Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Public OTRS?

I often come across situations where a poorly worded passage in a text leaves the exact meaning of a statement unclear. In these cases I try to e-mail the author in an effort to clarify the text. In some cases, these basic check-ups turn out to reveal that the reference is quite simply wrong, or deliberately misleading. I'd prefer to not have to rely on clarifying exchanges like this, but not everyone out there is Gregg Easterbrook.

When these exchanges do clarify, or modify, the content of an article, I check the e-mail into OTRS and then refer to it indirectly. But OTRS is far from ideal for this purpose. If someone does wish to challenge the material, it's difficult to do and generally adversarial. Of course the user could just contact the person themselves, but that could lead to an endless series of different people asking the same questions.

It would be much nicer if the e-mail was "accessible" in terms of it being able to be linked to from within an article in an official inter-wiki way, like how we link to media. In precisely the same way that messages that clearly state an image is being released for use on the wiki, people should be able to state they are happy with an e-mail being public, and have its entry in OTRS be publicly viewable (but not editable, obviously). In this case, the referring link could degrade gracefully to show less information.

So basically I would like to see a "public OTRS" where we can collect stuff like this and link to them directly. Does this make any sense?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To be able to cite an e-mail that is in a "public" OTRS would be very helpful, as e-maill is a quick way to check conflicting information from a book, website, and so on, as Maury stated above. See also the discussion on Verifibility archives/Verifibility. If the person who you are asking the information from understands and agrees (which would also be in the e-mail) to the "publishing" of their e-mail response, I don't see a problem. "pers. comm." is a legimate ref in the real world.....

This needs serious discussion. Regards, Marcia Wright (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of permission for OTRS activity on enwiki per ArbCom decision

Recently, several high-level permissions have been removed per ArbCom decision, for checkusers and oversighters, and also quite regularly, sysop access. It's increasingly likely that an OTRS member will become the subject of ArbCom's attention, if not already. Some users had high-level permissions removed, but kept their admin bit. Being mandated for OTRS actions on enwiki is clearly a high-level permission (a functionary position, I'd say), so how to remove this permission should be considered. While the access to an OTRS queue is handled by OTRS admins at meta: and thus not within ArbCom jurisdiction, it's completely within ArbCom jurisdiction to remove the permission of a user to perform OTRS actions on enwiki. And further to this, it would be possible for ArbCom to discuss with OTRS admins an access to the OTRS-en queue for a user. So I propose that we note in this policy, that the ArbCom may remove the permission for a user to perform OTRS activities on enwiki. (As this may come up, please note that this is not related to recent events, I had planned to propose this for some time, and it came back to my mind at this occasion.) Cenarium (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't have a say in OTRS and they will not be able to say "remove this person from OTRS" – the Foundation and the OTRS admins are the only ones who decide who is and who isn't on OTRS. However, that being said, if ArbCom finds something about a user that might make the OTRS admins think twice about the users access and they do something based on that... that would be something I could see happening. Cbrown1023 talk 01:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read my post more carefully, I made the distinction between removing access to the OTRS queue and removing the authorization to perform OTRS actions on enwiki, on the former, ArbCom has no jurisdiction, on the latter, it has. But in any case, a consultation between ArbCom and OTRS admins is possible. Cenarium (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is already sufficiently covered in the Editorial review section. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We could expand there and mention that the ArbCom may remove the permission to perform OTRS actions on enwiki from a user. It's better to be complete, and not leave things in limbo (revocation of rights is mentioned in CU and OS policies). Cenarium (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit in doing that or speculating that it would be done or seriously considered. Of course they can. An unrelated example: they could theoretically have the block user right removed from the administrator user group. Possibilities are endless and I don't think the changes you're proposing will help anything. OTRS is not like OS or CU in that the privilege access and control of it is not controlled locally but externally by those OTRS administrators. So, like any edit or action, they can be reviewed by ArbCom. This is no different than any action by any administrator, in my opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is, "If an edit contains only an OTRS ticket number as a reason, or in the edit summary, discuss the edit with that OTRS volunteer or request review before undoing that edit.". OTRS members have special powers compared to other admins. Cenarium (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In practice, this is mostly unenforceable. There's no requirement to cite OTRS when performing an action based on an OTRS ticket, with the exception of permissions for text and images, which I can't see the point of banning someone from doing. Mr.Z-man 06:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe it should be a requirement, for administrative OTRS actions, as otherwise other admins won't know if it's OTRS-based or not, thus this policy can't be applied. It would also limit imbroglios like in the Peter Tobin case, where it was not said initially to be an OTRS action, then later was said to be done under OTRS to avoid having it overturned. Cenarium (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That will never be a "requirement". Some users have not disclosed the fact that they are OTRS volunteers and some likely never will. Who are you with regards to ArbCom, OTRS or this proposal, if I can ask? To me, it would seem that if ArbCom wants something like this done, they would do it themselves. Otherwise, you're just speculating with, as far as I know, no knowledge of ArbCom's actual opinions or thoughts on how the OTRS process actually works. Basically, I'm still trying to understand what this proposal will 'fix'. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A first step towards accountability ? As of now, there's no accountability for the OTRS process. It's a complete wilderness. Users don't have to disclose if they are OTRS volunteers, don't have to say such action was made under OTRS, but they can afterwards use of their OTRS status to prevent having it overturned ? So some users have access to the OTRS queue, but didn't inform the community of that ? It's not like it's no big deal, OTRS members are dealing with private requests, they represent the community and act in the name of Wikipedia, they should be held accountable for their actions, and the community should have a say when they think a user is not longer fit for this. Cenarium (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

...and ArbCom represents the community, and deal with cases of removal of high-level permissions. Ages ago, we didn't seriously consider removing admin access either, then we considered it, always a hot topic, but ArbCom has been entrusted to deal with this; we also considered this for CU and OS, ArbCom again, considering removal of OTRS permission is natural. Wikipedia is evolving, the AbCom's 'executive' role increased in this respect. One day or the other, the OTRS will need to be rethought and modified to assure better accountability, and this may well be now. Cenarium (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-)There seems to be a misunderstanding here which I will try and explain. OTRS is a foundation issue. These are people authorized by the foundation to answer e-mails and help complainants about the wikimedia projects, of which English Wikipedia is just one, albeit the largest. OTRS volunteers have been selected by the OTRS admins, acting on behalf of the foundation and volunteer coordinator, for their discretion, good judgement, patience, understanding, and willingness to both help and accept the inevitable verbal abuse by irate respondents with a smile. There are no special buttons or features; only the willingness to spend hours, if not days at times, in communication with upset people, trying to work out any issues or explain the subject wikimedia project's policies and guidelines. OTRS volunteers are not "functionaries" of English wikipedia, they are editors like anyone else. The difference is one of respect; most English Wikipedia editors understand that OTRS volunteers are engaged in a thankless, faceless job, AND, especially when it regards biographical articles (of the living or dead) may be privy to information from article subjects or their families. Most editors are willing to trust the OTRS volunteers that they are working for the benefit of both the project and its contributors, and there is the understanding that an overt OTRS change should not be undone or removed without at least discussing it with the volunteer. Again, it is a matter of community respect and understanding that they are willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to OTRS volunteer edits; not a matter of any permissions granted to English Wikipedia editors by ArbCom. For example, undoing an OTRS edit without discussion is not similar to "wheel warring," and is not covered by any ArbCom sanction, but chances are the community in and of itself will restore the edit because they understand the purpose of OTRS and, in the main, are willing to trust those volunteers. Furthermore, ArbCom really has no say who is allowed to respond to the e-mail lists, and who can make edits, as the edits in and of themselves are no different than any editor's edits; it is all a matter of respect. I hope this clarifies the issue to you and helps you understand how you are confusing English-wikipedia maintenance roles with Wikimedia-foundation help queues. -- Avi (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm well aware of how OTRS works, I already read all the documentations and seriously considered volunteering, but wanted a few things clarified before, and a stronger accountability. You didn't show I had any actual misunderstanding, so don't be patronizing like this. Actually, I also responded to a few email complaints, one from a BLP subject representative. The OTRS job is certainly not as terrible as you describe it, compared to what we already know and do on-wiki, insults and all the like, sometimes harassment, most admins have known this. You don't have to respond to an OTRS inquiry anyway, it's not directed against you, you're not personally involved. It doesn't personally hurt you, compared to many situations encountered onwiki. "A thankless, faceless job", you can say that for any Wikipedia user, right ? Should I fix this borked abuse filter, should I revert this BLP violation, check the other user's contribs too ? Protecting the page, block the user ? Should I propose a new committee for executive actions ? Was it good for me to create this section, why do I bother ? Should I reply to the previous comment ? Is it worth my time, don't I have other things to do ? It's a feeling all users have at some point. Yes, it's handled at the foundation level, does this mean the community does not have a say ? Obviously, no. In case you don't know, the community can voice opinion for candidatures. It's absolutely reasonable to work on improving accountability and community involvement in the OTRS system, and is no disrespect. "ArbCom really has no say ...", it does, and the Editorial review section confirms it, ArbCom can ban users, remove sysop access, etc. OTRS members represent Wikipedia, and they should definitely have support in the community for this role. You seem to imply that all OTRS members are flawless and the system is perfect. Since you refuse to consider the issue, let's give an example:

• Nichalp (talk · contribs) is an OTRS member who had his sysop, CU and OS rights removed by ArbCom for well-known reasons, paid editing under a sock account. Are the OTRS Admins on the issue, do they plan to remove the access ? Has the ArbCom contacted them for discussing the issue ? Were they even aware of this ?
• And for those who didn't disclose their OTRS access, what can we do ? Cenarium (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nichalp is not an OTRS volunteer. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

According to meta, he has been, there's no way to know if he still is since there is the secrecy, but he's listed at OTRS/personnel, and here is the diff. If he has been removed, then remove the name from the list... Cenarium (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is where you seem to be confused, we do not represent Wikipedia, we represent the Wikimedia Foundation. In the case of the quality queue (where all "controversial" actions originate) it is staffed entirely of admins which have the trust of the community. Since OTRS volunteers have nothing but their own clout to back up their actions having the trust of the community is a must. If they can no longer perform their job (which an ArbCom desysopping would do) they would have their access removed. This is a non-issue. As an aside, OTRS has fine grained permissions, the queues which do and don't require admin rights are in different roles. Having "OTRS access" alone is meaningless, unless you have access to one of the sensitive queues.BJ^Talk 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In theory, but not in practice. Those who ask for OTRS help (for Wikipedia-related issues - of any language) ask who they think are representatives of Wikipedia, they don't know what is the WMF. But anyway, representing the WMF implies representing Wikipedia. Community trust: that's the point, how can we know if they are trusted, at the present time, since we can't know who are the OTRS members ? I think the list of members should be public, and a process to remove the access to a queue should be established, if only as a request to OTRS admins. By OTRS access, I mean a particular OTRS access, although I'm more focused on sensitive ones. Cenarium (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Cenarium, I am sure you mean well, but you still seem to be under some misconceptions. Firstly, I'm not an OTRS admin, but I believe RJ is, and if he says Nichalp is not a volunteer, then he is not a volunteer. Secondly, OTRS volunteers do not represent English Wikipedia any more than they do Albanian Wikisource; they are people selected by the foundation, acting through the VolCo and existing OTRS admins. The EnWiki community has no direct influence on the selection of OTRS volunteers. Neither does Spanish Wikitext or Greek Wikisource; once again, it is the foundation, acting through the VolCo and existing OTRS admins. I reiterate, ArbCom has no say about OTRS; what they do have say in is EnWiki editor behavior. ArbCom can ban someone acting as an OTRS volunteer, and that would prevent the person from acting to deal with EnWIki issues; there are many, many more e-mails other than English Wikipedia, Cenarium, and if the powers-that-be (foundation, Volunteer coordinator, and OTRS admins) feel that said banned user is still an asset, they will be kept on in OTRS. I have no idea if that has ever actually happened or not, but OTRS is not an EnWiki issue outside of EnWiki editor behavior. As mentioned above, the quality queue for EnWiki is staffed by Enwiki admins, so in that regard we are pretty safe, and likely, if someone is desysoped for behavior unbecoming, their queue access would be revoked. The accountability is to the foundation and ALL wikimedia projects, not just EnWiki, adn as such is handled by the foundation and not ArbCom. I think this may be a little much ado about nothing, as I am pretty certain that the foundation would strongly consider a request by EnWiki ArbCom re: an existing volunteer, but it remains important to understand the difference. -- Avi (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not an OTRS admin.  ;-) Rjd0060 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So much for that :). Well, I just checked on the account list and he is not there now and wasn't there when the list started, so it's a pretty fair guess that he either was never was on it or had it removed. As I said, I'm not an admin though :) -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I based this on the list given at meta, which may not be updated regularly, but he definitely placed his name there and it remained there for years (see above for links). How can I know better, with the secrecy ? OTRS volunteers may represent the Wikimedia Foundation, but then they represent, in particular, each wmf project, and more importantly, and unequivocally, they represent the projects subject to their queue. When certain recent OTRS administrative actions on Wikipedia have been mentioned by the media, they labeled them as actions by "Wikipedia", for instance. Most requests are from people who don't even now what is the Wikimedia foundation. So in practice, OTRS members represent and act in the name of the concerned project, most of the time Wikipedia (of any language), but it's the same for all others. Reasonably, you need the trust of the community composed of all the projects subject to your queue, to have access to it, and particularly for the sensitive ones. I completely agree that this is a foundation issue, and reflected it, but it implies the community, and OTRS act as representatives, so they need the trust of the concerned communities and accountability (as OTRS members) to them, particularly for the sensitive queues. Hence, I think (1) the list of OTRS volunteers should be public, with their respective access noted and (2) there should be a way to contest a OTRS status, if only by request to OTRS admins, to improve the accountability to the local communities, and for communities with an Arbitration Committee, those committees should not be shy to discuss and contest a OTRS access when they feel the need. Cenarium (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to back up what bjweeks and Avraham have said by adding a couple more salient points.

1) The perview of the the Arbitration Committee deals with conflicts between editors, not the appropriateness of content. In this regard, OTRS and ArbCom are separate. OTRS does not by practice interfere with disputes between editors, which includes actions such as blocking or page protection based on a dispute between editors (as opposed to an editorial dispute, even then we'd be reluctant).

2)Following that, OTRS does its best to not interfere with the content of any individual project, and we go to great pains to make that clear to folks emailing the Foundation. Yes, there was the suppression of an individual's status in the interest of privacy and security, but this is an extraordinarily rare occurrence. Indeed it is quite more difficult to explain to someone that you cannot do their bidding in privacy. If an open format were possible, it'd be an entirely different story. Folks can get extraordinarily ugly when told no by email, which is a majority of the quality issues. So no, the murkiness of it is not exaggerated.

OTRS is not the boogeyman, lurking in the dark free from supervision. This is not a conspiracy. Open accountability is simply not feasible. It is an issue of trust and assuming good faith and not assuming rampant abuse. The Foundation keeps its watchful eye on volunteers. There is no point in a privacy policy when you have to reveal private information to be "accountable" for removing say, a single word from an article. I fear that would be a greater betrayal of trust to the community. Keegan (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(1)The purview of ArbCom has extended far beyond inter-user disputes.

(2)I didn't say the murkiness of this was exaggerated, I said it was not worse that what we know already on Wikipedia, and , at least initially, it's not so personal (a OTRS ticket is not directed against you personally, and you choose to answer to it or not).

