Talk:Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: Neutrality and proper sourcing
The VRTS ticket number is 2011022110005743.

Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on biographies of living persons.

Issues

I think there are problems with some of the material re-inserted into this article. Rather than revert, I would rather discuss and either add supporting evidence or reword/remove by consensus. I understand that some people have a negative view of the ombudsmen; it is good to have these criticisms reflected in the article. However, I am keen that we retain NPOV and give a balanced view, presenting only material that is relevant and actually supported by evidence. We are, after all, linking to Ombudsmanwatch, which provides plenty of supporting rhetoric for those who want it ;-)

In my understanding, it is possible to complain about the actions of individual councillors or members of staff, as long as there is a claim those actions led to maladministration causing injustice. I think the present wording suggests that this is not possible, which is misleading in my eyes.
I think the line about lack of duty to report is only justified if there is evidence that they have not done so when they should have done. And anyway, aren't the Ombudsmen under the same common-law duties to report crime as the rest of us? It skirts close to innuendo of criminal conspiracy as worded, which I think is dangerous and probably wrong.

I'm happier with this one now - sorted, thanks. Tom Harris 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local settlements can be and are often the result of agreement between the council and the complainant. The present wording, in my view, hides this and implies all "local settlements" are coercive. Can we find a better form of wording?

Sorted this one too, thanks. Tom Harris 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Normally results in the Ombudsman reconsidering, then confirming" is only justified if we can show that has happened more than 50% of the time. I am particularly uneasy about the use of the Balchin case as evidence for this. A close reading of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's final report[1] suggests it was the Parliamentary Ombudsman, not the LGO, who was overturned twice at judicial review. The LGO's involvement seems to have been to refuse the case out of time in 1992 and to re-investigate in 2004. I don't doubt the whole saga supports a case that the ombudsmen system could do with reform, but I don't think it supports the point claimed here. Again, I'm happy to be convinced.

The reference added to the article to "support" this point actually confirms that the Ombudsman hasn't lost a judicial review in three years, so the question of them "reconsidering, then confirming" does not apply. Also no explanation as to why Balchin is relevant here. I am reverting until a better case is made. Tom Harris 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think damning Mrs Seex by implication with a press story about Norwich City Council is justified. Firstly, legal responsibility for finance is not on the Chief Exec, it's on the statutory s151 officer (normally the chief accountant) and the members. Secondly, Norwich's financial position doesn't have any bearing on the Ombudsmen unless we can demonstrate financial issues there too and a link from the first to the second. To my knowledge such evidence doesn't exist, though I'd be happy to see it if provided. Most complaints about the Ombudsmen seem to be about the correctness of investigation process and outcome, not allegations of financial mismanagement. Absent evidence of this, the paragraph seems to be a smear, which is difficult to justify in an encyclopedia.

Tom Harris 10:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the question of Mrs Seex' tenure at Norwich City. She is now employed, as the final arbiter, to investigate mismanagement by Council officials. If the news story turns out to be correct then last year she was leading a council which was guilty of such mismanagement. This would make her position still less credible as is an important and material fact.

I say 'if' because as far as I know we haven't yet seen the report and are relying on a story in the local press. The article does say this but I'd be happy to see a more explicit health warning until such time as the report is published. Mucky Duck 11:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, though I agree a single local paper article is a weak source. I would be much happier with including it if something authoritative was published actually blaming her! Tom Harris 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've chased this one a bit more. The source is apparently the Audit Commission's annual audit letter to NCC, which is attached to one of their committee reports[2]. I've had a good look through; it's pretty critical, with most of the issues due to poor accountancy practices (pages 15-17 of the linked document). Mrs Seex is not directly criticised in the report and, as I mentioned above, the accounts aren't legally her responsibility anyway. I'm still uncomfortable with the paragraph as drafted. Perhaps somebody else could have a look at the report and give your thoughts? Thanks. Tom Harris 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the Chipperfield cite, Mucky Duck. Hansard is a wonderful thing! :-) Tom Harris 10:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of staff Recruited from Local Government

