or anyone on fr.wp, thinks that reviewing nominations for CU or OS is the adjudication of a community dispute. So even were CNom to be renamed, it would not be arbitrating, no matter its name. I'm not sure why you think that this decision was about the committee's name. Nothing in our decision suggests that the name is decisive: our decision analyses the function and duties of CNoms and ArbComs at great length without once discussing the word choice of their names.

The issue here is straightforward. Local policy allowed permissions to be appointed by a committee of 5 users serving 3-year terms. Global policy requires permissions to be appointed by an ArbCom or community election. The local policy therefore contains an incompatibility with the global one. arcticocean ■ 20:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

1. "I am unable to understand your argument, so I cannot accept your conclusion that the CNom would be an ArbCom in the global policy sense."
   • To put it bluntly, the burden of proof is not on me; it is on the Ombuds Commission to demonstrate that the CNom does not meet the requirements.
2. CU/OS policies do not define what an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is or should be.
3. You state that "arbitration works differently on each project, but words have meanings," yet still conclude that the CNom is not an ArbCom.
4. This decision suggests that the Ombuds Commission assumes the authority to define what an ArbCom is or should be, which exceeds its scope.
   • "They also investigate for the Board the compliance of local CheckUser or Oversight policies or guidelines with the global CheckUser and Oversight policies.
   • investigate is not defining

Yet, Ombuds Commission didn't demonstrate Cnom does not meet the requirements:

• "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 Ombuds Commission's approach is top-down, arbitrary and dangerous : if the Ombuds Commission grants itself the right to define terms from the policies without acknowledging the interpretative nature of the texts, it positions itself in a way that clearly enables potential abuses of power.

I insist on the fact that the Ombuds Commission is interpreting the concept of an Arbitration Committee solely based on the cultural perspective of its members. There is an evident bias. Otherwise, how did you define Arbitration Committee to state CNom is not an Arbitration Committee?

The Ombuds Commission should either have refrained from making such a decision, given the absence of a clear global definition, or relied solely on existing policies to demonstrate that the CNom is not an ArbCom. However, this is impossible, except by pointing out that the CNom has a different name, as the purpose of an ArbCom (in those policies) is only defined as a granting committee.

I therefore invite you to reconsider your position. LD (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom has a definition for an ArbCom: On Wikimedia Foundation projects, an Arbitration Committee (sometimes abbreviated as "ArbCom") is a small group of trusted users who serve as a means of dispute resolution that have been initiated on some individual Wikimedia Foundation projects. --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ameisenigel This page is not cited in CU Policy (it is in OS policy tho), is not a valid global policy and never has been discussed by meta community neither.

You still fail to prove your point on the sole base of OS/CU Policy.

I'll open a section on CU Policy talk for futher concerns. LD (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I never claimed that this is a policy. It is just a definition of an ArbCom. --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If the policies do not define what an ArbCom is, then the definition does not align with community consensus. The definition you used is interpretive, meaning you cannot argue that CNom is not an ArbCom without relying on your own point of view. LD (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Your entire analysis falls into error when you based it on this point: the purpose of an ArbCom (in those policies) is only defined as a granting committee. The global policies, CUP and OS are not just referring to any elected committee when they say that the permissions can be granted by an ArbCom. The policies are referring to a committee with dispute resolution functions:

• The earliest requirement was introduced in 2005 that checkusers actually be an arbitrator. Only the English ArbCom had been established – the Russian one would be established one month later. At this point, the policy has imported an unambiguous meaning of "arbitrator" as someone involved in dispute resolution, not someone involved in granting the permission. At this point, arbitrators have no power to grant the permission other than to themselves.
• In the same month, the requirement was expanded and arbitrators were permitted to appoint non-arbitrators as checkusers. (This sort of thing happened a lot on Meta in 2005: experienced Wikimedians would write the global policy, discussion would ensue, and then the policy would be changed again.) What has not happened is a re-definition of arbitrator to refer to someone not arbitrating, i.e. a granting-only committee, as you are contending.
• The requirement has not changed in the subsequent twenty years, other than stylistic and unimportant changes.

All along, the global policy envisaged checkuser being held only by (a) Stewards, or (b) community-elected people, or (c) elected arbitrators (on wikis with a dispute resolution body), or (d) people appointed by the arbitrators. If there are no arbitrators and no dispute resolution body, both options C and D become unavailable. Global policy simply does not permit it. That does not need to remain the case – policy changes all the time. If you wish to change the policy, you will need to get consensus to change the policy. I must, however, ask you to stop insisting on an after-the-fact reimagining of the global policy. ArbCom never has just meant a granting committee. arcticocean ■ 10:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Arcticocean: You're referencing outdated policy, not the current one. This is one of the reasons why the Ombuds Commission's decision is incorrect.