I didn't imply any of this, you're completely out of line. I would never support nor propose such things you say. I merely state that OTRS members should be more accountable to the local communities, but of course staying reasonable, which can be achieved for example by a public access to the list of OTRS members with their respective access, and a process to contest an OTRS access, if only by request to OTRS admins. Cenarium (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just briefly, if I may? (two, actually) Has there been an issue, or is this a solution looking for a problem? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hate to say it, but I saw this coming like global warming. Now where's my balloons and parade?!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• I imagine that the ArbCom could pass a motion recommending to the OTRS admins that some OTRS user should have his access withdrawn for stated misconduct, and I imagine the OTRS admins would abide by that. What's the problem? Stifle (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because I or anyone can not speak for what the otrs admins would abide by. Also, when a agent can not perform anymore, usually the otrs admins notice, for whatever reason. Additionally, agents are not accountable to the ArbCom as agents... they are only accountable as editors to the ArbCom as part of the normal dispute resolution process. Local projects do not run the OTRS process, and should not run them. It is a foundation responsibility to accept and remove those volunteers. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But I assure you, the Foundation takes into consideration concerns by local communities. This is no different for OTRS, there should simply be a better communication between local communities and OTRS admins. There are easy ways to improve this and in the same time, the accountability of OTRS to local communities, which they represent and act in the name of. A public list of agents, and a way to contest an access for example, by request to OTRS admins (which would then be noted in this policy). I'll propose this at meta. Cenarium (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect to ArbCom, that's it exactly. And it could be mentioned. The problem is that the list of OTRS members and their respective access is not public, and there's no clear way to contest an OTRS access. Cenarium (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Present accusatory evidence to the Volunteer Coordinator. Caveat de minimis non curat praetor. —Centrx→talk • 18:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Ok, I see a *lot* of useless talk here. The short answer is "no, a local arbitration committee doesn't have the authority to remove an OTRS volunteer's access". This decision lies with the OTRS admins. Now, are the complainers able to summarize their point(s) in order to skip the drama and focus on the issues (if there are any)? guillom 06:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a request to add to the policy page that ArbCom can remove an OTRS volunteer's access. An OTRS admin has said this is not true.

Some users suggest that the OTRS admins will consider investigating and removing OTRS access if good reasons are given.

If ArbCom removes other flags but doesn't know someone has OTRS access, the OTRS admins will probably accept requests from anyone to investigate.

There's a request to list all OTRS volunteers and their queue rights. Also declined.

These requests should now be escalated to the volunteer coordinator if they're still wanted.

Correction: Not everyone with access to the English BLP queue is an en.wp admin. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-11t21:50z

Thanks, but I didn't ask for a summary of the discussion (which contains a fair amount of errors), I asked for a summary of the issue. guillom 08:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is when a volunteer is no longer trusted by a local community and he/she has access to OTRS queues having jurisdiction on this community. There is no easy way for community members to know if the user has access to any OTRS queue, and which one, and of course you can't contest an OTRS access if you're not aware of it. Secondly, it is not mentioned how to contest an OTRS access. This is why I think (1) the list of OTRS volunteers should be public (and updated), with the list of queues the user has access to (2) there should be at meta (and also here) a description of how to contest an OTRS access. I'll move this discussion to meta, because it's a better place for it, and maybe ask Carry Bass.

For a recent example, there is Nichalp, who has been desysopped by ArbCom, is listed as OTRS volunteer at meta, but Rjd0060 says he's not. So there's confusion on whether he has an OTRS access, if he has been recently removed, if he still has access... The initial proposal was on allowing ArbCom to ban a user from performing administrative OTRS actions, but it has been pointed out that this wouldn't be enforceable. Thus, w.r.t. to ArbCom, when it will be (officially) clarified how to contest an OTRS access, ArbCom will simply have to follow the process and mark this as a ArbCom request. Cenarium (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding with regards to our role on the English Wikipedia. Let me make some things clear...

• OTRS access is not a badge. The OTRS agents are regular editors here. The only time ever would an edit fall under that "don't revert until discussed" is whern only a ticket# is used in the edit summary. Two things then happen:

1. The edit can be reviewed by other agents with access.
2. The edit can be removed/reversed by consensus after discussion.

This is not done very often, if at all.

• OTRS access does not permit special access to the English Wikipedia

1. Agents can not delete, block, protect, see deleted revisions on this project, unless they are an administrator. They are then subject to the local policy regarding the use of those tools.

• Agents, as editors are subject to ARBCOM in editorial matters. Their access to the Foundation OTRS system, however, is not subject to ARBCOM.

1. If an OTRS agent is being disruptive, discuss, warn, block. Like any other editorial disruption. Optionally, let an OTRS admin know.
2. As editors, we are subject to ARBCOM. As agents, we are subject to the VOLCO, thru the OTRS admins.

• An agents access to the system is not under the purview of the community.

1. You can not contest an agent's access.
2. You may however, let the otrs administrators know, if there are issues.

Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if not a badge, this policy grants to OTRS agents a special right, it's an exception to our editing policies and should be supported by broad consensus. Since this policy relies on factors out of our purview, it can be a problem; or we should allow for exceptions ("due to misuse, this OTRS agent is no longer protected by this policy") , which is cumbersome and impractical.

In terms of purview, I agree of course. However, the local communities should have a way of indicating their concerns regarding an OTRS access (which can be viewed as contesting). If it should be done by communicating with OTRS admins, then fine, but it should be documented somewhere. Cenarium (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS agents have no special rights with regard to editing Wikipedia. None. They operate under the same policies and guidelines as every other editor here. The only thing they have extra is access to one or more OTRS email queues so they can answer emailed questions and respond to emailed suggestions and comments. Access to these email queues is completely separate from any additional access rights they may have on Wikipedia. There is no connection at all. As others have stated, this is a solution in search of a problem. If there are specific concerns with an OTRS agent having access to the OTRS queues, they should be brought to the attention of one of the OTRS admins. If there are concerns with how an agent is editing on WIkipedia, follow the guidelines and policies here to deal with it as OTRS has nothing to do with that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

They have a special right with regard to editing enwiki, given by "If an edit contains only an OTRS ticket number as a reason, or in the edit summary, please discuss the edit with that OTRS volunteer or request review before undoing that edit.". No other project seems to grant them this right. Besides this, I agree completely with the rest of your comment. Except that I don't see my proposal as a solution looking for a problem (whatever this means), remember it's only to (1) list all OTRS personnel and their respective access publicly (2) document in OTRS documentation pages how to bring to the attention of responsible people concerns on an OTRS access. Cenarium (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The only time an edit summary should contain only a "per OTRS ticket #12345667890" is when including more might be violating the privacy of an individual who has written in to the foundation. That's what OTRS handles: email sent to the the various foundation email addresses, usually having to do specifically with one of the foundation projects (such as Wikipedia). All edits done like that conform with all local policies, and while they aren't as sensitive as a WP:OFFICE action, they need to be handled with similar sensitivity. If you have a question about such an edit, ask one of the people with OTRS access (almost all of them are listed here) to verify the edit by providing them the ticket number. There are no special rights (user rights require a flag in the database, and there is none on enwiki for OTRS agents); the only thing that is asked is for people to discuss the edit first if they see that it was done and referenced to a specific OTRS ticket. Rights are not involved at all. It's just common courtesy, and reverting it may result in negative consequences for the foundation. Hence the request to discuss it first before reverting it. All this concern is over nothing. No other projects have this right because it's not a right, and the vast majority of requests made to the foundation are about the enwiki or commons (those being (by far) the largest projects). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean right in the sense of userright, but in the sense of a privilege that other users doesn't possess, reverting OTRS volunteers when they use a ticket as a reason (to which only they have access) is different than reverting other users, this in itself confers a privilege. As mentioned, I support this recommendation, and would even support it as a global recommendation (there is no global OTRS policy), but it has the possibility to create problems when a user is no longer trusted by the local community (to which OTRS admins should imo be sensible). Overall, I agree this isn't a major concern. Cenarium (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

See the section directly below as I've made sure the information on how to contact for permissions and regarding volunteers for the foundation is on the pages below. I would support a global OTRS policy of "ask an OTRS volunteer/admin and discuss before reverting if you aren't sure why something was done". As for this being a major concern, if it's not a major concern, I don't see why some are making such a big deal out of it. Many of the OTRS volunteers are active here, too, so it's unlikely that someone who no longer has the trust of the community here wouldn't be noticed by at least one OTRS person, admin or no. When someone loses the trust here, it's generally a big deal and announced in multiple places. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Impossible to contact

This page should have a simple info on how to contact OTRS instead of linking to Wikipedia:Contact us which DOES NOT even mention OTRS. I have a free license permission to forward to OTRS, and I am giving up on trying to figure out how to do so :( And I am an experienced editor - how many newbies have given up before me? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Most people won't know what "OTRS" is which is why we have the "Contact Wikipedia" link on the left sidebar. Although looking at it now, there is no information on how to mail us permissions to use content. I don't know how that managed to be overlooked. Anyhow, you can email permissions-enwikimedia.org for text. If it is a media file then you may wish to upload it to Wikimedia Commons and follow the instructions on this page. Sorry for the trouble. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In my case I got permission for CC-3.0-SA licensing for all meterials available here: [1] (this can be roughly seen as an online book on history of Poland). I wonder what would be the procedure here? Copy this to wikibooks? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia is slow as molasses for me today! (Maybe for everybody, but it's too slow for me to go to village pump to find out.) I see that there is a link to the permissions page towards the bottom, though it isn't at all easy to follow. Perhaps Wikisource? I am desperately trying to pull up their site to see how one verifies permission for them. So far, I can't get it to load. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource permissions are done the same way. see s:Template:PermissionOTRS.

If it is published material, it should be archived onto Wikisource in the form that it was published. If it isnt, then it belongs on Wikibooks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've updated both Wikipedia:Requests and Wikipedia:Contact (though Moonriddengirl initially added the info to the latter). OTRS, again, isn't specifically mentioned as 99.999% of the people using it or needing to use the information aren't going to know what OTRS is, so the information is presented in a manner which will be understandable to the majority of people. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy disputed

{{rfctag|policy}} On whether Wikipedia:OTRS represents widespread community consensus and was correctly labelled as policy.

Responses

Please keep threaded responses in the discussion section below. If you have identified yourself as an OTRS user, it may be helpful to note this here as well.

• Remove policy tag. This exchange involving 3 editors and 25 words was the specific consensus decision that brought this to the level of policy. Policy pages require community-wide scrutiny. WP:OTRS, which grants a special right to OTRS users, has not received such scrutiny. The rest of the page is essentially a 'did-you-know', which is not appropriate as policy. The contributions of OTRS users are absolutely appreciated, but this is just not an en.wikipedia policy.    M   14:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Removing the tag would not make this any less a policy than calling a banana an apple would change its flavor. Clearly it is in the best interest of the Foundation and thus any Wikimedia project to ensure that editors are aware of the special nature of OTRS and the sensitivity of edits made on the basis of these private communications. It would be misleading and a disservice to editors here to pretend that this information is not set in stone or that removing the tag would change this procedure. Shell ^babelfish 04:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Policy is defined by practice. This is current practice and should not be mistaken as a guideline or otherwise. Removing the tag, and delisting it would be confusing. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with NonvocalScream. This is policy de facto. causa sui× 12:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've edited to mark as 'proposed' at least until this dispute is concluded. At the moment OTRS constitutes an *external* group to the en.wikipedia project, and it is important to remember that. OTRS's internal policies are not en.wikipedia's policies, and it should not be a matter of 'well we work this way so we should be able to say it's en.wikipedia policy that we work this way'. OTRS is in fact an external imposition on the normal activities of en.wikipedia editors, there should be a substantially greater weight of consensus to support policy granting them special permissions on en.wikipedia than 'well we act like we have them already'. I will also note, that in the past, OTRS claimed they did not have special permissions on en.wikipedia, and would never seek to gain them. ("OTRS is not a Badge") This has apparently changed, and crept up on us so that now it's become an attempt to grant OTRS special powers on en.wikipedia because they've been acting as if they have them. --Barberio (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a ridiculous statement, the OTRS team is no more an external group than the m:Stewards. They act directly under the auspices of the Wikimedia foundation's m:Communications committee. They are not external, they are cross-project or "global". You make it sound as if they are some gang of users organized on a 3. party site. Also the page has been labeled as policy for years now, so I have reverted your "proposal" re-tagging. I have personaly no objections to labeling it as disputed while the debate rages, but the policy tag should not be removed unless there is a clear consensus to do so (either here or on whatever RfC you wish to file). --Sherool (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Stewards are appointed at the request of the community on the wiki-projects, and selected by direct election. So no, Stewards are not external. On the other hand OTRS are selected only by the foundation, and the Wikipedia projects have no say in their selection and apointment, so they are external to the Wikipedia projects.
    • Also, you have this backwards. Policy only exists here if there's general consensus to support it. There was never any consensus driven discussion to make it policy. So you need to demonstrate consensus now to keep it as policy.--Barberio (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• As NonvocalScream indicated, policy is defined by practice. This is a de facto policy here, and is supported by the foundation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Apparently you missed the several people who mentioned that OTRS users are never required to identify themselves. I have removed your inappropriate request from the header. Additionally since there was already a good deal of response to your RfC, can you explain why you felt the need to move those comments to "Discussion"? Can you explain why you feel that the possibility of editors being sanctioned on this wiki is not pertinent to this wiki? Its beginning to look like both you and Cenarium have an odd obsession with this particular page. For instance, you're again repeating the odd claim (a view shared by Cenarium) that OTRS users have "special rights" despite already having devoted a section to that discussion where many editors tried to explain your error. Shell ^babelfish 14:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed miss that - I checked several of your user pages, and several participants self-identify as OTRS users. The threaded discussion below is great, but we do need some actual concrete responses so that we can evaluate what people's thoughts are on this subject without having to read so much repetitive argument. I assume that this is not actually your response, so I've moved it down. If you disagree with me, please express this in a brief message above, so that other editors coming here from CENT will know your position.    M   14:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok so you didn't answer any of my questions, moved my comment and reinstated the request with a bit of wording to make it look legitimate. Seriously? Shell ^babelfish 14:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was worried that your response was somewhat hostile, so I didn't want to get into a shouting match. You know how in some debates, the opponents are instructed not to directly address each other? Sometimes this helps make points more clear, and avoids personal statements like "...both you and Cenarium have an odd obsession with this particular page". I had hoped to resolve this in a civil way below, but this was not possible. I have no idea how many people are involved, who they are, or what their positions on the issue (and not the motives of other editors - see WP:AGF) are. Please state your position above.    M   14:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if something I said came off poorly. I am trying to understand the reason behind this series of talk page sections and the movement of comments that doesn't seem to be normal process. I did not mean to offend by pointing out that both you and Cenarium seem to be repeating the same points, despite having received many responses - it was an observation intended to signify that I was starting to have some concerns over the behaviors being displayed. Despite having asked a number of times, I can't seem to get any response to the questions I'm asking which obviously leads me to wonder further about what's going on.

I'm confused what you mean about not resolving things in a civil manner below. I'm also confused as to why you would need people to restate their opinions - isn't it common practice that an uninvolved editor closes discussions when there is a question over consensus? Shell ^babelfish 15:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several formats for discussion. If one is not working out very well, then another can be attempted. So I turned what was just a local discussion into an RfC. I chose not to start a brand new section, which is typical, since I think the discussion below is important. But when there is a mountain of text to sort through, people often avoid even bothering to look - you'll note that the majority (except for 2-3?) of responders are OTRS members. With the format above (which is common for RfCs), it is much easier to get a hold on what the positions are. On the other hand, argument and troubleshooting belongs in the discussion section. When you format your position to specifically address me, then it loses a lot of its appeal. Instead of expressing why you think something, the focus is on why the other person is wrong.    M   15:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Its difficult to formulate a response when I'm unable to understand what's being responded to. Consensus on Wikipedia arrives via discussion, not voting. Shell ^babelfish 16:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The topic is "whether Wikipedia:OTRS represents widespread community consensus and was correctly labelled as policy."    M   20:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

This discussion involving 3 editors, with about 25 words exchanged, is not sufficient to raise this to the level of policy. To be clear, my general feeling towards this is pretty positive - editors should not revert edits made by someone using OTRS. However, the wider community might come up with some important objections to marking this as policy (it's actually rather well-hidden, getting only 50ish daily hits). It might be better to move this page into WP:OFFICE, as has been suggested. Though this is not the office, it is in service of the office, and actions should not be undone for very similar reasons.    M   04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough justification to call the policy disputed. And part of the policy comes down from the Foundation, as the policy is currently actively used, so ...