You make it sound like an eternal mystery. Of course this number is "known". The LGO keeps staff records; and if there was any commitment to openness and transparency this number would be published. Mucky Duck 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might be talking about different things. Of course they could work it out by trawling their records. We (the public) certainly don't know, though, and it's quite possible nobody at the LGO does off-hand, either - they may well never have bothered to check, as there's no reason to unless you're going to release it to the public. I'm happier with the new wording than the old, anyway, so thanks for the edit. Tom Harris 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Seex at Norwich City

I don't think that an explanation as to why a report on her record at Norwich is relevant is NPOV - without it the citation might appear, as you suggested before, like a smear. Nor do I think what I wrote was "opinion", however, I'll try different wording, how about this:

In March 2006 the Audit Commission published a highly critical audit letter for Norwich City Council during Mrs Seex' last year as Chief Executive [3]. leading to further questions about her credibility as an independent and final arbiter on matters of maladministration in local government.

Mucky Duck 09:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the assertion that it "further undermined her credibility" that was POV, as it depends on the observer's opinion. I can certainly see that it would undermine it in the eyes of some people, but we have no business asserting it does for everyone.

I like your revision, though. Can I offer the following? It's identical to yours with the removal of the word "further" and the change of a full stop. I would cite who the questions were from, too, but I can only find the Ombudsmanwatch front page and it is unlikely to stay on the front page for long. If you can find a more permanent link to a group specifically linking the audit letter to her credibility as Ombudsman, that would make it better still.

In March 2006 the Audit Commission published a highly critical audit letter for Norwich City Council during Mrs Seex' last year as Chief Executive [4], leading to questions about her credibility as an independent and final arbiter on matters of maladministration in local government.

Tom Harris 09:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange, my edit from yesterday has gone missing. To recap, I don't have any real problem with your version and have copied it in. Having said that, it doesn't matter much but I don't know why you wanted to remove the "further" since the questions that they are further to are referred above and so I think it reads better with it there. Mucky Duck 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balchin

The new paragraph is better, but Balchin still seems difficult to link to judicial review of the LGO. As explained over two paragraphs in the "issues" section above, the official report suggests that the LGO was never the subject of judicial review over Balchin, only the Parliamentary Ombudsman (twice). I may well be missing something (in which case please point it out). I'm sure the Balchin case could usefully be included somewhere else as an example of when the overall ombudsmen system gets it wrong, if you're keen to have it in.

If it's not verifiable we'll have to take it out. Thanks. Tom Harris 10:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balchin

Fact: The LGO refused to investigate the Balchin's initial complaint in 1991. If the LGO had taken the prudent step of validating evidence provided by the council before refusing to investigate the Balchin's complaint the subsequent fiasco could have been avoided altogether.

In essence, anything post 1991 is a direct result of the LGO's willingness to accept evidence from a council without validation.

Fact: A Deputy Ombudsman is on record stating that they see nothing wrong in doing that. Fact: They did the same with my complaint during 2002. Fact: That is why the Balchins suffered for over 14 years. Fact: The LGO do not like to admit when they get it wrong. (Their words not mine. Read the latest qualitative survey) That is why subsequent investigations only went back to 1992.

Edit away Tom. The truth is out there whether you like it or not.

Trevor R Nunn

I have absolutely no issue with any of that. The case seems like a sorry tale which reflects badly on all the official bodies involved. As mentioned above, if you want to include it in the article (given proper references, which should be easy given there's a Parliamentary Ombudsman report on it) I'd be happy to help you write it.

However (and it is a big however), the article currently uses the case to reinforce an assertion that the LGO normally fails to properly reconsider cases it loses at judicial review. This doesn't seem to be true for LGO in the Balchin case (and neither of us can actually find a case at judicial review that the LGO has lost). That's why I have a problem with the statement - not because Balchin didn't happen, or because I want to hide it (why on earth would I?), simply that I want the facts in the article to be verifiable. That is, after all, the policy of Wikipedia.

Perhaps if we drafted a paragraph somewhere else in the article covering Balchin that would give a reasonable way forward? Tom Harris 21:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: The LGO also produced a report on the Balchins case. Fact: The Wiki article states that the Ombudsmen investigate in response to allegations of maladministration causing injustice to the person who has complained. Fact: They don't, the majority of complaints are dismissed without any investigation, which is ironic when you take into account the original purpose of the LGO (1974 LG Act refers.)Their statutory purpose is more important than what they (or you) now consider their role to be?

