Wikipedia:Ombudsman

This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

The Wikipedia Ombudsman is a proposed structure that seeks to deal with complaints related to administrator and Arbitration Committee conduct. The Ombudsman acts as a neutral reviewer and aide in cases where a user feels that they have been mistreated by an administrator or an Arbitration Committee ruling. Therefore, the Ombudsman seeks to protect the Wikipedia community against abuse in the dispute resolution system.

The Ombudsman is not a mediator - therefore, cases in which a user feels they has been wronged or discriminated by another user should not be directed to the Ombudsman, but rather to other dispute resolution structures. Cases against administrators can only be brought against them for the misuse of administratorial powers, not for general misconduct (such as making offensive remarks outside their role as administrator; these cases should be dealt with in dispute resolution). Unlike committees, the structure of the Ombudsman would be made up of one person, either appointed by the Wikimedia Board or Jimbo Wales, or elected by the community.

Rationale

Recently, as the size of Wikipedia has grown and more users have joined the project, there has been a rise in the blocking activity of administrators and of the number of cases brought before the Arbitration Committee. While such actions and structures are both necessary and successful in preventing rising vandalism and maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia, they have also resulted in cases where administrators and the Arbitration Committee have taken rash measures that have left some users feeling mistreated or wronged. This leads to alienation and general mistrust of Wikipedia structures, reducing the vibrant and open nature of the Wikipedia community and hence the success of the project. Some users have even left the project after feeling unfairly treated by admins and the ArbCom. Currently, when such issues arise, the user who feels wronged generally contacts other users or administrators, but these people often do not have the authority, interest or neutrality to involve themselves in such affairs, hence the need for a Wikipedia Ombudsman.

This proposal does not imply that administrators of members of the Arbitration Committee are not doing their job properly or are abusing their function. Rather, the Ombudsman should exist to improve the efficiency and fairness of these structures and increase the stability of the Wikipedia community - it is an important check and balance in the Wikipedia dispute resolution system.

Powers

The Ombudsman is a purely consultative structure, and hence does not have powers such as blocking or enforcing penalites. Rather, where misconduct has been found:

In the case of complaints against administrators, the Ombudsman makes recommendations as to what actions should be taken to remedy or redress the situation (for example, a revocation of a block and an apology from the administrator in question, or, in the case of major misconduct, a request to bureaucrats for desysoping)
In the case of complaints against the Arbitration Committee, the Ombusdman refers the case back to the ArbCom and makes recommendations as to what measures should be taken to remedy or redress the sitation (for example, the overturn of a ban or probation)

After each case, the Ombudsman will create a report, which will be viewed by all, with his or her recommendations. The Ombudsman may communicate with the complainant to clarify the case after the complaint has been filed, but only to gather evidence.

Users who file a complaint to the Ombudsman, but where no admin/ArbCom misconduct is found may not be penalised. However, the penalties applied to them by administrators or the Arbitration Committee will continue to be applied. Additionally, cases which are maliciously referred to the Ombudsman will be dismissed before thorough investigation.

Rationale

Powers

See also