I'm undoing the disputed tag, but further discussion here can establish better cause and/or more support for it if you want to pursue the point. I just think it's premature to call it disputed just on that basis right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert that tag again. This is simply the tag used when a discussion opens up on whether or not a page marked as a policy was properly marked as such. This is meant to inform editors, and does nothing to the status of a page as policy (in the same way that adding a {{policy}} tag does nothing to the status).
As for your claim that part of this policy comes down from the foundation, could you link to the mailing list discussions (or diffs, etc.) that show that this policy was established as an office action? (I'm pretty certain it wasn't, but I could be wrong.) Policies are established by the office only in very rare and controversial cases; policies typically come from the community at large. A page requires widespread consensus approval to be marked a policy, and this page clearly did not get vetted by the community at large. I'll be starting an RfC {{rfctag|policy}} shortly.    M   06:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS has nothing to do with office actions; so no, it shouldn't be moved there. This really is more of an informational page than anything. There is no policy, per se, and nothing to enforce. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How about switching it to an {{infopage}}, then? It does make some policy-like statements, and I do think infopages are somewhat strange, but it's an alternative to having a big discussion on promoting this page to policy. And it does fit the page rather well - much better than policy, I think.    M   15:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Other projects don't have local OTRS policies. The WMF policy is binding but there's no need for a local policy to rehash it. AFAIK, we're the only project with this policy statement "If an edit contains only an OTRS ticket number as a reason, or in the edit summary, please discuss the edit with that OTRS volunteer or request review before undoing that edit.". This grants to OTRS members a special right on enwiki, it's a major exception to our editing policies and should be supported by a broad consensus. As evidenced, this is not the case, so this policy is rightly disputed. Cenarium (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Some policy of necessity comes down from the foundation. OTRS, Mike Godwin / Foundation legal staff's role, etc.

There is a broad consensus - that you two disagree does not change that. If you would like to try suggesting that en.wikipedia separate itself from the Foundation, you're welcome to try on the Village Pump policy page, but it will probably not fly that far... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my comment well. Where exactly the foundation states that "If an edit contains only an OTRS ticket number as a reason, or in the edit summary, please discuss the edit with that OTRS volunteer or request review before undoing that edit." ? I'm not talking of the wmf otrs policy, but on this local policy that is apparently completely at the initiative of a few enwiki otrs agents and doesn't exist on any other project. Cenarium (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note however that this doesn't mean I disagree with the spirit of the policy, I would normally follow it. Cenarium (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Though of course I seriously question the need for yet another policy page. "Quick facts" are not policy, nor do they help editors understand policy. Nor is the firm "do not revert" accurate. "should avoid" is probably better, but we don't need a page just to house that statement. Perhaps, if not into office, then into BLP? There is a whole class of pages that describe law-based (copyright, slander) policies.    M   01:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided against your position. The assertion that this was pushed into Wikipedia policy by the foundation is absurd and confusing, given that this concretely shows that it was made policy after a 25-word discussion involving three editors, presumably all OTRS participants. Please provide evidence that there is broad consensus. Evidence is as important here as it is on mainspace. This policy page is not and does not describe our policy, nor was the title of policy applied correctly and with adequate scrutiny.    M   00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There have always been a few people who disagree strongly with the policy; it's never been more than 1-2 at any given time. That's not enough to claim consensus on disputing.

If you want to propose changing / revoking, the proper place is to take it to the centralized policy discussion pages and do that process right.

The vast majority of admins and Arbcom and the Foundation expect and enforce the OTRS policy as written. Change by community input is probably legitimate, though the foundation may decide otherwise. Change here in the corner is not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with this process before commenting further - most of what you're saying, while well-intentioned, is entirely innacurate. "Whether such a page is an accurate description is determined by the general community through consensus." "Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In either case, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community." Three editors and 25 words does not a general community consensus make. The onus is on you to provide evidence that this is en.wikipedia policy (basically, you link either an office action or a global discussion that establishes it). If you cannot in the course of this RfC, the tag will be removed. Thanks.    M   01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with this process - you're applying 2009 process to 2007 and 2006 policy decisions. 2006 and 2007 policy process was significantly less formalized.

You are asserting that the OTRS policy was somehow back-doored and is not a shared community value. The proper way to determine that is to ask on the central discussion boards and find out what people think. Active enforcement and administrative actions has used this policy as accepted standard since it became a guideline. As it's in use it should stand as credibly official unless you can demonstrate otherwise. You're free to do that, but this is the wrong place to do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the foundation would get involved in a local, purely enwiki-specific policy ? It's extremely unlikely they do so. Meta says: do as your local community says, so there's definitely no global policy. Visibly, wikinews has a similar policy, but only because it's been mostly copied from an old version of this page (and never actually discussed there). I have looked at important projects with an established set of policies, and not a single of them had an OTRS policy, all the interwikis are to documentation pages, not policies, with one exception, which was a translation from enwiki. So this is definitely a normal policy. An established lack of consensus to retain the page as policy would be grounds for demotion (both not so strong as requiring consensus for removal, and not so weak as requiring consensus for existence as policy to be retained), but talk page RFCs are the normal way to do so. This page amounts to a few facts, the only policy statement is the quote. The quote concerns reversion of edits with only an OTRS ticket number as a reason, or in the edit summary, I'm not sure it's been 'used' for active enforcement and administrative actions. By that, you mean actions have been taken against users reverting such edits ? Do you have examples ? This is the heart of the issue. Cenarium (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 process is being applied to a 2009 policy. Do you understand what I mean by evidence? Evidence. As in, you saying "it's policy, it's used by admins" is as good as me saying "it's not, it's not used". It has been shown that it was neither the foundation nor "admin actions" that turned this into policy, but a 25 word exchange among 3 editors. So, evidence?    M   02:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You are really not going about this the right way. You should centralise this discussion and publicise it. Given the context and goal of the OTRS team, and dealings with BLP subjects, I do not for the world understand wherein the dispute lies. This is also current practice... they way things are done. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the reversion of edits, this is mostly just a few facts, explanation of procedures and rehashing of global policy. There is nothing in the latter that could justify to mark this as policy, but just as an information page. The only real policy statement regards the reversion of edits marked as OTRS, so the question is: do we really need to have this as policy ? Thus my request for examples of inappropriate reversions of edits marked as OTRS-based with a ticket, that could justify to retain this as policy. As we don't make policy for the sake of it, but when there is sufficient cause to mark as policy. We have plenty of information page on procedures and expected behavior, they are not turned into policy because one doesn't see reasons not to follow them (WP:AFD, WP:BUREAUCRAT for examples), but because there is a need to make it clear due to frequent actions against their spirit. Cenarium (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's backwards. We don't want violations, we mark this as policy to discourage them from happening in the first place. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we never create behavior or editing policies to prevent things that never actually happened, since those policies are constructed based on experience. We make a (behavior or editing, this one is about reversion, so it's an editing) policy when there is a real experienced need for it. WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:ADMIN, and also notability policies or guidelines, all have been established and improved that way, not based on hypothetical unwanted happenings. And a few instances are not sufficient justification, there should be enough of them to motivate the creation and provide a minimal experience to base the policy on it. Cenarium (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Violations have the potential for real world consequences. This is what we want to avoid. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about WP:BLPs. Reversions of removals of BLP violations are covered in the BLP policy (here for example), and in a more specific and detailed way. Same for other restorations of removal of material due to policy violations, such as copyright violations. As mentioned, OTRS agents are subject to local editing policies, so are the reverts. The question is whether a specific policy regarding reversions of edits based on OTRS tickets is justified. Cenarium (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, the recommendation to avoid reverting edits citing OTRS tickets as reasons without appropriate discussion is not in itself disputed and would still be included on the page. Cenarium (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I had not considered this policy statement "To facilitate peer review, OTRS volunteers should reference the ticket number and this policy when citing OTRS as a reason for an action.", with which I fully agree and would recommend as a global recommendation too. To move forward, there's also the possibility to make this page as an information page, and create a separate page for an OTRS policy, if deemed necessary. Cenarium (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone explain what bit at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines would seem to indicate that this is not policy? Its a rather widely used and stable system that's been handled in pretty much the same manner for many years. Since OTRS agents routinely deal with delicate situations in which they may not be able to release all the details on-wiki due to the privacy policy, can you explain why you feel that its not important to take extra care when you see someone reference OTRS as a reason for an edit? Do you believe editors without full knowledge of the situation should feel entitled to simply revert instead of taking a moment to discuss the situation? Shell ^babelfish 07:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The content is not disputed, the status as policy is. For examples, WP:AFD and WP:BUREAUCRAT are both information pages about stable processes, yet they are not policies. It has been shown that the initial support for the promotion of this page to policy was not strong enough for today's standards (here is the promoting discussion). It is an occasion to review its status, consider whether a policy is really necessary (other projects don't have an OTRS policy, except two with content adapted from here, and there's no global OTRS policy). Also, it doesn't 'look' like a policy page, it's a few facts and explanations. The only two policy statements are the first two sentences and the last sentence in the Dispute resolution section, on reversion and citing tickets, so the question is whether those are sufficient as recommendations in a documentation page or if they really need policy status. Cenarium (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm still not understanding the problem. You think that the support was insufficient, but you've declined to bring this up in a public area to see what support is actually like - that's rather confusing. In fact, other than yourself and M, you've gotten rather strong support from those stopping by to comment. What exactly is the harm in this being listed as policy? Comments like "it doesn't 'look' like a policy page" don't really make sense to me. As you said, there are bits in here that are policy - there is also some explanation. Why would it be preferable to force contributors (or people looking for help) to check two pages to get the information they wanted? Wouldn't it be possible that folks might overlook bits if the explanation and policy were on separate pages? I guess I'm getting the feeling that there's not really anything broke here, so I don't understand what we're being asked to fix. Shell ^babelfish 09:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't 'decline' to bring this up in a public area; for your information, M posted on this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies and WP:VPP. But there's been almost only OTRS agents responding so far, which seems to be usual on this talk page. Maybe a move to another place would be appropriate for those reasons, and a broader advertising, but I won't be available in the next few days and I'm not even sure it's worth it. Concerning separation, it's only an option, and is not uncommon, for example we have the deletion policy, some sub-policies and information or process pages, for arbitration too, WP:ARB and WP:AP. However, they are much more used and complex processes, so separation is a must there but not necessarily here. The advantage though is that users looking for help would have all the information they need on the information page, it could even be specifically designed to assist them and enriched with informational data, while they aren't that concerned with policy, and the policy could be worked on specifically. Policy doesn't have to be long (Wikipedia:Spoiler, Wikipedia:No page blanks, Wikipedia:Attack page, WP:IAR). There's also the possibility, why not, to make a policy of only a section "This section documents an English Wikipedia policy...", see Template:Policy section. Cenarium (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...isn't there an entire section below where you seem to be arguing against bringing this up somewhere that would likely bring more editors interested in discussing policy? Its probably not a coincidence that OTRS agents tend to respond; I'd bet that quite a few have this page watchlisted since from time to time, people try to leave messages on the talk when they don't understand how to email OTRS. Regarding separation, the examples you cited are complex, lengthy policy and instruction pages - that doesn't seem to be the case with this page. You've never really answered the question - what is it about calling this page a policy that concerns you? You mention that only one section is policy and the rest explains things - that seems to be pretty typical for most policy pages. Since practice is that blindly reverting an edit with an OTRS ticket number in the summary will likely get you into trouble, it would seem to be fairly important to make certain editors are able to find out this information. Shell ^babelfish 11:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against bringing this to somewhere else, but against the assertion that this is necessary or even common. I gave plenty of examples of those discussions happening on talk pages of respective policies, but not a single example of the contrary has been given. My concern in calling the whole page a policy is that most of the material are facts and explanations, and it contains only two actual policy statements. This is unsatisfactory because (1) it gives a false impression of Wikipedia policies, most have only a few facts or explanations, or they are melted with policy statements. At least, there should be a predominance of policy statements. I checked policies and there are only few exceptions, for example Wikipedia:Category deletion policy, which I just proposed to be demoted or merged altogether and I also identified Wikipedia:Appealing a block and Wikipedia:IP block exemption. (2) facts and explanations need to be regularly and easily updated, and improvements should be encouraged, this is not easy when they are marked as policy since edits should reflect consensus. Thus my proposal to mark only a section of this page as policy, entitled... 'policy', the rest being explanations, facts, etc. There doesn't seem to be a precedent for this. Please note I won't be able to reply before several days. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly a misunderstanding is occuring after reading the discussions that took place between 9 June 2007 and the 4 July 2007 there was extensive discussion of this policy and the wording. On the 4 July it was proposed that this page be tagged as policy on the 16 July there had been no further discussion and the page was tagged as policy. Gnangarra 09:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The content of the page has been much discussed in June, it wasn't tagged before that time. There's never really been a consensus for marking this either as guideline or policy. The status of the page has been very roughly discussed in the not policy, not a guideline, concern and finally note threads, after the note thread, it's been tagged as guideline, then after the policy subthread, as policy; but no consensus clearly emerged to tag as policy in either threads or their combination. Cenarium (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The only issue I see is that the OTRS page is that it's poorly thought out (why are you explaining what OTRS is at the end of the page? I'm sure that info could come in handy earlier than that). What's the real issue here? If it's not broken, don't fix it. How about everyone gets back to editing articles... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The more "policy" we have, the more confusion, drama, and discussion we have to deal with. If this page was actually listed or referenced from any other policy, it would be yet another 'official statement' to read and keep track of. Info is great, excess policy sucks.    M   21:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just make a new template, maybe like this:

Think this could be a good idea? This basically says that its something used to enforce policy or guidelines, but doesn't "call" it one. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks good and potentially useful, but I think that OTRS is more a wikimedia proc, not a wp proc. The only part of OTRS that applies to WP is the "changes made under OTRS should not be reverted", which is indeed a policy statement. (One which is either redundant with BLP, or one that grants OFFICE-like rights to censor content to OTRS users. Inappropriate either way.)    M   08:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this would be used on other pages too, but I'm just going to clarify it may either be a "local" (English Wikipedia only) or "global" (Wikimedia) policy or guideline. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The infopage tag was proposed under similar circumstances, but now it has grown to cover a fair bit of miscellany that should have just been handled. It was basically a compromise tag. I worry about there being a whole new category to keep track of. Also, a process tends to be a clear listing of steps available to general wp editors. I was thinking that perhaps we could have some sort of variant for marking parts of a policy or guideline as process...    M   18:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute tag

I have removed the dispute tag. One or two editors does not a disputed policy make. Try it on the deletion policy for example, I think we would see the disputed tag quickly removed. This page is common sense. It does not make sense to go blindly reverting an edit where a ticket number is only used. In any event:

• Before replacing the disputed tag, please seek outside comments and advertise the discussion on places like the village pump, administrator's noticeboard, and T:CENT. Any other places as needed.

Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag again. It is there to inform editors of a discussion. It has no effect on the status of this as policy, much like adding the policy tag has zero effect. It is inappropriate to remove the tag, since this hides that there is a policy discussion on this page.    M   13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is common sense, it needs not be marked as policy (see WP:UCS, particularly WP:UCS#Why isn't this page an official policy?). The deletion policy is a firmly established policy, continuously discussed. This one has almost never been substantially discussed since 2007. As you say, blindly reverting an edit where a ticket number is only used doesn't make sense, thus no policy is necessary to state this unless experience proves it happens. You stated an argument against marking this as policy, and visibly you didn't get that the argument is not about the spirit of the policy, with which we agree, but the status of this page as policy. This is completely different. The status of this page as policy is disputed, not the content of the page. Please review the use of the disputed tag at Template:Disputedtag: "Use this template to dispute whether a page (or a section on a page) has properly been accorded policy or guideline status." and "This template is only for ongoing, active disputes that are evidenced in talk page discussion." The use of the tag is conformed to the recommendations. Upon this consideration, please re-add the disputed tag. Cenarium (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is completely the wrong forum for that dispute; it needs to go in the central policy discussion forums / village pump, not here. If you want to dispute the status, stop arguing here, go start a thread where it needs to be. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this is the right forum, it simply needs to be further advertised. Policy discussions happen on their talk pages in the vast majority of cases. Cenarium (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the correct place is as George recommended. Please heed his advice. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, discussions on policy status happen (at least in the vast majority of cases) on the talk page of those policies: Wikipedia talk:Build the web, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (perpetually), WT:IAR of course, the countless MOS pages, etc. I couldn't even find an example of a status discussion status not happening on the respective policy's talk page in the few minutes I searched and I won't search any more, you give a link. You repeatedly say I'm incorrect but don't bother to try proving your assertions ? Cenarium (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Cenarium. Stop. You're being disruptive. There's no excuse to try to mark a foundation developed policy for a foundation approved organization as "disputed" just because you don't like something about it. Cut it out. You're being ridiculous, and your point is definitely crossing over into disruptive editing.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No need for such a warning (I will take a nice cup of tea and a break soon) :) I simply don't get the assertion that discussions on policy status shouldn't happen on the respective talk pages. I'm not trying to make a point. Please note that I support all of the content, but simply feel that not all of the page should be marked as policy. I also proposed to add a global recommendation at meta:Talk:OTRS#Recomendations to cite tickets when mentioning OTRS as a reason and avoid reverting actions citing OTRS tickets without first discussing a few hours ago. I was not aware the policy had been developed by the wmf, or are you refereering to the meta page ? I thought it was marked as policy normally by the community as a result of the discussion linked above (contrary to WP:OFFICE which was passed by Jimbo). Cenarium (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit disruptive. You were told by many editors that this was not going away. You have also been told by more than one on how and where to discuss this. You have dug your heels in despite what other editors have said above. Now... this is becoming a timesink. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors should note that NonvocalScream, Swatjester, and Georgewilliamherbert are all OTRS members.    M   13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So are others (such as me) who have participated here. Why does that matter? If OTRS volunteers are doing things for the foundation at the direction of the foundation volunteer coordinator, then the issue in question needs to be more carefully scrutinized if someone thinks it should be reverted. While not an WP:OFFICE action, there are still issues handled by OTRS volunteers which can have similar consequences if not handled very carefully. All this policy is saying is "look (and discuss) before you leap" so that potentially volatile situations do not become volatile. The current way OTRS volunteers operate is condoned by the foundation itself, and supported by the overwhelming majority (if not all of them) of admins, bureaucrats, arbcom, stewards, and so on. OTRS exists only to interact in a positive manner with those who write in with concerns or questions regarding the foundation and its projects. On occasion, they may deal with a touchy situation, and if an editor here reverts one of their clearly marked edits, it can cause a whole storm of consequences. This policy, as it is endorsed by the foundation (OTRS actions are regularly reviewed by various foundation reps) and has been policy here for over two years, is not going away. It can't go away as it is protecting the interests of the foundation itself. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It matters because it's very frustrating and worrying to see such a split. Nearly all OTRS users are asserting that this is indeed policy, and there are a fair few of them. I'm finding the sort of points brought up strange ('this is policy because it's WMF policy', 'this is policy because you have to discuss it at a VP'), or they miss the point entirely: you need scrutiny. Blank statements like 'it's not going away' are distressing. Accusations that editors who have been calmly and carefully discussing this policy are being disruptive (behavior worthy of a block) are particularly distressing. I think that some of the statements made by OTRS users show a lapse in judgement, and that this strong and seemingly hostile division between OTRS users and other editors should be noted. At this point, I would strongly oppose granting any special authority over WP to editors selected secretly. That is, I think that statements regarding OTRS anywhere in policy or guideline should be unathoritative: "edits made may involve sensitive issues, like with any sensitive issue, take care when reverting". Of course, I may be overreacting, but at the very least I would like to get some feedback on this from editors not involved in OTRS.    M   20:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those who say that this whole page shouldn't be marked as policy (although I don't have any disagreement with anything on the page). But we should have a general policy on reverting (like WP:Reverting, but actual consensus statements), which might be combined with WP:Edit war - then the sentence about not reverting OTRS could be placed there, and this page made into an information page about OTRS.--Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Maybe it doesn't need to be policy; but the page needs to exist and can't obviously be merged and the content isn't really in dispute... so what difference does it make? Rd232 ^talk 16:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The page can exist, then, without being marked policy. Most of the content isn't in dispute because it's just simple information, not policy. Some of the content, like the bolded statement, is under dispute. It seems to grant powers to OTRS members that the community was assured would only be exercised by Cary Bass, Mike Godwin, staff, and members of the board. I agree with the essay-like sentiment that care should be taken, but not with this being policy.    M   20:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The only drama I see vis a vis OTRS... is the drama being generated here, today. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't get what the problem is there... No one seems to dispute that this page describe how things are actually done if a OTRS volunteer make an edit based on a non-public confidential information they are entrusted by the foundation to handle. The only sticking point seems to be whether or not there is a local consensus to stick the {{policy}} template on the top of the page. First of all I'd just like to point out that the fact that something have been tagged as policy for years without challenge counts for something on it's own, and secondly what possible harm will there be in having the page that describe how the OTRS system works tagged as policy? Removing the policy tag won't change how things are done (would need a much larger discussion on Meta or something to do that), so the only effect of removing the policy tag (witch I have seen no consensus for so far) would be to make life a little harder for OTRS volunteers since they would get the occasional wikilayer trying to challenge them since their actions are apparently not backed by policy... Seems like a rater pointless exercise to me (no I'm not a OTRS user). If anyone can describe how removing the {{policy}} tag from this page will greatly improve the way we work while writing this encyclopedia please make your case. Ideas on how to reform the whole OTRS system should probably be taken to meta:Talk:OTRS or some such (some things could be better I'm sure, for example with permission tickets it would be nice if there was a link we could use to verify if the licese tag used on an image is correct or not without having to flag down a OTRS user to verify manually every time(whoever "close" the ticket would just need to fill out a textfield with the granted license)). However if the only concern is a hangup over some perceived bureaucratic technicality I would urge you to consider WP:IAR and think twice about whether getting this delisted as policy rely is the best use of your time in order to improve the encyclopedia. Don't get the wrong, if you rely feel strongly about it don't let me or anyone else stop you from launching a full blow RfC, but it's looking a bit like a storm in a teacup from there I'm standing. --Sherool (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that I've spent significant time trying to make our policies clearer, shorter, and more comprehensible (click my sig for details or check my contribs), and given that huge swaths of our time in wiki space as well as mainspace are wasted on the interpretation of confusing and contradictory (wait, who performs office actions?) policy, as well as huge discussions (no action) on what to do about policy creep, I do think that this is a good use of time - my time, anyway. There are plenty of similar pages that "accurately describe" how a group (e.g. wikiproject) works. Let's not make each of these policy on those grounds, and let's not start with this page.    M   22:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a rater significant difference between a page that describe how a Wikiproject work and one that describe how a group of users entrusted by the foundation to handle sensitive confidential correspondence of various kinds work. More to the point why do you believe that it's not worth saying that one should not blindly revert edits made on the basis of OTRS tickets? There might be some sensitive BLP issues that the person on the other end might not want to broadcast publicly. the OTRS system is a way for people to contact some trusted persons in confidence regarding the concerns. If the OTRS user then make the judgment call that certain content should be removed based on this correspondence, I think it is well worth having a policy that says such edits should not be reverted without some due diligence. I realize that making changes based on confidential information in many ways is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is about, but in some cases it can definitively be justified (per WP:BLP and WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY) and having a policy that spell this out help reduce the ensuing drama. --Sherool (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's already policy to not blindly revert edits. It's also already policy to explain important edits: "this blanking is based on an meta:OTRS request, the details of which are sensitive". WP:BLP and WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY cover BLP and Dignity. I'm not sure what the purpose of this page is, save inform (see {{infopage}}, and more to the point meta:OTRS), and then go on to grant a right (the bolded part) akin to the one granted by WP:OFFICE to our lawyers and board members. OTRS users should be treated like any other admin in possession of sensitive information.    M   23:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have not figured this out (you keep mentioning admins) despite it being mentioned multiple times: not all OTRS agents are admins; some are editors with no additional twiddled bits. As for the rest of your argument, unless you want to take it up with the foundation volunteer coordinator, the foundation board, and the foundation lawyer, you aren't going to get this changed. OTRS agents are doing the work they do as volunteers at the request of the foundation, and as Sherool mentioned, this needs to be here as a policy to prevent wikilawyers (and other people who refuse to accept this for what it is) from claiming the OTRS volunteer is not acting according to policy. It's been accepted policy for over two years now, and has been cited as policy for over two years now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above, and note that what it appears you your proposal is doing is going to make our work within otrs a bit harder. I don't know if wikilawyer have been mentioned. Also, it is important to point out, not all otrs volunteers are administrators. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS users should be treated like any other admineditor in possession of sensitive information. The repeated personal attacks here are making it very difficult to discuss this in a civil manner. If this policy does not grant any rights to OTRS members, then how exactly would this make your work harder?    M   02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Either post a dif of a personal attack, or withdraw the accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • On Wikipedia, unlike on the schoolyard, personal attacks are negative comments about contributors when content is enough. If you have a sane browser, highlight the word "you". Nonvocal's "you're going to make our work harder" (which was corrected, thanks), the "you seem not to have figured this out", SWATJester calling Cenarium ridiculous, as well as the general lack of assumptions of good faith. We don't need another policy if it does nothing. Nobody is doing this to hurt you or to make things harder for you or out of spite. Nothing personal; through cleanup I've halved the size of several of our policy pages, have seen one merged, have merged one, and will see another merged shortly. We have something like 50 policies. Many of them, like this one, can be removed. Not in the short term, but imagine there being only 10 pages that you had to read to understand wikipedia policy (at a base level).    M   17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  None of those are personal attacks. Indeed, "you're going to make our work harder" is an expression of concern, which you have not merely treated with disdain but falsely characterized as an attack. Hear me clearly: Accusing others of a personal attack when there is none, is itself a personal attack. You have been warned. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to express concern, express concern for the proposal or its consequences, not the editor and their motive. I also strongly suggest that you no longer 'warn' or otherwise threaten or imply the threat of a block against editors that you're involved in a discussion with. Accusations of disruption should be taken to the admin noticeboard, where a neutral admin can evaluate. (Conflict of interest.)    M   19:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that "any other" user citing confidential sensitive information would be generaly mistrusted and asked to cite sources. The whole point is that OTRS users does have some authority when (and only when) acting in the capacity of a OTRS agent. In most cases users in posession of sensitive/confidential information should forward it to to OTRS (with the subjects permission) rater than try to make potentialy controversial changes themselves. A good exmple is the permissions stuff. If a random user come a long and claimed that Discvery channel had allowed some screenshots from one of their documentaries to be released under Creative Commons Share Alike he would most likely be challenged to provide proof, whereas if a OTRS agent acknowlege the license citing a OTRS ticket it is considered proven. Claiming that OTRS agents should be treated like any other user in posession of non-public information just plain won't work. OTRS agents are trusted users who's real life identities are know by the foundation (they can be held accountable for abusing their access). A random user comming out of nowhere asking people to "trust me we have to do this but I can't tell you why" just can't (and should not) be trusted in the same way (remember past "scandals" where people have been chaugh lying about credentials and stuff). --Sherool (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, the point is also that there is a ticket number which can easily be looked up and confirmed by any other OTRS volunteer. So it is both trust and verifiability. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that all editors should be trusted like OTRS users, I'm saying OTRS users should be treated like any other editor in similar circumstances. Suppose an OTRS user made claims not backed up by a ticket. Suppose a non-OTRS user, who was accountable to the foundation, cited some sort of email. Our policies already cover this - don't they? We have BLP.    M   17:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A few questions

Clearly some people think that it is important to leave this marked as policy, while others disagree. The problem is figuring out where. Some of the policy is just info - in particular, the lead, the quick facts, and the (seemingly inaccurate) contact us. These can already be found in meta:OTRS (the description there is much better, I think).

So it seems the problem is with removing the 'dispute resolution' part. Now, some of this part is covered by BLP - page blanking, that sort of thing. As for the rest, a concern has been raised that, in the course of trying to make disputes go smoothly when certain pages are knocked out by an OTRS user, certain rights have been assigned that should not have been. In WP:OFFICE, only a select group (which excludes volunteers) is able to censor content based on communications. Having more power is certainly useful in resolving disputes in one's favor, nobody disagrees. The picture here is, if an admin reverts an OTRS ticket edit, and says "yep, I know what OTRS is, you gave me the link to meta and I read it" - then either one must explain without disclosing sensitive information, or hand the ticket off to Cary Bass or Mike Godwin so that they can perform the office action on one's behalf.

Is there some reason to duplicate the global content in meta to this wp-specific page? Might some other content be more appropriate if moved to meta? For the middle section, if there is indeed no right, would editors mind if I removed the implication that there is one? If there is a right (and there is, if this page has been used as a tool to decide any debate on content removals), then what is the nature of that right?    M   18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's long been common practice to have local versions of all relevant global policies, we don't delist policy pages just because there are versions of them on meta (see examples such as: meta:Neutral point of view/Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, meta:CheckUser policy/Wikipedia:CheckUser, meta:Office actions/Wikipedia:Office actions and meta:No open proxies/Wikipedia:Open proxies). --Sherool (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because those are actually community endorsed policies on en.wikipedia. OTRS isn't a policy, though, even on meta. At least not those parts. What are your thoughts on the question of granting OTRS users a right similar to WP:OFFICE?    M   00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone perhaps give a (hypothetical) example of an OTRS edit where the justification is not covered by another policy or cannot be stated explicitly? All I can think of is that the OTRS volunteer is just enforcing another policy, such as BLP or copyvio, based on information received by e-mail. So instead of saying "I'm doing this for some reason I can't tell you, please don't revert" why not say "removing copyright violation/defamatory statement/private information - do not reinsert" (with a link to the relevant policy AND the OTRS page). It's not as if the fact that someone has requested removal of information is automatically justification for removing it (at least, it shouldn't be). --Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's difficult to do without giving away private information. Look at it this way, if they were easy calls, wouldn't the community have already handled them? When someone has to take the step of emailing OTRS to resolve a problem it may not be as simple as "oh sure, we'll just enforce this policy". Another thing to remember is that the use of OTRS as the only reason is rather rare; if the edit can be explained just by saying BLP or another policy, then it is.

As with most policies, when talking about BLP there is room for editors to disagree whether or not an edit violates the policy. Since other editors would not be privy to the private information that led an editor with OTRS access to make a decision, it makes it difficult to defend why an edit violates BLP if its not already obvious. But that's why any editor with OTRS access will happily review an OTRS action; they can check that same information and see if they reach the same conclusion. You are absolutely correct that someone requesting removal of information isn't sufficient for its removal; we have to deal with a lot of unhappy people who want us to do just that - this policy, however, is for information that should be removed but requires access to private information to understand why. Shell ^babelfish 09:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if I understand you right, the access to private information is required to understand why the information is a breach of policy (BLP, probably), not to understand which policy it is a breach of. So the edit summary should say (in a suitably abbreviated way):"Do not reinsert this information as it appears to breach our WP:BLP policy, For details as to why, please contact the WP:OTRS volunteer who removed it." There's no need then to have a special policy about OTRS - anyone reinserting the info can expect to be sanctioned under BLP (and the BLP page could mention OTRS if it doesn't already), and anyone reverting the reinsertion can expect to be protected under the BLP exemption to 3RR. --Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they could, the point here is that edit which mention OTRS, whether or not they note the policy they are attempting to enforce, need to be treated with more care. Does it make more sense to mention OTRS in every conceivable policy that editors might need to know this or have one central place where editors wonder what the deal with OTRS is can get the correct information? Shell ^babelfish 09:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be such a central place (I'm perfectly happy with this page); just that it doesn't seem right logically for it to be marked as a policy.--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm concerned with is why OTRS users have been assigned an explicitly 'enforcement' role. Some of them aren't admins. A good-faith attempt to prevent difficulties through a blanking is perfectly acceptable, of course. But if someone disagrees, the expectation is that the discussion will be an open one, where any user can evaluate reasons, and not just a distinct, small, and cohesive subgroup of experienced Wikipedians. The only exceptions to such an open discussion - which is absolutely crucial when dealing with sensitive issues - is when qualified Office staff need to act, usually in some sort of emergency, to prevent serious and imminent legal harms. As useful as it would be for many cases, OTRS users (single, or as a group) don't have the right to enforce a blanking against other editors where enforcement rests entirely on the question of "secret information", and can't be sufficiently supported in any other way.    M   19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

...If the people raising the dispute don't care about the content, only about the tag, then why is there a dispute in the first place?. No on wiki behavior will change as a result of this being marked policy. OTRS volunteers will still make edits to this encyclopedia based on emails in the queue. All we do in marking this as policy is give a good pointer to editors allowing them to see why they shouldn't revert an OTRS edit without discussion. Wikipedia:Office actions hasn't grown out of en-wiki discussion per se but it is a policy here. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Only" a ticket number?