The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is defined in current policy as a granting body that requires support from at least 25–30 community members. There is no explicit definition of its role, except for the following:

• Suspicion of abuses of CheckUser should be discussed by each local wiki. On wikis with an approved ArbCom, the ArbCom can decide on the removal of access. On wikis without an approved ArbCom, the community can vote to remove access.

From this, it's clear that the ArbCom is primarily defined as a granting committee and nothing more. The policy also 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.

Therefore, you cannot claim that ArbCom has a role different from a granting committee based on the current policy.

CNom meets the criteria outlined in the policy and has the authority to remove access. Therefore, CNom functions as an ArbCom, and its members are Arbitrators.

As highlighted in the other discussion, the Confidentiality Agreement for Nonpublic Information & Privacy Policy defines trusted roles as those granted through a "valid community- or foundation-run process."

Is the Ombuds Commission legitimate in stating what constitutes a valid community- or foundation-run process? No. Therefore, if you want to argue that CNom is not an Arbitration Committee, you'll need to use the current definitions and policies to show that ArbCom holds a role that CNom does not have.

You're forced to recognize that you're using your position to define terms outside the current policy, while that is the community's responsibility.

I understand your concern, but I am not reimagining the global policy. I am simply highlighting the current wording of the policy and its implications. My intention is to ensure clarity and consistency in applying these policies, not to distort them. My position is that the Ombuds Commission is overstepping its authority by defining a term that is not based on the current policy. It should have ruled that the situation was unclear and ambiguous, rather than declaring it non-compliant, as only the community has the legitimacy to determine compliance or define such terms. If it were clear to everyone that 'ArbCom' equates to the English ArbCom, then the current policy should have explicitly defined and stated its role.

To conclude, there is no evidence to prove that CNom does not fulfill a role similar to that of the English ArbCom (arbitrating role), just under a different name, since as pointed out the Cnom meets the criteria, can grant, revoke or examine the complaints. In the absence of such evidence, it seems reasonable to consider that both entities play the role in the application of current policies. LD (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

To sum it up: there's a difference between 'never has been meant to be' and 'it does not mean that.' If the current policy is unclear and led to this situation, the Ombuds Commission should have stated that the situation is unclear, not non-compliant (you may consider it non-compliant based on the original wording, but not based on the current one).

If the global community considers CNom compliant, interpreting the wording as I do (ambiguous), then there's no need to modify the current policy; the Ombuds Commission must follow the community's understanding.

How did the Ombuds Commission assess whether the interpretation of the wording was consistent across global community, may I ask? LD (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The policy has not changed, either literally or in its interpretation, so there is no basis for distinguishing between the original and current wordings. An attempt was made in 2022 to update the policy but it did not succeed. That fr.wp changed its local policy does not mean that a ‘global community consensus’ has emerged to interpret the policy differently; that is not how global policy is made. Others have to be asked to support the policy change – more than expected to notice a divergence on one local project. arcticocean ■ 17:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You are repeating your point that AC=any granting committee, and not responding at all to anything in my rebuttal of that point. I therefore think that I have said everything that I can to you on the point. I see that you have proposed a policy change at the talk page of CUP and I think that is the best place for further discussion of the way forward. arcticocean ■ 17:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I won't participate in discussions here, I already did it too much on wpfr with @Faendalimas. It took lots of comments to identify the root cause of the issue (it was very difficult to finally have it with vague and contradictory answers). The CNom agreed to have a meeting with OC, and I really hope the explanations/issues will be clear and factual, and that all members of OC will be aligned because what you're saying here is not aligned with what is said on frwp... Or maybe I don't understand Goombiis (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Disrespectful and useless decision

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)

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)

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)

Hi @Faendalimas:

• "should"
  • There is a significant difference between "should", "is capable of", and "has been well-informed".
• "It was also listed several times on the CheckUser-L where discussion also took place."
  • Are you referring to a list in which text are written in English without ensuring the information was understandable for non-English speakers?
  • Do you mean a list that only a limited number of members could access, especially considering the high turnover associated with this role?

Do not place blame on the CheckUsers under such circumstances. It was the responsibility of the WMF and the Ombuds Commission to ensure that the French-speaking community (not just the CheckUsers) could participate in the discussions (by the way : the new CUs, of which I am a part, have never been informed.). It is up to the one who identifies a problem to propose solutions, not to those who do not perceive it or are unaware of it.