An article drafted by committee would just produce another wiki camel. An interesting but irrelevant read.

Trevor R Nunn

Tom is quite right here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox - Ombudsmanwatch et al fulfill that function - and the facts need to be verifiable, relevant and NPOV. The anger is understandable but the facts of LGO bias and unaccountability stand up perfectly well on their own - they don't need embelishing. And they suffer from that process. A dispassionate summary of the Balchin case would be much more informative, and reach more people, than side swipes and bluster. Mucky Duck 08:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought a fact was (by definition)verifiable and NPOV. Having said that I agree with your suggestion that a dispassionate summary of the Balchin case may be more appropriate for wiki 'editors'. I for one have never asserted otherwise.

Trevor R Nunn

Just keep it calm. Believe me I understand the anger and frustration that the inbuilt bias and unaccountability of the Ombudsman instils but hectoring is not helpful, and inserting "Fact:" before a statement does not make it any more true. He is basically right, if I understand the facts correctly, that the Balchin case does not have anything to say about how the Ombudsman treats the results of Judicial Review since neither reviews were into his conduct or involvement (much as they should have been, perhaps). The case is damning, but not in the way the article suggests, and this devalues the citation. Mucky Duck 09:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balchin is relevant as example of reconsideration, risks of judicial review, and as Parliamentary Ombudsman and LGO have said, as evidence of them working together. Truthfairy1400 27 April 06

External links

A number of problems with the external links:

there are too many. Four anti-LGO links is far too much. One might be suitable.
they are highly biased. Although three of them are titled with the neutral-sounding word "Watch", the opening sentence of one reveals its true purpose: "The objective of Local Government Ombudsman Watch is to motivate others into campaigning for the abolition of the LGO...". The fourth, the blogspot site, is horrendously one-sided and not worthy of inclusion at all.
none of them are remotely representative. There is no significant minority view that the LGO is the spawn of the devil, or whatever it is that these sites are trying to imply.

In short, they are in breach of part of our guideline on external links, and also part of that on undue weight. Although we should make an attempt to include all points of view, these are so minority-based and extreme that they simply are not worthy of inclusion at all, and I suggest they are removed. ninety:one 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the ombudsmanwatch website and it make no such claim as "the LGO is the spawn of the devil" and to suggest it does is highly disingenuous. It also makes clear that it is a campaigning website - there is no attempt to hide that - but it also presents significant amounts of evidence about the LGO. I agree that it is unnecessary, counter-productive even, to provide all of these links but neither should we be suppressing criticism or disparaging the critics. Bagunceiro (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed all of those links after they were re-added. We do not achieve neutrality by having links from opposing sides; rather, if there are verifiable criticisms found in reliable sources, those belong in the actual text. It is explicitly not allowed to link to highly partisan sides (except, say, to the official web page of a highly partisan subject). For example, we provide the link to the Westboro Baptist Church homepage on Westboro Baptist Church, but not on pages about homosexuality, funerals, etc. Those EL cannot be in this article. The two in the article are acceptable as they are official government links--one the link to the main ombudsman homepage, and another to a report on them. If Bagunceiro disagrees, I recommend asking at the External Links noticeboard for input. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you feel the need to personalise this. Bagunceiro (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean anything bad. I just meant that "any editor who wants to add the links" should try WP:ELN; since you're the only editor I see trying to add them, that's why I referred to you by name. But I didn't mean anything bad by it; rather, I was giving advice for how to proceed if you think that Ninetyone and I are wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I should add that I am not "the only editor trying to add them" - I am not trying to do anything of the sort, I was restoring them after they were removed without adequate explanation. Bagunceiro (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I was unsurprisingly not actually stating that any of the websites imply that the LGO is the spawn of the devil; rather it is disingenuous for you to suggest that I was so stating because I was clearly using it as a metaphorical device. Anyway, enough of that and apologies if it was confusing.) The links were removed with the explanation "rm wholly inappropriate links", which is adequate enough given how they are in flagrant breach of our guidelines - I have no objection to giving a further explanation as to why they were removed, but to say I first did so "without adequate explanation" is I think a little unfair. Bu anyway, yes, I agree with what Qwyrxian said. ninety:one 13:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and reliable sources