The info box says "If an edit contains only an OTRS ticket number as a reason, or in the edit summary, please discuss the edit with that OTRS volunteer or request review before undoing that edit.? Why? Wouldn't it be better to say "BLP issue: ticket#784752745912745" or "Subject correcting incorrect information: ticket #87678346345" etc? I would think adding a basic explanation is helpful, and as long as there is a ticket #, the edit should be discussed with the volunteer who made it. -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a ticket number would contain only a number - it's poor practice as per our edit summary rules. I should also hope that OTRS users have been specifically instructed to provide good reasons in their training. So yes, that should be removed, but that sentence itself is being discussed directly above at the moment.    M   19:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience summaries are usually "section removed (etc) per OTRS Ticket# 1234567890" or something similar. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Rattification of this as Wikipedia Policy.

In line with the amount of power this proposed policy hands over to OTRS members, I'm going to request that it go through the same ratification process as Arbitration went through. If as the OTRS members claim, this is acceptable, then it will obviously be rattified. But if there is substantial objection to the way this would work, then it should not be policy.

My personal opinion, is that OTRS membership has crept from 'assisting the Foundation OFFICE actions with a panel of users to run the ticket system' into 'OTRS volunteers are an unelected anonymous censorship board not accountable to any of the projects'. You may disagree, but this is the power you wish to grant yourselves over the projects. --Barberio (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am prepared to open an RFC, and ultimately Arbitration request, on the operations of OTRS members on this project if OTRS members continue to edit war to impose new policy on the project without consensus. --Barberio (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you do realize that Arbcom was appointed by Jimbo, and there was no "ratification", right? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I do hope you're not an OTRS volunteer since that shows a level of ignorance about wikipedia... Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy_ratification_vote --Barberio (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, apparently you *are* an OTRS volunteer. Can I suggest you take this point to review your assumptions? It would improve my confidence in you if you did not jump in with inaccurate comments designed to 'prove your point' that do almost the opposite. --Barberio (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility please, everyone; I don't know of any reason why this discussion needs to become emotional.--Kotniski (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise. It's just that KillerChihuahua's comment does raise questions for me as to how well informed OTRS members actually are about the policies of the project. --Barberio (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That vote was to determine whether to expand the scope of Arbcom from its orginal scope of taking only cases sent by Jimbo. You did see that, yes? There was no ratification of which I am aware on either Arbcom's existence or ability to mete out enforceable remedies to behavior. There was an earlier ratification, but that was merely members of ArbCom ratifying their own procedure. No non ArbCom members were allowed to participate in the vote ratifying the original policy itself. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... If you had read just a little bit closer, you would have realised that the earlier vote was an *emergency step* taken for the arbitration panel being formed to accept some *emergency cases* to ban several individuals who were causing great amounts of disruption. It was limited to those cases, and the committee was not fully activated. The Arbitration Policy did not become fully active until after the ratification of it.

This doesn't match in any way the current situation. --Barberio (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways that the ArbCom situation does not match the OTRS situation. For example, ArbCom has scope over the .EN Wikipedia only; OTRS is mandated from the foundation level, which is a significant difference you seem to have missed. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to make this into/keep this as policy, I'd be for stating clearly the responsibilities on both sides, viz. (1) When making edits quoting ticket numbers, OTRS volunteers should ensure that other editors are informed as to what they must not undo and because of what Wikipedia policy; (2) Non-OTRS editors should adhere to instructions so given until discussion with the OTRS editor has concluded. (That's not a proposed wording, just the idea that ought to be got down.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a greater commitment to accepting complaints about inappropriate OTRS actions, and an actual transparent process to see that peer review really happens, not just rubber stamping. I'd like to see the sanctions for screwing up being a bit greater than just 'we will investigate', perhaps even up to allowing ArbCom to remove people from OTRS if they do something that damages the project? --Barberio (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We have already covered this but ArbCom has zero authority to remove anybody from OTRS. Period. Even the OTRS administrators have said this. ArbCom can take action against a user who has violated a policy on the English Wikipedia but they have no control over anything outside of en.wikipedia.org/. I'm finding it awfully hard to believe that you have good intentions here, after reading all of your comments so it is unlikely that I'll comment further on the matter. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so... You'd support allowing someone who was banned from en.wikipedia, to still have OTRS access? --Barberio (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to the bottom new comment here. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's ... I have no civil way to comment on your assumption that is what he meant. If an editor is blocked from en. then they cannot edit en, regardless. That has nothing to do with whether they are removed from OTRS or not. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Again... Do you support the idea that an OTRS member who was blocked from editing en.wikipedia for cause, should be allowed to keep their status as an OTRS member and OTRS privileges on the other projects? Do you reject the idea that the projects should have any kind of say as to who has access to the OTRS ticket system and wiki and mailing lists? --Barberio (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It would really depend on why the editor was banned from editing Wikipedia, even if they were naughty and socking, for instance, it doesn't prevent them from working in the permissions queue and adding permission details to media on Commons, for example. It's worth pointing out at this point that there's no special "privileges" on Commons (or here, not that many people appear to be listening to that argument). Nick (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(after EC) Let me try an analogy... Do you support the idea that if someone loses their job as a local policeman, they should keep their seat in the House of Commons? Or if someone is fired for cause from their job as a reporter, they should keep their job as head librarian? You see how absurd the question is. Except that the foundation 'owns' Wikipedia.en, as well as all the other languages and projects. It is by the Foundation's sufferance that any of this all exists, and they can mandate regulations which we at the individual project level must follow. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea that a member in the House of Commons would have to identify to his constituents that he was fired for cause in his other community role, and that his constituents would have the opportunity to vote him out. Perhaps you shouldn't have selected an example that involves a position that requires community support?

Also, I think your ideas of 'ownership' re Wikipedia are out of line. Wikimedia own the servers, and provide the support structures. The Content is GFDL licensed and owned by everyone. The 'sufferance' is, in actuality the other way around, Wikimedia is tolerated by the community. Without the community running the projects, Wikimedia would be nothing. --Barberio (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The House of Commons was supposed to be analogous to editing here, the police job to OTRS, but it was not meant to be a particularly good analogy. The idea is that if you are barred from one thing, it doesn't necessarily affect something else. For example, if you're banned here, should you also lose your Internet access? You've been proven to be problematic on the Internet, haven't you? Also not the best analogy, but I trust you will be able to comprehend my meaning. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question for Barberio - how do you propose some sort of transparent complaint process when most of the potentially controversial OTRS actions revolve around sensitive personal information or sensitive legal issues (or both) ? Nick (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sensitive personal information can be kept confidential during the process. Just as they are during the arbitration process. However, saying that some aspects of the process have to be kept confidential doesn't equate to the whole process having to be confidential. It's the wiki tradition to have the maximum amount of transparency possible. OTRS instead uses the maximum amount of confidentiality possible, by making it entirely confidential. It is perfectly possible use code-names for items that can not be divulged. For instance 'Person A who was verified to represent a legitimate company held legitimate trademark interests. The article was edited to remove conflicts with those trademark interests. On review, the trademark interest was legitimate, the OTRS member had no conflict of interests, and the issue was handled correctly.' or 'A BLP issue was identified by an undisclosed respondent. This issue appeared to have merit, and was edited by an OTRS member. On review, and from evidence submitted in confidence by the parties, we conclude there was no BLP issue to address and the edit may be reverted.' --Barberio (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is already largely practice. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitary break

I think Barberio completely misunderstand how OTRS works. There's not a "single" OTRS priviledge and each volunteer has access to a different set of inboxes. Of course being banned on en.wikipedia doesn't imply removal of OTRS priviledges as a whole, since that person may as well be helping in other wikis. In fact, there isn't a "english wikipedia" inbox, inboxes aren't organized by wikipedias -- m:drini 14:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Going back to this... The page here states that all OTRS members have the same privileges. It makes no distinction between what inboxes the OTRS volunteer sees. And any OTRS volunteer gets granted the same apparent right to reject dispute resolution and have revert protection.

This may not have been the intent, but this is what the 'policy' as written provides. --Barberio (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that Barberio does not understand how OTRS works, or its relationship to the foundation and the various projects. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And here's another problem. Now, you could have approached this by explaining civilly how I was wrong. Instead you have thrown out incorrect declarations about how en.wikipedia worked in the past, and derided me for not understanding how OTRS works.

Of course I don't know how OTRS works inside.

That's because you've been utterly opaque about how OTRS work!

And I can't trust what you say now about OTRS, because what was said about how OTRS works and will work has changed in the past and seems to keep changing. The 'OTRS is not a Badge' principle seems to have been entirely abandoned now.

So you're in this position of having OTRS appear opaque and secretive to those outside it. And then you rebut questions and desire for reforms by deriding the people who make them for not understanding how OTRS works.

This is a complete failure on your behalf to properly communicate with the projects. And it is a major failing for OTRS since it's obviously going to cause conflicts with people who don't understand what you are doing, and get annoyed when you blame them for not knowing how you work. --Barberio (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You could just ask? Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 15:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then I ask... Provide us with the actual solid details of how OTRS Peer Review works... Don't stop there, provide us with the actual solid details on how all functions of OTRS work. Document them. And either stick to working that way, or change the documents when you change the way you work.

And maybe, just maybe, listen to outside criticism about the way you work without acting like we're the enemy? --Barberio (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify something, what do you mean by functions? Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 15:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything done under the auspices of OTRS.

Now, I'll be happy to give you a few months if it's going to take you some time to document your processes. But if you want to me to know how you work, you need to let me know how you work. --Barberio (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(after EC) The only NPA violations I have seen here have been from you, Barerio, so I don't see your point in complaining about anyone viewing anyone else as 'the enemy' as you're the only one I see acting that way. Perhaps if you read the page attached to this talk page:

Quick facts about OTRS

• OTRS is a cross-wiki project spanning many languages.
• The contents of e-mails handled by OTRS members are confidential.
• For more information about OTRS, please see our page on Meta, and for more information about how OTRS handles e-mail relating to the English Wikipedia, please see info-en mission.

The following are based on database dumps for emails received between March 4 and July 2, 2008. The next scheduled update is for early October. The statistics have been rounded to the nearest 5% to reflect the routine fluctuations over the three-month time period.

• Approximately 60% of all mail that OTRS members handle is written in the English language.
• Approximately 30% of all mail that OTRS members handle is in the "info-en" (ie. English Wikipedia-related) queues; this equates to around half of the English language mail.
• Approximately 15% of all mail that OTRS members handle is Permissions-related.
• There are currently around 380 valid accounts in the OTRS system, of whom around half have access to the info-en queue to some degree.

...You'd know more about OTRS. I especially recommend the linked meta page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I particularly like how the Meta OTRS/review page 'details' how OTRS peer review works by referring us back to this page. I suggest that the documentation you point to is not as comprehensive as you assume it to be.

I also note it still includes OTRS/introduction, who's practices such as 'OTRS is not a Badge' have long been abandoned. And contains the line 'should be in good standing on all Foundation projects where you participate.' and yet you insist an OTRS member can remain one if he is banned from en.wikipedia.

I suggest that this documentation does not represent OTRS's current actions. --Barberio (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a useful video of a presentation made by cary bass. Ill find you a link. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This link Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A slide show presentation is not useful documentation of your processes. --Barberio (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you watch that video anyway. I found it informative. Anyway back to the topic at hand, there are over 150 queues and sub queues, so there is no need to cover all of them as more than 90% of those queues are not english wikipedia related, should we simply start with just the info-en queue? Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're making a common mistake, confusing technologies and tools with processes to use them. If I ask the question 'What are the Data Centres backup processes?' saying 'We use 80 GB DLT tape on a backup server with robot storage' is not the answer I'm looking for. I want to know things like 'How often do you back up, are the back ups incremental, what does and does not get backed up, what is the tape rotation?' and so on.

I'm not asking about mailing lists, the mailing lists are tools you use, I'm asking about processes. Here are some of the things we really need to see documented...

• How does peer review work? How do you handle a request for peer review? What documentation of this process is done?
• How do you document an OTRS action on a wiki? Is there any process for handling reversion which may be correct, ie 'getting a second opinion' from another OTRS volunteer?
• How are OTRS volunteers selected? How are OTRS volunteers vetted? How are OTRS volunteers policed to check they're not making mistakes of have conflicts of interests? (PS. If the question to that last one is "They aren't" then we're in trouble.)

And giving me an answer here isn't really enough. It needs to be part of the Documented Policies on how OTRS is supposed to work. --Barberio (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well these all vary from queue to queue, so my point still stands, do you just want to look at english wikipedia related queues? Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That amount of variance is in it's self an issue. These are not questions which should have hundreds of different answers depending on which mailing list we're looking at.

Your statement that the rules vary greatly from queue to queue actually concerns me. What happens when someone who has been working on one queue moves to another, do you stop and retrain them in all the different ways of this queue, or are they going to keep using the processes they learnt on the other queue. This has just highlighted to me a potential problem with OTRS I didn't even know existed.

You know, at this point, you need to stop and ask yourself this simple question... "Why is it so hard for me to document our processes?", and I suspect the answer is because the OTRS processes need to be straightened out. --Barberio (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a random suggestion... We are apparently agreed that the majority of work OTRS members do doesn't need these special revert protection and option to ignore dispute resolution? And there is some internal distinction between OTRS members who have more and less privileges...

So then, why do we need to grant special privileges to *all* OTRS members as the current 'policy' is written to do.

So I'm going to propose a solution. OTRS should nominate a number of trusted editors who can be put to the community to ask 'Do you trust these people to have special OTRS privileges on en.wikipedia for the next couple of years?'. And we can decide if they get revert protection and opt-out on dispute resolution to handle OTRS requests. --Barberio (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that if good sense and good faith are the watchwords, then processes and ratifications and so on should be unnecessary. (There seems to be far too much bureaucratic expansion on WP at the moment.) No-one need have any "privileges" as such; an OTRS editor is just like any other editor who might have some confidential information that explains why a particular edit is required by policy. In such a situation you should give as much information as you can, and invite people to contact you by e-mail if they need more. Other editors should assume good faith and respect that, though obviously if the claimed justification proves inadequate then no-one can be prevented from editing further. The only real difference from a normal content dispute is that some of the discussion may have to take place off-wiki, though if care is exercised even that probably isn't usually necessary.--Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

An explanation

OTRS does not serve one specific purpose; it handles all the emails that anyone would want to send to Wikimedia for any reason. This includes permission to use pictures, requests to re-use our content, press-related matters, and the content on Wikipedia articles. Simply, people send emails to a specific e-mail address depending on what they are writing about (whether it's English Wikipedia or Finnish Wikibooks or about the Foundation as a whole). It is aggregated by server-side software (called "OTRS", in fact), and volunteers (known as OTRS agents) log into this software to read and respond to the new e-mails. This is used by the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole, as well as the several regional chapters. E-mails are organized by queues, and because of all these diverse applications of OTRS, the qualifications needed to be an agent for each queue vary by queue. For example, only those with legal expertise may answer e-mails for the legal queue.

As it relates to Wikipedia, the role of OTRS is generally to answer emails concerned with the content of articles. Often times, this is not a big deal; many emails are notices from casual readers about vandalism on Article X or an inaccuracy on Article Y. The volunteer who answers the e-mail at the time (all the e-mail answerers work on a volunteer basis) corrects the error as any other editor or administrator would.

It gets more serious when you consider that OTRS also receives e-mails from the subjects of articles or their representatives. Wikipedia's primary rule when it comes to living people is to do no harm, as you may know. Therefore, whenever an article subject has a complaint about their article, it is taken very seriously, and it's where an agent might do the OTRS power-grab. Not because they want to, but because a removal of text from a BLP as the result of the subject complaining about the article is really something that should not be undone. In most cases, OTRS agents don't even want to mention OTRS when editing a page, as it attracts way too much attention (akin to the WP:OFFICE actions of the days of yore).