I apologize if my message comes across poorly. However, I stand by the view that the handling of this matter is particularly disrespectful. LD (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Your reply, @Faendalimas, is itself very disrepectful: instead of recognizing that the OC failed to properly inform fr-wp on a matter brought publicly as soon as 2022, you blame the CU?

When we created the Cnom, we did not do it without telling anyone, stating that Legal and OC should be aware of what's going on on fr-wp: we emailed both Legal and you, the OC. Not only you, the OC, did not aknowledge the fact that you were informed and did not oppose, in 2020, the creation of the Cnom (and I'm still waiting of an aknowledgement! if no apology…), but you failed to return this basic courtesy to us, fr-wp community, by not letting us know, in 2022 and later, that there was a problem.

There is a serious communication problem on your (the OC) end. — Jules* ^talk 12:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

As I have said, possibly came out wrong, in 2022 the OC did not make the proposal to change the policy. We could not inform anyone it was out of our hands. I was Chair of the OC at the time we did not have a say in how it was done. The case was taken out of our hands in July 2022 and handed back in 2023. WMF proposed changes I did comment at the time and supported it I tried to get this done and if it had worked we would not be here. I meant no disrespect but our hands were ied. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

WMF & Ombuds Commission Bias

Hi,

@だ＊ぜ, Ameisenigel, Arcticocean, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy, RoySmith, and Vermont:

Most members of the Ombuds Commission and WMF staff come from wikis where an Arbitration Committee (Arcom) exists (e.g. en, de, nl, meta). However, many wikis do not have an Arbitration Committee: Arabic, Bulgarian, Croatian, Spanish, Korean, Occitan, Portuguese, Swedish, Slovenian, Thai, French, among others.

This raises a question: are we assuming that the norms and structures valued in Germanic or Anglo-Saxon wikis are universally applicable? The absence or challenges of establishing such committees on other wikis might reflect valid cultural or practical differences.

I kindly encourage you to be mindful of diverse perspectives and avoid imposing a singular worldview, as this could conflict with the fundamental principles of inclusivity and diversity in our movement. LD (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I do not know how all the different Arbcoms are operating, but I know that there are at least very big differences between the Arbcoms of enwiki and dewiki. So even if wikis have an Arbcom there might be differences that are reflecting the diversity of our projects. That said, users from wikis without an Arbcom are also invited to apply for the OC and we also currently have members from wikis without an Arbcom. --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Not all members of the Ombuds Commission (OC) come from wikis with an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). Some of us, including myself and a few colleagues, are from wikis that do not have an ArbCom. Additionally, the OC's resolution regarding the CheckUser (CU) and Oversight (OS) appointment procedures on the French Wikipedia (frwiki) is unrelated to this fact.

The OC determined that the practices on frwiki are not compatible with the global CU and OS policies. As a result, the Commission provided options that align with global policy to facilitate the continued appointment of CUs and OSes. These options did not specifically require the establishment or activation of an ArbCom. Instead, forming an ArbCom was presented as one of the permissible choices, alongside a direct election process.

The frwiki community is free to choose the option that best suits their needs, as long as it complies with global policy. —MdsShakil (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replies.

@Faendalimas states:

• "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."

@MdsShakil states:

• "The OC determined that the practices on frwiki are not compatible with the global CU and OS policies."

If you can state that the French Nomination Committee is not part of an Arbitration Committee, and therefore is not itself an Arbitration Committee, please define what an Arbitration Committee is.

According to global policy, I don't see any criteria that the French Nomination Committee fails to meet in order to be considered an Arbitration Committee. The frwiki community has chosen the French Nomination Committee to appoint CU/OS, therefore it's an Arbitration Committee. So what is the issue? LD (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have now addressed these points in my response to your other comment. arcticocean ■ 20:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This speech only represents my own self. I must firstly declare that this speculation is rather superficial — it speculates that such a decision is made prejudicially based on geographical values and cultures, rather than the exisiting policies. Despite the points discussed by my fellows, I must restate that, according to the current aforementioned global policies, only two legit approaches are provided for our communities: (a) an CArb/ArbCom with each members thereof has at least 25-30 approvals in their elections, and (b) an indepedent election. The meaning of the approach (a) is that it carries CArb/ArbCom members who has the advanced permissions, including the permission to access the non-public information. It is an essential institutional design which is omitted in the CNom in FRWiki. This decision underlines this institutional design was non-ideally damaged in this case and shall be revised. Any grievance onto this decision is understandable; however there is no a sufficient reason to create a new approach which is incompatible with the global policies. --だ☆ぜ (Dasze) 16:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The meaning of the approach (a) is that it carries CArb/ArbCom members who has the advanced permissions, including the permission to access the non-public information