Pursuant to Ticket:2011022110005743, some of the information in this article has been updated and some blogs that do not clear WP:IRS and WP:BLP have been removed. Accusations regarding the behaviors of living people must be scrupulously sourced. While it is an important function of articles to note what criticism has been documented in reliable sources (as long as they are clearly attributed and not presented as fact), we have to make sure that the content strictly adheres to WP:V and WP:NPOV. While specific complaints have been evaluated, it looks as though the rest of the article could do with a good cleaning. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tackle it later today as long as nothing else pressing comes up. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made that need input

As I make changes to the article, I'll provide comments on some of them here so that the can be reviewed by other editors, especially when I remove text that may be reference-able by others. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this sentence: "The Local Government Ombudsman is not obliged to investigate a complaint, does not justify decisions and offers no right of appeal except via judicial review." The tone here is negative, and, as such, I think it needs a clear reference, and possible rephrasing. Do we have any evidence that they can ignore complaints, and that judicial review is the only option? Furthermore, "appeal" doesn't really seem like the right word, because that sounds (to me), like the LGO is making some sort of "ruling", when my understanding (so far, currently evolving as I research more), that they are more facilitators. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of the second paragraph in "Duties" used to indicate that the LGO advisement and training to councils services began in 1989. The reference that supported that was a dead link; I replaced it with what seems to be the current page from the LGO site, but it doesn't mention a start date for these activities. If anyone has a source for the start date, please add it and re-add the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a very brief "History" section, which right now just lists the laws that established/modified the LGO. This definitely warrants expansion, possibly including any sourced information explaining why the government created the office. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed: "In March 2006, the Audit Commission published an audit letter for Norwich City Council during Mrs Seex' last year as Chief Executive.^[1] Amongst other things it criticises "poor financial controls" and "lack of progress in putting in place improvements identified in previous audits". As an LGO Anne Seex has recently advocated "creative compensation", including awarding a holiday for the living and a tombstone for the dead.^[2]". This has absolutely nothing to do with the article on LGO, as it dates to Seex's time prior to being an LGO. If Seex herself were to get an article this could possibly go there (especially if there were secondary sources to back up these [[WP:PRIMARY|primary documents), it could go there, but this article/section cannot be a coatrack for complains about a living person. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this paragraph from the criticism section: "A representative of the Local Government Association sits on the selection panel of the Local Government Ombudsman and each of the present Ombudsmen was serving as a local authority chief executive at the time of their appointment,^{[citation needed]} leading to questions regarding their impartiality.^[3] According to Member of Parliament Nick Raynsford, the LGO does not reveal the proportion of staff recruited from local government due to cost concerns related to gathering the data, which is not held centrally.^[4]" The first sentence is a problem because the source it relies on does not appear to be a reliable source to me, because it appears to be a first person op-ed or letter to the editor. The tone of the piece is not "journalistic", so I don't think we can rely on its claims. The second sentence misrepresents the source it's base on. The source doesn't say that LGO "does not reveal"; it actually says that the Ministry of State doesn't keep those records at all, and that to gather the records would be prohibitively expensive. The sentence made it sound like the LGO was hiding the information; you have to understand that the context for that source is that it is a question submitted to the PM by a parliament member. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a paragraph from the criticism section about LGO not being overseen by other agencies. I don't really see how this is a criticism--I mean, it could be one, if it were written that way, but, as far as I can tell, it's just a statement of fact. I moved the Gordon Brown quote to the history section, where in a House of Commons Q & A, he stated that he felt that the LGO, along with a variety of other non-overseen agencies, should have their officers selected by the House of Commons. But I'm not really sure this belongs. Parliament members, including the PM, regularly make all sorts of statements in oral arguments/q&as that are never followed up on. Since this statement doesn't appear to have resulted in any change of policy, I'm inclined to say we should take it out. At the moment, it's verified, so at least it's not harming anyone by keeping it, but I would have no problem if others removed it (and may do so myself at a later point). Alternatively, if there were some reliable person/place making this into an actual criticism, it could be moved back into the crit section. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the criticism section: The information that was in the criticism section wasn't actually criticism. For instance, it was stated as a fact (not yet verified) that only 1.71% of complaints resulted in a finding of maladministration. That would only be criticism if it were linked to an opinion or analysis that, in fact, real maladministration is higher. But, according to their website and process, it looks like the LGO is forbidden to handle a large number of complaints (the whole "last review" principle), which means that its not really surprising that they don't find more problems. I retained the information, but moved it into the Complains Process section. In any event, the results info is badly out of date. There's a 2008-2009 report available that has more current info, but it's extensive and I haven't had time to digest it yet. Similarly, the paragraph about being unable to seek judicial review isn't really a criticism, it's a fact, and it's a fact that has much more to do with strict judicial review time limits than with any "fault" in the LGO process. Even the site we're using for that claim merely indicates its a potential disadvantage of using LGO, not that there's anything actually wrong with this limitation. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's been awhile. I'm trying to finish up the basic cleanup still. I just removed "The well-known and long running Balchin case^[5]^{[dead link‍]} started when the LGO dismissed a complaint in 1991, went through three judicial reviews and then approached the Parliamentary Ombudsman,^[6] who published a joint report on the case together with the Local Government Ombudsman.^[7]" from "Judicial Review". First, 2 of those links are deadlinks, and the first probably isn't reliable anyway. The second link, from The Telegraph, is good, and does say "The treatment that Maurice and Audrey Balchin received over the years from Norfolk county council, the Department of Transport and the local government ombudsman has been branded "a disgrace" by a High Court judge." The problem is that it's unclear exactly what fault lies with the LGO here. Were they responsible for 2 years of the problem? 6 months? Almost all of it? I really want this case to go back into the article, but we need more info to give this context. Once I get past the removals and into the rebuilding, I'll see what I can find. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this part is out: "The Local Government Ombudsman's offices destroyed records of any Judicial Reviews challenging decisions prior to 2001.^[8]^{[failed verification]} Although public law solicitor Richard Buxton won a judicial review decision for a client in 2001, this may have been recorded as occurring in the 2000-2001 financial year.^[9]^{[dead link‍]}" It's not even really that verification is failed--it's a falsification. The source simply says that the information is not kept and collected by the LGO, not that it was destroyed. In other words, the questioner wanted a summary answer, and there was no summary kept. That doesn't mean that the underlying records are gone. Out it goes. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Bias