The point of the OTRS policy is that when an agent has access to confidential information (e-mails sent to OTRS are considered inherently confidential), he or she will have to be able to act on that while not being able to publish exactly why. It's unfortunate, but it's the by-product of allowing random strangers of the Internet to write articles about people who have lives and careers and reputations to maintain. —harej (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So if they don't want to mention OTRS, maybe it's better if they don't? (They could cite BLP and then if anyone reverts, re-revert them and drop them a note.) --Kotniski (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, we understand why OTRS needs some ability to take special measures... What's at issue here is that the current 'policy' is to grant blanket pre-approval and revert protection to any OTRS action, to *all* OTRS members, with no community vetting or input into how OTRS works and who may have this privilege, and a 'review' system that is as transparent as mud and can't be seen to be trustful.

See above where I ask for details about how the processes in OTRS work, and I can't be given any because apparently OTRS internals are set up too complex for there to be a standard process for handling issues, and each 'mailing list' has it's own community rules... This arcane and opaque "you don't understand how OTRS works, and we can't tell you!" is what caused the problems with the Arbitraton Comittee! --Barberio (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Its really not that its too complex. Its like asking a customer service rep "how do you handle requests?" and the CS rep really has to ask with, requests for what? They'd handle a request to see a manger differently than a demand that the store be painted bright pink or else be SUED! (not that far off from some emails I've seen sent to OTRS) and that in turn would be handled differently from "where is the lingerie department?" Really, OTRS is an open ticketing response system, and its a ticketing system using emails. Its not that we can't explain, its that there isn't much to explain, and you seem to be asking for something specific and you're not being clear about what your question is. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, OTRS volunteers do not have any special rights on local Wikipedias. Usually, they have extra information concerning certain articles because of the content of OTRS e-mail correspondence. Based on these correspondences they can make adjustments to articles, for example in the case of a BLP issue.

Most of the times, volunteers will leave some sort of comment behind in the edit summary. Sometimes, this is difficult to do, due to the confidential nature of OTRS. In this case, a volunteer will leave the ticket number behind, so any other volunteer may perform a check if necessary at the request of a community member.

You have mentioned the word “processes” quite a few times now, but I’m not sure in what particular processes you are interested. The procedures for OTRS Administrators, for example, are different from procedures for OTRS agents. All OTRS agents require demonstrable quality in handling customer service complaints, in addition to the knowledge of the various project policies and guidelines. OTRS administrators' process for determining suitability is as much sensory as it is judgment. Some candidates are already known to OTRS admins while others are not. OTRS admins are cautioned to avoid including personal feelings when deciding the suitability for those who are known. With 11 OTRS administrators in place and a few private communication methods, it is ensured that all information is known to all Administrators, to improve their judgement. Also, the input of local volunteer is highly appreciated and used, as others might possess valuable information.

But please, if you are interested in some procedures which are relevant to the English Wikipedia, feel free to ask questions with your concerns, preferably with examples that show your concerns are legitimate.

Last but not least, I want to point out that OTRS is not a cabal. Instead, it’s an institution with highly trusted users who are capable of handling the tickets that arrive in the queues which they have access to. Any problems with OTRS volunteers should be reported, and actions will be taken by the OTRS Administrators to assure the quality of OTRS volunteers. Apart from that, there are processes in place to check and improve the quality of current volunteers.You will of course agree with me that sharing these would make them less effective, so I rather not. On top of this, the system itself is presently being expanded with the data currently being collected by the OTRS Statisticians (see this page for information).

Best regards, m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 18:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I'll split this up into sections.

• "First off, OTRS volunteers do not have any special rights on local Wikipedias"

  I direct you to the discussion at the bottom of this page currently, where OTRS members claim they have special exemption from the normal Dispute Resolution processes for confidentiality reasons, despite being reminded several times that the en.wikipedia DR process allows for confidential reasons and gives benefit of doubt towards removal of disputed items and allows reversion protection for BLP issues. Perhaps this is a training issue, and you need to again refresh amongst the volunteers that they are expected to use the normal DR process, and have no special powers on en.wikipedia or any other project. And perhaps be careful with allowing language creep into 'policies' that suggest they can avoid or circumvent DR.

• "but I’m not sure in what particular processes you are interested"

  Repeating myself here. All of them. OTRS volunteers on this page have refused to listen to criticism, because the person criticising "Does not know how OTRS" works. However, we can't know how OTRS works, because OTRS's internal processes are not publicly documented to any extent that allows us to know how you work. I'll try to highlight the areas I think we need the most documentation.

  Unlike the rest of Wikipedia, where the process to become an admin, an arbcom member and a steward are all clearly publicly documented, there is nothing about how OTRS volunteers are apointed or what the different roles within OTRS are.

  Again, unlike the rest of Wikipedia, none of OTRS's operational processes are publicly documented. There is no equivalent to, for example, the clear instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for any OTRS process. We'd like to know what the process is that ends with someone making an edit to wikipedia, and if there is peer review of actions *before* they are taken as there are with controversial administrator actions.

  One vital one. There is no documented process for seeking review of an OTRS action or OTRS agent's behaviour. The only recourse given is 'ask another OTRS member', something that is kind of tricky when we're not allowed to know who all the OTRS members actually are or what their roles are. It's no good ending up asking an OTRS member to review a copyright decision when they're nothing to do with the copyright mailing lists. It's no good asking an OTRS member to review the actions of another OTRS member if it turns out they're friends of each other. And again, 'OTRS Review' acts like a black hole, into which we throw requests and out of which we receive no feedback.

• "OTRS is not a cabal"

  If it walks like a duck. And it quacks like a duck. And it looks like a duck. It's a duck.

  It may not be your intent for OTRS to be a cabal. But the way OTRS currently operates; non-transparently, with undisclosed rules, and without input from the projects about your member selection; kind of fits the modern definition of Institutional Cabal. If, for instance, OTRS memebership could be vetted by the individual projects, or the rules and procedures OTRS operates by were well known, then OTRS would be a lot less Cabal like. --Barberio (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution wording

The wording about dispute resolution is still strange. It says that "normal dispute resolution processes" are often impractical, but later says that OTRS actions are subject to normal dispute resolution processes (although it kind of implies that this means mainly ArbCom review). Shouldn't it say something like "OTRS actions are in principle subject to normal dispute resolution processes, including ultimately review by ArbCom, although these processes sometimes need to be modified to take account of the confidential nature of the information." ?--Kotniski (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS actions are not subject to normal DR. OTRS editors making other edits and taking other actions are. If its unclear on the policy page, feel free to try to tweak it to be less confusing. I do not see anywhere the policy states "OTRS actions are subject to normal dispute resolution processes" as you have stated, but rather "OTRS edits are subject to review as described below" and below is given "The actions of OTRS volunteers are subject to review by other volunteers, and ultimately by the OTRS admins and the Volunteer coordinator (currently Cary Bass).". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem. You just moved the goalposts and granted yourself immunity from DR when taking an OTRS action. And that's something we were told would not happen back in the days of 'OTRS is not a Badge'.

Full immunity from DR isn't even in the current policy here, and yet you seem to think you have it for 'OTRS actions'. No where will you find a documented policy saying you get a free pass through DR for 'OTRS Actions'.

Do you see why this is a problem? --Barberio (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you even bother to read what is written? I never said "full immunity". I said "normal dr..." and its been in the policy for quite some time now, and has nothing to do with "free pass" or "not a badge" which btw is another thing you have seriously misunderstood. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DR is the only dispute resolution path on Wikipedia. There is nothing other than 'normal DR'. You are entitled to claim confidentiality for your reasons during normal DR, and are even given the benefit of the doubt for BLP issues, right up to ArbCom who will accept confidential evidence. There is no reason why an OTRS Action can't be put through 'normal DR', and there is no alternative system for them to go through. --Barberio (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are in error. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to understand what I mean when I talk of Dispute Resolution on wikipedia. It is the collection of options available, ultimately culminating in Arbitration. There is *NO* other accepted method of resolving disputes between editors on en.wikipedia, failure to use DR is usually a black mark against someone should an issue end up at Arbitration. Again, considering the latitude available for BLP issues and confidentiality issues, there is no reason why an OTRS Action can not be disputed through normal DR processes.

You have essentially fabricated a reason why you can't use DR, that of confidentiality issues, ignoring that DR already allows for confidentiality to be maintained. --Barberio (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion I read policies with which I am already very familiar as a means of comprehending your meaning is a rather bizarre tangent. I understand the policies. I don't understand you. I have not only fabricated nothing, I have not stated that "you can't use DR". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, Barberio seems to be right. We don't want a situation where someone can just say "this is an OTRS edit" and thus shut out all debate. Surely normal dispute resolution procedures should apply as far as they can? I can't imagine it would be that difficult debtaing these things - you just have to say "for reasons I can't state openly, this information could be damaging to the article subject" - people will mostly infer what you mean (or write to you if they don't get it). Then others will counter with arguments that the information is sourced and notable and encyclopedic and therefore should still appear in spite of the harm it does; consensus can be reached one way or the other in pretty much the normal way. (This is just my attempt to imagine how it might go - I don't claim any experience at all of such cases.) --Kotniski (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a situation I recognise - yes, it's a horrendously bad idea to revert or undo an edit made in response to an OTRS e-mail, but if someone disagrees with the decision, all they need to do is ask the OTRS agent for some further information, and if that's not helpful, ask another agent for a review. The "This is an OTRS edit" is a warning to other editors to be careful, to find out what the score is and make a sensible decision based on the facts they have at hand, it's not a blanket ban that prevents any other user from editing the article. Nick (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We simply can't use standard dispute resolution in many cases due to the limits of privacy. We simply can't publish private e-mails and without doing that standard DR simply wouldn't work. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To add to my above statement - I am not against using dispute resolution when it's possible. The OTRS team frequently refers things to the community for discussion. If what your asking for is "Use DR whenever you can" - then that's already the process. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not have anything like a situation where someone can say "this is an OTRS edit" and shut out all debate. In the situation where someone says "this is an OTRS edit" they are subject to being required to justify what they claim just as much as everyone else. Administrators and editors have to explain themselves if challenged. That an OTRS member may not be able to explain everything in open discussion in detail doesn't mean you can't ask them to explain more clearly, if a particular edit wasn't already self-evident as to the type of issue.

If you would like a second or third opinion you can go to another publicly identified OTRS volunteer and ask them to take a look at the situation and ticket.

If someone objects to an OTRS related edit all the normal mechanisms for discussion and challenge are there. They always have been and this policy has not challenged that. The OTRS ticket reference means that there is information which was for some reason kept private - and in the discussion, probably still will be - but that private information can be described to the degree necessary to explain why the edit was necessary and appropriate.

This whole dispute seems to be built around a straw man argument that the word "OTRS" is by itself some sort of conversation-ending power word. It is not. It's a flag - that there's private or confidential information involved in some way. That's all. The policy indicates that people need to be aware of that and use caution when dealing with OTRS flagged issues. The policy explicitly just says "ask about it" - and someone on the OTRS team has to be willing to explain enough to describe the nature of the article problem or confidential information to show how the edit was necessary and appropriate, if challenged.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

One major point here is that a third opinion comes from an uninvolved party. Other OTRS users are not uninvolved, since they may have strong feelings (not may, do, as clearly evidenced here) about the scope or level of judgement of other OTRS users. Uninvolved = open, as in a first-time IP can jump in and have their say.    M   20:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, other OTRS users aren't de facto involved, your statement is akin to saying that the Arbitration Committee won't take action against an administrator because they are administrators themselves, a situation that has time and again simply not been the case. If an editor suspects OTRS is being used as an excuse to make an edit that simply shouldn't be made, then they need to get a second opinion - speak to an Arb if it's a major concern, most of them have OTRS access. It's not in the interest of En.Wp or the OTRS team to have an editor that's using an OTRS ticket or Per OTRS as an excuse for making controversial edits - it destroys the trust that the majority of the community have in us, as a team, and that would make helping those in need of assistance, who e-mail or phone the foundation, almost impossible. Nick (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Two problems George. First... As you say "someone on the OTRS team has to be willing to explain", look at how difficult conversation has been here trying to get people on OTRS explain how OTRS works.

Second, as M says, the third opinion to be fair must come from an uninvolved third party. We outside of OTRS have no ability to determine who in OTRS would be uninvolved third parties. Nor do we know who in OTRS would be able to find out about the issue, since we don't know who handles what mailing lists and so on. We have no ability to determine if a review has been a serious investigation, or just a rubber stamp.

Both these problems come from what has become reflexive secrecy and obscurity on behalf of OTRS. --Barberio (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The level of openness you're asking for on the information side is incompatible with the need for confidentiality in many OTRS tickets.

The chain of trust is this - Jimmy created the encyclopedia and the Foundation, with the Foundation there to provide the organizing structure under which the encyclopedia community can thrive. The community accepts that the Foundation has to be there to structure the server management, legal issues, etc.

The Foundation exercises necessary content issue power directly via OFFICE and indirectly via OTRS. OTRS are community members that the Foundation has also indicated trust in. One does not get accepted into OTRS if there are doubts that the community trusts someone, nor if the Foundation doesn't trust someone.

You have to trust us. You trust the foundation, it was set up to be the entity that the community trusts to foster and protect the encyclopedia. The foundation trusts us, to do the myriad things that the Foundation paid staff have no time to do. If you do not trust the Foundation to transfer the trust to us, then you do not trust the Foundation, and you need to talk to the Board, or go found your own project.

If you do not trust a particular OTRS member anymore, you can take it to noticeboards or ultimately Arbcom for normal on-Wiki review, and you can contact Cary Bass at the Foundation regarding OTRS membership decisions. There are and always have been appeals mechanisms. I have no fear that if anyone in OTRS starts to run amok and loses community trust, Cary will act rapidly to protect the community (and Foundation) by removing OTRS access as well. That's his job, and both the community and Foundation have expressed deep trust in him over the years.

If you do not understand or do not trust a short edit summary from an OTRS staff member, you need to ask them to clarify and discuss, to the limits of what confidentiality allows. If you do not trust what a particular OTRS staff member writes regarding a topic, you can ask other OTRS staff to review the confidential information and report on whether it's being accurately and fairly conveyed to the public wiki community. If you do not trust any of the OTRS staff on an issue, you can take it to Arbcom and/or Cary. If you do not trust Arbcom or Cary, you do not trust the Community writ large or the Foundation, and there's really nothing we can do in policy to address that. If you don't trust the Community or Foundation, why are you even here?

OTRS sometimes deals with information that is not confidential or sensitive at all, other than email addresses. Sometimes we deal with personal identifying information, reports of horrible abusive issues, severe privacy violations, etc. The Foundation can't have that information public. You do not deserve and will not get access to it. You have to trust that the Foundation's delegation mechanism for dealing with that - OTRS, and OFFICE if need be - is appropriate. If you do not trust individuals in OTRS you go to Arbcom and/or Cary. But you cannot demand the underlying data. If you think you're entitled to it you're wrong. People who send complaints to the Foundation have an expectation of privacy and confidentiality, particularly when personal data, identifying data, etc. are involved. If you do not accept that you need to find another project. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making a lot of logical leaps here...

"OTRS handles confidential material" -> "All of OTRS is confidential".

This is plainly a case of fallacy of composition. That you handle confidential information, does not mean OTRS's internal practices have to be kept secret and obscured. For example a secret ballot voting system has confidential information, but that does not imply the method of counting votes should be kept secret!

And I'd prefer it if we didn't have to take things directly to Arbcom or Cary, things should go through DR. It shouldn't be the case that an OTRS action can only be questioned at Arbcom or via Cary. It shouldn't be the case that we can only roll the dice and hope we can get an OTRS volunteer to start a review. To claim that because I do not trust the state of OTRS review, means I do not trust the foundation or Arbcom is a falacy of Affirming the consequent. While it follows that if I didn't trust the foundation, I couldn't trust OTRS, it does not automatically follow that not trusting OTRS is not trusting Arbcom or the foundation. Unlike OTRS, the Arbcom and Foundation have open policies and accept community input.

I do not find it particularly helpful of you to make statements like "If you do not accept that you need to find another project."