@だ＊ぜ this is precisely why I contend that the CheckUser Policy (CUP) is ambiguous and that the Ombuds Commission (OC) exhibits bias. The statement in question falls outside the scope of the CUP and is relevant only to English Wikipedia ArbCom members who are granted CheckUser access. The current version of the CUP does not require that an Arbitration Committee have access to non-public data, nor does it define "advanced permissions." By contrast, the CNom process has the authority to request the revocation of any local CheckUser access, which could be defined as advanced permissions.

Furthermore, neither the Arbitration Committee page nor the Terms of Use specifies such a requirement or defines resolution bodies in this way. As a result, OC members relied on their interpretation of what an Arbitration Committee should entail—an interpretation that is not explicitly supported by the text of the CUP.

I understand that, for historical reasons, the CUP primarily referred to the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee and sought to expand its scope. However, the policy has remained ambiguous on this matter, which is why the OC's approach conflicts with the current text and spirit of the CUP, which aims to ensure CheckUser access is granted only to trusted users. While the OC's interpretation may align with the CUP's historical context, it is not supported by the policy as written.

As a result, I recommend that OC members participate in the discussion about revamping the CUP. This policy must be clear, consistent, and forward-looking. It is no longer merely about interpreting what an Arbitration Committee should entail. LD (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@LD, I again disagree it is a bias, nor there was any during our considerations. In fact, this is not even closed to a bias. The meaning of ArbCom/CArb has been discussed for years and years. If you go to see the archives of CUP and ArbCom on metawiki, you may find many discussions about "what is ArbCom", which I believe the ultimate reference in our case should be this version of ArbCom/CArb, which is the same period of our CUP has been modified into the current shape (See also Talk:CheckUser policy/Archive 3). If a Com has no functionality of dispute resolution nor user permissions granted equivalently (in which means those members, though have the functional capacity, but not exercise any), it is not an ArbCom/CAr. It was outlined by the ArbCom meta page then, but deleted afterwards.

Same same, "French (No arbitrators elected since September 2021)" in the current meta page. It is so widely recognised, "no, we have no arbitrators in frwiki". In other words, there is no functioning CArb. How can I argue CNom is a CAr or overtook the CAr, and shall fulfil the policies accordingly hence?

I am not going into the Ship of Theseus — if CNom has the functional capacity, is it CAr? It remains to be decided by the OC, not me solely, although I very appreciate this kind of seperation of power and institutional seperation. Of course, any renewal of relevant policies is appreciated. That will legitimise frwiki's current approach. But, that does not mean the revision to correct the current wrong is not needed. You cannot justify the current wrongful practice using the future amendment. --だ☆ぜ (Dasze) 12:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me be frankly honest here to express my own opinion, for the good of both of us. It is not compatible with the current policy framework. Once the amendment passed, frwiki can re-organise the same CNom or whatsoever, even with the same members, and the same CU candidates being appointed. However, the current CNom and CU/OSers must be stopped first, and wait until the amendment and re-organisation. --だ☆ぜ (Dasze) 12:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

To summarize

(Translated by Deepl)

So, to summarize:

- The OC organized a meeting in a village hall deep in Arkansas without informing the project in question. Obviously, the content of this discussion should be known to the entire world.

- The OC believes that it is perfectly normal not to apologize for not informing the community about this discussion.

- The OC has defined criteria according to which dozens of contributors to fr.wikipedia do not share the same reading, and has judged that the CNom should not exist, even though it was informed in advance of the possibility of creating this committee, the WMF gave its approval, and the OC had nothing to say about it at the time.

- Nor does the OC seem to want to admit that it has changed its mind on the matter: "No, we just hadn't been informed," is what you can understand on the fr.wiki community discussion board.

- It takes several hundred thousand bytes of discussion to get the beginnings of an explanation from Faendalimas to help us understand the problem. However, when we read the current discussion, it seems that the problem is not exactly the same.

Please understand that a number of contributors to the discussion from fr.wikipedia (I don't think I'm being too forward on this point) feel, to be polite, that we are making a mockery of the fr.wikipedia community. Girart de Roussillon (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Chair

I know the Ombuds currently has a Chairperson. Can this information be included on the membership table? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, I have added this to the table. --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)