The LGO is being whitewashed on this page with censorship of any critical material. 194.202.213.254 (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you haven't provided any reliable sources to support any criticism. Please review the reliable sources guidelines. Blogs and other self-published websites are almost never reliable. If you cannot produce such sources in a few days, I will be removing the POV tag. You can't just assert your own opinion that the LGO is "bad", you need to provide reliable information to support that opinion, otherwise the article is NPOV as far as WP is concerned. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am brand new to commenting on Wikipedia. I created my acct yesterday.

This page relates to a subject of special interest to me. I left an edit last night - 13th Oct( under Complaints about the Local Government Ombudsman ) which had been removed by this evening 14th Oct. I have tried to make it a little more concise and replaced it. Understanding the Wikipedia help pages etc is quite time consuming so please forgive if I am getting something wrong and let me know.

At the top of this talk page it is stated that there is a link from the LGO page to the ombudsmanwatch.org site. I could not see that link last night so I added one with my edit (17).

I think it should be noted by persons debating what is ok and what is not ok to state on this page, that even the Duties section right at the top of the LGO page is written without any possibility of examined varification. Thus, customer experiences are probably the only method of actually gaining an understanding of what takes place at the LGO. Yes the Ombudsman turns up at parliament once a year and states a few sympathy wrenching satisfied outcomes to justify its name. But a few satisfied cases account for a miniscule fraction of the work carried out at LGO and cannot be the basis of a reasonable discription of the LGO's purpose.

Obviously Wikipedia cannot be a platform for open confrontational debate in its encyclopedic area but without some form of investigation into the practices at LGO; aside from honest customer experiences, whatever claims are made about the practices of LGO on its Wikipedia page - including the basic duties mentioned at the top or the precept that LGO actually investigates anything with the primary intention of supporting justice, is purely speculative or simply taken from LGO's own or its sponsers ( possibly other parties with vested interests ) published material - in other words its simply marketing or promotional material for the LGO.