You seem to think that Trust should be given automatically. It will not and can not. Trust always has to be earned from demonstration. OTRS can never be trusted if it acts in a way that fosters distrust. And the important issue here is that OTRS is currently acting in a way that fosters distrust due to lacking transparency or clear community input into some important aspects of it's operation which do not need to remain confidential.

For instance, I can think of *no* reason why the selection method for OTRS members is kept secret, or that individual projects can not vet OTRS members to ensure no conflict of interests or members who are not in good-standing for behaviour issues. --Barberio (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by secret. Have you tried reading meta:OTRS/volunteering? As for vetting, community input is welcome though the Foundation has the final say as to whether or not a volunteer is appropriate. There's more selection criteria outlined at meta:OTRS/info-en_recruiting as well. Shell ^babelfish 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you need to take things to Arbcom or Cary. I explicitly said, if it's not clear, you ask the OTRS person to clarify, if that doesn't work you ask another OTRS person to review the ticket and issue, if that doesn't work you ask Arbcom or Cary to review the ticket and issue. All of this can be done in the open on Wiki.

The policy says - ask the OTRS person first. That's the point. If it's not clear, ask them. If it's still not clear, or sounds wrong, use the escalation process above. It includes several steps short of going to Arbcom or Cary.

I didn't say that all OTRS info is confidential. Please reread my statement. When it is not confidential we often don't even mention OTRS tickets; when we have to mention the ticket but it isn't confidential, we should be both discussing the issue in depth and identifying that OTRS was involved, with the ticket #. This is fairly routine.

The selection method for OTRS members is not secret. Cary has the authority. One publicly applies on Meta and then he reviews it. Not sure why you thought it was anything different.

Insisting that the projects have the authority to "vet" membership is silly. OTRS is not a community function - it's a Foundation function. Cary reviews community standing of applicants. Anyone who finds themselves in disrepute on a project is unlikely to keep OTRS membership, though that is up to him. If you specifically distrust anyone in OTRS feel free to raise that with the community, Arbcom, and Cary.

I don't know how to make this more clear. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification, Cary does not personally vet the volunteers any longer. That is done by the OTRS admins, who have been granted the authority to vet the applicants . --Bastique ^demandez 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, right. I remember that going by now. I sit corrected. I am not involved in that process, in the interests of disclosure of who's doing what etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess this makes my point, since not even an OTRS member knows how OTRS members are selected. And neither of the pointed to meta pages state this. Failing to document your processes to the extent that your own members are confused about how it works, is a *bad thing*. --Barberio (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not even reading the pages, are you? The volunteering page clearly says "In general, the OTRS administrators must be..." and "The final decision rests with the OTRS administrators..." Shell ^babelfish 23:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, I had not read the volunteer page fully. I had expected such information to be clearly stated on the page stating the recruitment requirements, not the boiler plate for the page listing volunteer applications. Again, I do point out that an OTRS volunteer made the same mistake, so this information should probably be made clearer and stated in both locations since it's important to know who makes the decisions, what they look for, and how they vet people. --Barberio (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added that to the "What we look for" section; you should be able to see that as soon as the mirror updates. Shell ^babelfish 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this discussion about OTRS selection, or about how people with special rights on en.wp are selected? Because WMF can handle the former however it pleases - as long as it doesn't say "and now you get special treatment on WP".    M   23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noting our positions (poll)

There are a lot of issues, and there is a lot of discussion. We need to list the various issues clearly, and gauge the level of debate involved. This is not a straw poll to decide the issues, and is intended to guide discussion, so you need not have read the above discussion to comment. Do not respond to other editor's points here. You may provide a brief reason or clarification in case of ambiguity or where requested, but nothing longer than a terse sentence, please.

So, just put your signature below, so that we can figure out how to steer the discussion:

---

OTRS users have no rights or privileges on en.wikipedia beyond normal editors

• .
• .

---

The statement that an OTRS-based edit may not be reverted until a) a private email is sent to the OTRS user, and/or b) discussions on the matter have concluded ("no-revert"), or some similar variant, is such a right

•    M   21:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Intentional or not, it is the practice of some OTRS volunteers, and the apparent wording of this 'policy'. --Barberio (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• .

---

There is some other right (state it)

• The right to not declare or identify what role within OTRS they have, even when making an OTRS action. --Barberio (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• .

---

That no-revert statement/right is not appropriate

• Goes beyond even the seldom-used emergency censoring right granted in wp:office to Mike Godwin.    M   21:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• The Dispute Resolution process already protects BLP and Copyright issue edits from reverts; anything more urgent should not be decided by any single OTRS volunteer. --Barberio (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• .

---

That no-revert statement/right is appropriate

• .
• .

---

OTRS was or is properly established as policy

• .
• .

---

OTRS was or is not properly established as policy

• Low discussion/exposure; not policy even on meta (cf. meta:WM:PAG).    M   21:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• No community consultation, no consensus generated, no solid indication of a need for this policy. --Barberio (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• .

---

OTRS policy is not within the scope of and does not apply to en.wikipedia

• it's an Office program (and not an Office policy) with no special rights on en.    M  
• If OTRS volunteers are not supposed to have special rights on en.wikipedia, there should be no special policy for them. --Barberio (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• .

---

OTRS policy is within the scope of and applies to en.wikipedia

• .
• .

---

Editors should be informed of OTRS using _____

• soft redirect to meta; help page if there's something specific to en here.    M   21:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• OTRS should document their procedures and how membership is selected, vetted, peer reviewed and policed to the same standard now expected of any administrative group on Wikipedia. --Barberio (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• .

Further discussion

Hopefully this will stop people who are actually agree with each other from arguing based on such a misunderstanding. Let's all take a short break from discussion, have a cup of tea, and wait until we can better-understand what all of our positions are.    M   21:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This belongs on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), as has been stated before. It is improper to just hold the poll here without even notifications elsewhere (there and WP:AN).

Please move it there, or at least notify there promptly.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Er... You do realise that there are notifications up on there from the Centralized discussion template right? --Barberio (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies hasn't been updated with "there's a poll" and was last updated on 8/8, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on policy status of Wikipedia:OTRS hasn't been updated that there's a poll and was last updated on 8/7. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you feel the notice is insufficient, why don't you edit it?

If you feel that this has not been looked at by enough people, maybe this would be better handled if we opened a separate and unique RFC process to have a general investigation into OTRS activities on en.wikipedia, similar to the arbitration committee RFC. --Barberio (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive the rudeness, but I can't help but feel that this is an attempt to allow malcontents to make OTRS work harder. Is there even a single case of demonstrated OTRS abuse that we can point to? Is there a reason to establish some policy on en.wiki that allows folks with no access to OTRS to decide the relevance of edits made based on those emails? Protonk (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"no demonstrated case of OTRS abuse", and then sign your name, above. Please, please, to avoid another comment carpetbombing.    M   23:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that you wanted a discussion, and when you find the discussion not going the way you want it to go, you suddenly don't want discussion. You started a request for comments, and that necessarily includes people offering comments. Requiring people to pigeonhole themselves into opinions you list is counterproductive. It all boils down to this:

1. OTRS is run by the foundation, not the individual wikis.
2. OTRS selection and appointment is controlled by the volunteer coordinator for the foundation, who in turn appoints admins to assist in the management of the OTRS system.
3. OTRS agents are answerable for their actions when using the OTRS system to the OTRS admins, the volunteer coordinator, and ultimately to the foundation.
4. OTRS agents must abide by the policies and guidelines of the individual wikis when carrying out tasks on those wikis related to requests received via the OTRS system.
5. If you have a concern related to a specific OTRS agent's actions on a particular wiki, contact that agent and ask for clarification.
6. If the agent does not provide a satisfactory answer, contact the OTRS admins with your concerns (the contact information was provided several sections above).
7. If you have concerns about a specific OTRS agent having OTRS access, contact the OTRS admins with your concerns.
8. OTRS agents do not have any special abilities on the individual wikis unless granted by the individual wikis (such as admin or oversight abilities).
9. OTRS agents deal with private (not secret) information, and the OTRS guidelines given to them specifically prohibit release of that information without explicit permission from the original provider of that information. Therefore, when performing edits related to a specific OTRS ticket, they may only be able to provide vague information (or no information) in order to protect the privacy of the individual submitting the request. As explained above, privacy is paramount.

All of this has been explained multiple times above, but I thought it might be useful to summarize it for you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I left a message here in response to your 'I find it odd' musings. Yeah, the summary is helpful, especially since you made an effort to just state the positions. I agree with facts 1-4. I disagree with 5&6, people don't need to jump through hoops to revert OTRS users specifically. 7 is fine, that's a WMF process. 8 is true if you're talking about access rights, it's false if you're talking about rights as in special policy-granted privileges. For example, admins have a "right" to block (access), but they also have a policy-granted right to close certain discussions, and to not get reverted by other admins. For 9, it's secret information if you aren't sharing it - but if you do accidentally share it, it's still private, though no longer secret. Until you share it, it's secret, as far as the community is concerned. I agree with your sentiment though, privacy violation is forbidden. Hopefully that further clears up my position.
Two requests for clarification: Does OTRS have a policy on the other wikipedias that says you can't be reverted until discussion is over? If no, what made en.wikipedia a special case?    M   01:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify what Joe said above, 5&6 only apply if the action taken is stated as being done as a result of OTRS communications; preferably with a ticket number. Non-OTRS related actions are not included, obviously. -- Avi (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTRS/proposed1

Could I please get feedback on how far this new draft goes to alleviating the concerns above? I think it is a feasible alternative to the current policy. I'd respectfully request that major changes aren't made to it while its being discussed, but rather suggestions made here to change it, just so that all comments relate to one version rather than chop-changing series of versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel (talk • contribs)

The first part is informational. The policy part begins with "it is strongly recommended that you contact the editor who made the change prior to reverting", which isn't true, and probably one of the big sources of disagreement. My revision would be: "It's helpful to OTRS if you contact the OTRS user who made the change before reverting, but you are by absolutely no means required or urged to do so, though you should keep in mind our BLP and Copyright policies, as well as AGF and Don't be a dick." ...which consists of a fact, followed by an explicit negation of the idea that OTRS users have special rights on Wikipedia.    M   03:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And how do you, M, propose to deal with the fact that if there is an OTRS ticket mention for the edit, that it is almost certain that there is private information involved that would have bearing on the case of which you, as the prospective reverter, would be unaware? And what about the assumption of the good faith of the OTRS volunteer? Where has that gone? -- Avi (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a mathematical disproof of your position, but I'm bound by NDA to not reveal it. Could you please assume good faith, and accept my disproof as correct? I have several other editors who have seen this disproof, and can vouch for me. If you'd like to continue this conversation, I'm available through email. (By the way, I've blanked Actuary, since it directly relates to our discussion. Please don't undo this until this disagreement is resolved.)    M   03:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The above is a flawed analogy on various levels, and I believe you are intelligent enough to know that. I also believe that you do yourself and your position a disservice by treating those with whom you disagree in an apparently condescending fashion. -- Avi (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not condescending if you AGF - it's simply a view of exactly what it may seem like to someone getting censored by an OTRS user. And I responded to your analogy below, right under the smiley face. (discussion continued there)    M   06:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you repeat anything like that again as some kind of patronising devaluation of what OTRS does, I will block you for disrupting this conversation. And unlike your last message, this one is serious. Daniel (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First, my message is absolutely serious. Some members of OTRS, even OTRS administrators, seem to have serious difficulty imagining what it might be like to have someone come by and censor a page that you're working on, or ask you to reveal what you consider to be a private email to talk to them, or say "I have good reasons, I just can't tell you". Second, though it wasn't exactly my purpose here, reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument, and threatening to block me for making one is a serious lapse of judgement. Third, editors here have absolutely no duty to not devalue what OTRS does. I've stated numerous times that I appreciate the work done, but if someone else comes along and says "OTRS doesn't seem to do a thing, all they do is censor articles over trivial requests", and you block them, there would be a very serious push against your actions. I have remained civil and have made calls for civility and order throughout this difficult discussion. I have seen a severe lack of good faith and assumptions of good faith from OTRS members, who seem to take this RfC as an attack against their work or themselves personally. I'm shocked to see some of the responses above, the personal attacks, OTRS users placing that 'facepalm' image in the middle of the above discussion, orders to remove this discussion and take it to a VP, repeated accusation of disruption and threats to block. You and other OTRS users need to take a very thoughtful step back.    M   05:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I need to take a thoughtful step where? You above example was really flawed... most especially in the sense that it does not relate anything in the context of OTRS or what we do. Mostly, when an OTRS agent asks for patience, they get it. That has been practice. For a time span that can be counted in years. I don't think your getting that. You example had no context. The argument was invalid, and almost pointedly inappropriate, and I think you know why. Your better than that. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict. It [the original message consisted of one sentence] means take a deep breath, re-read WP:AGF, and have a cup of tea before responding. An admin with a clear COI threatening to block an opposing editor for a message mistakenly and with no hint of WP:AGF taken to be a "patronising devaluation of what OTRS does" suggests a level of very emotional involvement with this issue.    M   05:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with my current response? If I am confused, or didn't use the correct example (I'm not, and my example was fine), how exactly does this justify a threat of a block?    M   05:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-)M, if you really do not understand why your analogy above was not a valid reductio ad absurdum, please remember that there is no analogue to BLP when it comes to mathematics. Numbers, formulæ, theorems, lemmas, etc. have neither feelings nor real lives that may be adversely affected by incorrect information on wikipedia. A proper reductio ad absurdum requires a chain of logical constructions that is in and of itself valid (or at least not proven invalid) that results in a contradiction or at least an absurd position. Making the analogy between actuaries, mathematics, and a non-disclosure agreement and biographies, people, and real, personal information, is completely invalid, ipso facto rendering the analogy and the reductio argument flawed. -- Avi (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the premise that "I am trusted and have secret information" is a valid reason to enforce the censoring of content, the absurd scenario that I outlined above becomes plausible. Therefore, it is not a valid reason. And, um, the mathematical proof (a very strong, near-objective thing) is analogous with the subjective judgments of ORTS users; not with "people's privacy", which is analogous in my example to a non-disclosure agreement.    M   05:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Therein lies your mistake, I believe; your assumption is false. "I am trusted and have secret information" is not the reason information is removed; information is removed because it violates any number of wikipedia's policies including WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, etc. However, there are times when a full explanation of the reason would require releasing private information, which is a violation of the privacy policy (and perhaps NPA as well). To allow for wikipedia policies and guidelines to be upheld without violating the privacu policy, there are times where it is asked of the EnWIki community to AGF about certain edits and to not revert those edits (and inherently violate said policies and guidelines) without discussion with the volunteer or another person capable of seeing the private information without violating the privacy policy to confirm that the edits were proper. -- Avi (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we covered this before too :\ (I didn't say it was the reason for that, by the way.) If OTRS users truly do only rely on BLP and RS and V, then they don't need this policy, do they? To prevent violation of the privacy policy, you can't release private info. But, if you can't release private info, you can't provide good reasons in a discussion. Yes, we understand the challenge here for OTRS users. Unfortunately, the solution is not to grant blanket censoring rights to OTRS.    M   05:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbole. There is no "blanker censoring rights". Only a firm instruction to discuss with the agent before reverting... when only a ticket number is used... It does not say "The agent is always right, and you may never revert them". NonvocalScream (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It says that an act of censoring, by an OTRS agent, providing a ticket number, acting on behalf of OTRS, cannot be undone (is an endorsed censoring) until discussion with that agent is over. Must I jump through hoops to undo a revert with a secret reason? If you need this policy, clearly you've had people who did not like getting reverted. And what if I do email you, and get your reply within 10 minutes. You can't tell me any extra information, right? I say no, I disagree - can I now revert the censoring? The policy says no.    M   06:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do, M, because this policy does not deal with the initial edit/reversion; it deals with the response TO the edit/reversion; something rather different. Conflating the OTRS volunteer edit with the response's edit is what is causing this confusion. -- Avi (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost the context - yes they do what?    M   06:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"If OTRS users truly do only rely on BLP and RS and V, then they don't need this policy, do they?" <-- You wrote above. -- Avi (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If the original policies don't deal with responses-to, then doesn't this policy go beyond what those policies allow? I assume you mean the email response.    M   06:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. And no, this policy says simply "In situations where someone made an edit which 1) may be assumed to be in accord with project policy and guidelines and 2) said editor may be assumed to be making this edit from knowledge and a desire to protect the project then that edit should be respected while clarification of the appropriateness of the edit is investigated, if necessary" -- Avi (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What if an editor doesn't simply assume that it's in accord? What if they're acting to protect the project from what they believe is censorship?    M   06:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This policy indicates that the editor who is concerned about the censorship, while investigating the appropriateness of the edit, following dispute resolution, or both, should respect the eit about which he or she is concerned. By the way WP:CENSOR does not mean that everything and anything must be in an article; we have an entire, non-exhastive list at WP:NOT. -- Avi (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

