Revision as of 04:57, 27 May 2013 edit Int21h (talk \| contribs) 18 edits →General comments and questions: mod cmt ← Older edit		Revision as of 05:36, 27 May 2013 edit undo Int21h (talk \| contribs) 18 edits →Point 1: Investigating compliance of local policies with global policy: support Newer edit →
Line 87: * {{support}} <span style="padding-left: 5pt; font-size: 0.9em; letter-spacing: 0.1em">— '''[[User:Racconish\|Racconish]]'''[[User talk:Racconish\|<sup> Tk </sup>]]</span> 17:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC) * {{support}} ok --[[User:Steinsplitter\|Steinsplitter]] ([[User talk:Steinsplitter\|talk]]) 17:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC) * {{support}} Giving OmbCom local policy review authority is required if they are going to have effective review-appeal authority, otherwise they will have no easy way to stop systematic (local policy/norm) global policy violations, other than resorting to Point 2+3 on every individual case. WMF officers (i.e. the WMF legal department) have discretionary policy review authority already, but it is probably informal and inaccessible, so something more formal and accessible is needed. I still think if local policy is wrong (or non-ascertainable), global policy is likely to be as well. [[User:Int21h\|Int21h]] ([[User talk:Int21h\|talk]]) 05:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC) === Point 2: Investigation violations of global checkuser/oversight policies ===

Requests for comment/Scope of Ombudsman Commission: Difference between revisions