I wrote a simple fact backed up by a great deal of investigative work which is supported throughout ombudsmanwatch.org website which I linked to. I hope it can stay on the page. Childs (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a set of rules about what can and cannot be used as a source in articles. Full details can be found at the reliable sources guidelines, but the quick summary is that they need to be sources that are authoritative, and with a reputation for editorial integrity. Blogs, self-published websites, partisan sites pushing a particular point of view, etc., are not reliable sources. Ombusmanwatch is not a reliable source, and thus may not be used as a reliable source. If anyone can provide reliable sources that include criticisms of the LGO, those can be included (so long as they meet WP:DUE--that is, that they represent a reasonably widely held few, not just the view of one or two people). Places to look are reliable newspapers (i.e., The Guardian, not The Daily Mail), television news programs and website (BBC, etc.), or other similar sources. I'm happy to help explain how to format all of that, but we do have be sure that we don't add any unsourced info or info sourced to poor sources, especially if it is negative or contentious. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this. Why the Guardian but not The Daily Mail. Why was Ombudsdmanwatch deemed reliable at the beginning of this page yet now deemed unreliable? Who are you to claim such things and what is your role in relation to Wikipedia? Whether what I have written is negative or contentious is a point of view and therefor an unreliable method of managing it. It does seem that this page is dismissing the facts drawn from the experiences of the very people who have the most understanding of the LGO's role. I would much sooner trust the daily mail to investigate the LGO than the Guardian. It seems that there is an underlying political agenda to your comment. Sorry but I don't think I am comfortable with it.Childs (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Childs (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I've never even been to the UK, much less care anything about how it governs itself, I don't think there's any sort of political agenda to my comment. My agenda is strictly in making sure Wikipedia's policies are followed. First, just because the source was in the article before doesn't mean it was ever deemed reliable--people add stuff to Wikipedia all the time that violates the rules, not to have it removed til later. In extreme cases, even vandalism like "This guy is a complete jerk" has remained in article for months or longer--that doesn't make it right. As for how we decide what is or is not a reliable source, the information is found in the reliable source guideline, which I pointed out to you before. Please read it. It clearly says that self-published sites like that one, especially one that is clearly there to push a specific political agenda, cannot be reliable sources. If you disagree, I suggest you go to WP:RSN], which is our reliable sources noticeboard, and ask other uninvolved editors.

As for my role? I'm just a Wikipedia editor like any other. I do this a lot, so I'm pretty familiar with a large portion of of our policies and guidelines. I'm also an administrator, but doesn't matter here, because I'm not now nor will I ever use administrative actions with regards to this page (since I'm already involved with it as an editor). Admins don't get any special authority in deciding content disputes.

Please do not re-add that site until you get verification that it is a reliable source. I am 100% certain it is not reliable, so must insist that until such time as you can get some evidence that it is reliable, it cannot be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See NB NB NB at bottom

I have been thinking about what you say above and it prompted me to look at a few things including if Wikipedia had a page on the body which it states governs the LGO (The Commission for Local Administration in England) - Wikipedia does not appear to have a page on it. Simply for your informantion and without argumentative purpose - The Commission for Local Administration in England is made up of 4 people - as stated on the LGO website ( Links are - about us - governence )- the 3 LGO Ombudsman and one other member - Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration - which is very ambiguously the Parliamentary Ombudsman, currently Ann Abraham BUT NOT in her official role as the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I have been assured of this 3 times by staff at the Parliamentary Ombudsman Office.

I also looked you up on your Wiki page and probably should concede that in rhetoric etc, your judgemnt on some of the things we have so far discussed, is probably more worthy than my own.

So what I am now thinking is that, if facts cannot be stated because they appear to have personality, LGO Wiki page should be made more informative re who LGO is governed by and a new Wiki page about the governing authority (The Commission for Local Administration in England) should be made stating the bodies it is made up of.

However there is a little difficulty with 3rd party url's relating to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. There is a UK Parliament webpage which implies that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Parliamentary Ombudsman are the same thing BUT the Parliamentary Ombudsman's office declares emphatically that it has NO remit over LGO. You may now understand why you are often dealing with vandalism on this page - If the Parliamentary Ombudsman ( which incidentally, I know to be a very well meaning, honest and proper organisation ) has no Authority over the LGO, ( which is in contrast with what the LGO state on its governance page ) then that leaves the LGO Ombudsman in charge of the Commission for Local Administration in England which is in turn in charge of the LGO. It is publicly funded by an the DGLC under sponsorship arrangements so the actual work it does has no-one to check its integrity.

Hopefully I have shed some light on the vanalism matter for you.

I will ponder over a way forward re a more informed Wikipedia

NB NB NB NB ----- I think we just tried to edit at the same time - thankfully I had just coppied mine as a precaution. I got as far as " you not been to UK " - I will read but have loaded this first because it was supposed to be a follow on from my previous edit. I am even more baffled re the earlier Daily Mail and Guardian comment now. Childs (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the Daily Mail is generally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, except regarding specific topics that they specialize in like celebrity/entertainment news. I don't know too much about UK newspapers, so perhaps I've chosen bad examples; my point was that we need good newspapers that are reliable for their coverage of political/government issues, that report the news with at least a semblance of neutrality (though they don't have to actually be completely neutral, since really no newspaper is). Is that more clear?

Regarding the complexity of the political organization of the LGO & PCA, do you have any reliable third party sources that verify this? Like maybe a book or academic journal article about the organization of the British government? If so, then that sounds like info we could include. We can't just put up what the two webistes say about each other, because that likely becomes synthesis, which isn't allowed as a kind of Original research. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

This article needs a warning about the heavy bias introduced by only permitting the LGO's own self promotional material ("reliable" (sic)) and excluding the first hand experiences of their victims ("unreliable" (sic)). Adding this warning is not vandalism and it is extremely offensive to suggest that it is. Suppressing criticism is not helpful to an informed article. 194.202.213.254 (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources that meet our reliable sources guideline (which you can read at WP:RS) which should be added to the article. Note that self-published advocacy website, web forums, personal letters/opinions, etc., do not meet this criteria. You need things like newspaper articles (though not from gossip rags), books printed by reliable publishers, articles in scholarly journals, etc. Don't worry if you don't know how to format the information; just put it here and I will be happy to help. Wikipedia has absolutely no problem with including criticism of article subjects so long as that criticism is reliable, properly attributed, and meets our other policies (like WP:DUE). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no more reliable source than the first hand experience of victims. The sources you have removed and claim as unreliable are exactly that (and, incidentally, nothing to do with me despite your suggestion.) On the other hand the source that you claim as "reliable" - the LGO itself - very clearly IS a "self-published advocacy website". The article needs a health warning because this interpretation of policy makes it heavily biased. And when adding this health warning I was careful to include your rationale for the censorship. 194.202.213.254 (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't include "first hand experiences", unless they've been published in reliable sources. Note that the LGO itself is only being used to cover factual information, not to express opinions about its quality or effectiveness. As for a "health warning", such warnings aren't allowed. I'm going to add the closest equivalent, which is an NPOV warning. If, though, in the next week, you don't produce a reliable source supporting your position, I'll remove it. If you want to rant to the world about how bad you think the LGO is, start your own website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with policies and guidelines that require that information come only from reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I forgot there's already an NPOV tag on the article, at the very top. Well, like I said, if no sources are forthcoming that dispute the neutrality of the discussion, I'll remove it in about a week. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Local government ombudsman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Local government ombudsman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lgo.org.uk/pdf/annual-report-2004-05.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Local government ombudsman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.norwich.gov.uk/intranet_docs/corporate/public/committee/reports/2006/scrutiny/REP_Scrutiny_Audit_and_Inspection_Letter_2006_04_06.pdf

[2] ttp://society.guardian.co.uk/localgovt/story/0,,1775995,00.html

[3] Adams, Jad (15 March 2005). "The Bite of the Watchdog". The Times. Retrieved 10 April 2011.

[4] ttp://theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-02-07.211461.h&s=%22Local+Government+Ombudsman%22

[5] ttp://www.ombudsmanwatch.org/balchins.html

[6] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/28/nplan28.xml

[7] ttp://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving_services/special_reports/pca/redress05/index.html

[8] ttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050117/text/50117w29.htm#50117w29.html_spnew8

[9] ttp://www.ombudsmanwatch.org/judicialreview.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]