If I remove something from an article, a BLP, and go to the talk page and state a ticket number and mention "sensitive issue, please be patient"... I would expect that to not be reverted without some kind of discussion, or another otrs agent reviewing my action... something. As an example. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And you have the ability not to be reverted, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. People need a consensus to restore content. The ignorance to that fact is underpinning a lot of the illfounded comments above. Daniel (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Responsibility is also an interesting principle. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add a note that the neither case didn't introduce anything new. They simply reiterated what has been the practice and principles that have existed for years. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get the wording "The contributions of OTRS users are no more valuable than the contributions of other Wikipedia editors (volunteers)" added to that proposal?    M   06:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone think otherwise? The contributions are not more valuable; just, in rare circumstances, they may be better informed and more in accordance with policy and guideline. If anyone starts editing the article on rhinocerii and starts trying to throw their weight around as an OTRS volunteer, I'd hope they be reported to the OTRS admins post-haste. -- Avi (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

However, I did make an addition to the wording, just for you :) -- Avi (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag

Based on all the above discussion, that has been occuring for a while. A consensus has not been demonstrated to eliminate or alter this long standing policy. I have, removed the tag that states we are discussing the status of this policy. There are about, two editors discussing the fact that the policy should change... and a load of other editors presenting well defined arguments on why it is not changing. The above discussion has not generated a consensus for a change, and seems unlikely to do so. We are now discussing in loops. So please, before adding any tags that confuses the descriptive of the status of that page, please demonstrate a consensus. Thus far, there is no consensus to change the policy. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't close discussions that you are involved in. RfCs on policy tend to stay open for at least a week, by the way.    M   05:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I closed nothing. I only noted your failure to obtain a consensus, and noted also, that it is unlikely to obtain one for this change you request. You can still talk. I requested you to obtain a consensus before editing that page again. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... You may not have noticed this, but a lot of the changes we've been requesting have already been made to the policy here. And I've hopefully prompted OTRS to be a bit better at documenting their processes. There have been substantial alterations to the policy, to remove what had been language that had granted OTRS powers much wider than intended, and gave the wrong impression about how they could act on en.wiki.

It's very poor behaviour to wade into a discussion on wiki, and start throwing accusations of bad faith. It disrupts an on-going discussion, makes it harder for people who might have been approaching consensus to do so, and generally makes for a worse discussion environment. --Barberio (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I'd always wanted to rewrite this policy. If nothing else, thanks for prompting said rewrite. Daniel (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Right to censor?

Question: does any OTRS user deny that this policy gives them a right to censor content, and keep it censored, until a dispute is resolved?    M   05:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, see above where I explain in more detail. All this policy says is that the implementation of existing policy and guideline (such as BLP, RS, SYNTH, OR, NPA, etc.) which cannot have a full explanation on wiki due to the privacy policy, should be respected in as much as the volunteer who made the edit, or another one, should be approached to confirm that existing EnWiki policy was properly followed. -- Avi (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, but then this policy is just a rehash of those. Except it clearly isn't, because it doesn't limit the censoring power of OTRS users to just those policies.    M   06:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See above again; maybe we should combine the sections? Redundancy only increases the noise, and not the signal :( -- Avi (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See my above comment relating to the hyperbole. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, to steer the conversation back. Does any OTRS user deny that this policy contains statements that grant an OTRS user a right to censor content, and keep it censored, until a dispute is resolved? If you want to qualify the response with "yes, but only by virtues of policies x, y, and z", that's fine.    M   06:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree with the framing of your question. There is no more "censoring" here than there is anywhere WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, etc. are used. By becoming a wikipedia editor, we all agree to abide by certain guidelines. Removing edits that violate those guidelines is no more censoring than a librarian's erasing penciled scribbles out of a library book is censoring. -- Avi (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then there's no extra policy here. I don't have to agree to abide by any guidelines or policies to become an editor; this is the position that WP:IAR's original meaning was intended to rebuke. Does this OTRS policy ever apply to an OTRS user's edits, or are they all already covered by BLP etc.?    M   06:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure I understand you; this policy is directed towards people OTHER than the OTRS editor who made the edit. The OTRS editor is bound by the same policies we all are. This policy is geared towards letting that edit stand while its appropriateness is being investigated by either discussing it with the OTRS volunteer directly, bringing it up with other OTRS volunteers, flagging down an OTRS admin, bringing an RfAR against the OTRS editor, or any combination thereof. Secondly, WP:HARM trumps WP:IAR, and among OTRS's purposes is to ensure Wikipedia:Avoiding harm is maintained. If anything WP:IAR should be invoked to support Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. -- Avi (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware. OTRS is directed at them and imposes a censuring upon them, with regards to the article in question. Why not let the revert of the censoring stand? Edit war, and BLP etc cover all this anyway. Harm is an essay that does not trump policy; "do no harm" is too ambiguous and ill-defined to be a policy. The question here, though, is whether an OTRS user ever invokes this statement that they should not be reverted, as if it were policy, to enforce an censuring upon an article.    M   06:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You're asking a historical question? I don't know. It would not be forbidden, per se, but I'd expect that it would more likely be non-OTRS people reverting the reverter. And, in my opinion obviously, the reason not to let the reversion of the OTRS edit stand is the assumption of good faith on the part of the OTRS volunteer, that by bringing a ticket # into the issue, they are saying that we have a BLP issue. And if you don't like WP:HARM, you cannot argue that WP:BLP is not policy, and BLP clearly states "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." -- Avi (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't argue that BLP is not policy. Actually, see my comment with the bolded statement in it near the top of this section. If they are in fact bringing a BLP issue to the table, they need only to say so. BLP is covered by BLP. If all OTRS edits are covered by BLP (or other policies), then why the need for this policy?
The answer is that it forces people to use the "email the person who censored you" dispute resolution process, which makes it easier for OTRS users, and difficult for others. I consider my email private, and am not willing to use it to communicate even with an OTRS user. "Unconditionally trust an OTRS volunteer" isn't how this should work.
Is there any case where an OTRS action is not already fully covered by other policies?    M   07:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy?

I haven't done more than quickly glance through the discussion above, so excuse me if this has been said before, but OTRS isn't listed in WP:LOP, so is it actually policy? How are people supposed to know that there's a policy category & which is correct? Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's policy by virtue of being common practice for years now. Given that the documentation has caught up to the current practice over the last couple of days, I hope there's no further disagreements with regards to it being policy, and the time and energy of the OTRS volunteers can now be re-injected into the OTRS queues, which have swelled in size over the last couple of days, which I assume has something to do with the energy dispelled on this talk page. Daniel (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It still isn't in List. Peter jackson (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy Rewrite

Hi all,

It seems the new rewrite of the policy has gone down fairly well, which is good news.

I've archived the crapload of sections above that all related to the previous versions - not only does this allow us to focus on the new version rather than the old, but hopefully the discussion be re-started on a new footing. For my part in contributing to the perceived hostilities, my apologies - I'm glad to see a new and improved policy come out of it.

My question is: are we all (ie. the OTRS volunteers and the people who questioned the previous policy) happy with the current version of the new policy as a good description of the status quo and featuring compromised wording on many of the key issues? I'd love to see this get resolved, we/I/you all move on, and refocus out energy onto other, arguably more important things - in particular, for me at least, back to the queues which are now getting backlogged.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Go, work on the queues for a bit. I'm going to be away for a long weekend anyway, so this is a good time for us all to take a break from discussion, and come back to it some time next week. --Barberio (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, Daniel. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but it really is a good attempt. Though I object entirely to the close of a 4-day old policy RfC by a highly involved party. I want it made clear that the OTRS resolution process is an external process, which is absolutely optional as far as enwp is concerned. I also see no reason why this page should exist at enwp, apart from being one in a group of translations. It talks about, or should talk about, OTRS practices exclusively. Next, policy isn't about what's been going on, it's about what the broad community supports. I'd also like to know why OTRS is being called a policy here, when it is not one at meta. Otherwise, this policy grants OTRS users the absolute power to censor arbitrary articles (no constraint to BLP, etc., though surely it's those that are more-often invoked), pending a resolution process that is entirely external to enwp. If OTRS users only enforce censoring according to the actual enwp policies, then this page is just information (which belongs at meta). I understand why it's easier for OTRS to push objectors into a private and non-wp "resolution process", but why is this good for Wikipedia?    M   18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it is absolutely optional for EnWiki? It's been in place as policy for years? -- Avi (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"policy isn't about what's been going on, it's about what the broad community supports" Yes, it's been practice to not revert OTRS users over BLP, etc. But if it's been the practice of OTRS to push editors who disagree into a complicated multi-level external-to-enwp resolution process, then this should be stopped, since it doesn't line up with the very open way that is required for wp to work.    M   19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify - it's been in place as a policy page for years, and it's been OTRS procedure for perhaps just as long. Neither of these are policy proper.    M   19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the concern is that this policy gives OTRS volunteers a right to censor content far beyond that listed in BLP, Copyright, etc., and far beyond even the right given to WMF staff members via WP:OFFICE. That there exists an external, private, and OTRS-controlled method of filing a complaint is entirely irrelevant.    M   23:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. You are arguing the point relentlessly, when the discussion above was resolved clear. Is there anything new? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

M seems to be the only person who objects to the current wording. I have therefore reverted his continual changes to try and remove the wording I proposed. Daniel (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't resolved clear, it was closed prematurely by an involved party. There is a very large number of OTRS participants on this page, in high disproportion to the rest of the Wikipedia community. This should factor in to deciding whether a dispute is truly 'resolved'.    M   02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, M, but we are wikipedia editors as well, and our opinions matter precisely as much as yours does; no more no less. Secondly, if anything, the fact that there are far fewer people coming to support your point of view may likely indicate that these silent perusers are agreeing with the predominant opinion. -- Avi (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Or a vocal minority of editors have overrepresented a position; and the size of this page makes it very difficult to contribute to the discussion, or see any of the main points. Did I mention the accusations of disruption and threats to block for "patronising devaluation of what OTRS does" (inaccurate)? Anyway - I do think I'm through with this discussion.    M   04:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A point comes when the horse should lie. At lease for a while. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm really not interested in discussing this with OTRS users anymore. They constitute an over-representing majority of the people involved above.    M   05:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

M, the thing is most OTRS stuff involves dealing with copyrights and BLP complaints. If we were to air such dirty laundry on Wiki the complainant would be sounded out by the consensus of the people who want to keep the defamatory or copyrighted material in. On top of that, OTRS users are beyond trusted to deal with OTRS tickets in a confidential manner; I'm pretty certain anyone citing a fake or bum ticket to violate any of Wikipedia's policies would be stripped of OTRS access and banned faster than you could say "AGF". -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus to keep defamatory or copyrighted material in. Sometimes, there's serious disagreement about what is defamatory or harmful and whether something is Fair use. I'm not disputing that OTRS users are trusted to preserve privacy. I'm also certain that nobody would cite a fake ticket. The issue is the entirely unnecessary ceding of extraordinary censoring rights to a small group of users. I'm sure that they won't often abuse those rights or make mistakes (actually, I'm not so sure, since I've been threatened a block for apparently disparaging OTRS, despite being calm and civil throughout) - but they don't need those rights to operate, so there is absolutely no good reason to have them.    M   05:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is because there is serious disagreement in some circumstances about what is and is not defamatory/copyrighted that consensus can favor them (it goes without saying that obvious libel or copyvios wouldn't last three minutes). Also, a couple weeks ago we had a regular user (non-OTRS) try to shield his copyvio uploads with a bogus OTRS ticket number (the ticket was legitimate, but it wasn't for what he was uploading). If a normal user is smart enough to cite incorrect/bogus OTRS tix, so are OTRS users. And I would argue they *do* need those rights to operate, for the reason noted above (borderline/unclear cases). In case there is doubt about a certain piece of (potentially defamatory/plagiarized) info with an OTRS tick on it, common sense would only dictate that until the tick is settled the suspect info be removed. In a sense, you're arguing that OTRS should exist, but should have its teeth pulled and replaced with candy lips. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP, Copyvio, etc. give OTRS all the bite it needs. If someone reverts you, cite those policies. Before we continue, would you mind telling me if you are an OTRS user? Clearly you've been with this page for a while now. There seems to be some sort of mental block, either with me, or with them, when we speak about this, so I would like to avoid it.    M   10:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am no OTRS user, M, and only got involved with this page because YOU crossposted it to WP:AN. And I will reiterate: on borderline cases where there is no clearcut way to tell if it is a BLP or copyright violation, OTRS needs the ability to be able to remove the questionable material while they review it. Otherwise it opens up a legal risk for the Foundation. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of you may not know this, but the Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers, which gives them an awful lot of influence over how the site is going to be run. If the foundation says we're going to have OTRS, and it's going to operate as it currently does, it goes without saying that it's going to happen that way; if you don't like the way the foundation runs this website, you are free to criticize their actions -- I know I do, sometimes -- you are free to advocate for change, you are free to fork the project, and you are free to leave, but you're going to have a very hard time simply telling our landlords how things are going to be done. The foundation is kind enough to allow us to resolve the vast majority of content and policy matters amongst ourselves, but in a small number of cases their volunteers step in on their behalf; that those actions are subject to community review at all is testament to the remarkable openness with which the foundation operates. Yes, I know this is sometimes stressful, and that the interaction between OTRS and the community is sometimes less than ideal, but we as a community would all do well to remember that the foundation considers that system very important to the continued operation of this website. I for one am less than inclined to get in the way of that. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We are aware of this. Nobody is saying OTRS should be abolished - just their extensive censoring rights on Wikipedia, which are not endorsed by the foundation. OTRS isn't even policy on meta. If an link can be provided to where our volunteer coordinator, or some other Official, declares as an office action that OTRS edits citing a ticket should not be reverted until the private, internal OTRS review process completes, then I, for one, would drop this issue like it was lit dynamite.    M   06:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't want to abolish it, you just want to tell the foundation how it's going to be run. Who do you think approved and set up this process? Who do you think controls it, now? Indeed, m:OTRS is not marked as policy with one of enwiki's snappy templates; that might have something to do with the lack of a {{policy}} template on meta. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no lack of template/notice at meta, and OTRS isn't a WM policy. These volunteers do not represent the foundation, they work for it, and it, in turn, works for Wikipedia - like you and I do. This page was not written by the foundation. It was written by Commander Keane, UninvitedCompany ("in deference to the community processes for editing articles"), then Jeandré du Toit (who instituted the review process at meta by starting a page to voice concerns). Not WM policy, not Office-enacted, not consensus-approved. I'm not telling the foundation how it's going to be run, I'm pointing out that en.wp policy forces OTRS volunteers too run it with respect for our community processes.    M   07:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

M, it sounds like you're getting ready to harry the Reichstag, especially given that everyone seems to be against you. Even common sense advocates against you. I and others have pointed out above, just hidden by the blinders, that any OTRS member violating Wikipedia policies would be stripped almost immediately and any OTRS member exploiting OTRS would be quickly banned and have their priveleges revoked. Since OTRS deals almost entirely with copyright and defamation stuffs, why the frag should they not have the right to remove defamatory/plagiarized content without being shouted down by know-nothings? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they would be stripped, and banned. They have the right, as long as they, like every other Wikipedian, can prove defamation/pragarism. Because in rare but really "fragging" important cases, those "know-nothings" (uh, editors who don't agree with the all-knowing OTRS) might be correct. OTRS is protected by policy. They don't need their own special ability to censor.    M   10:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, M, you assume that "know-nothings" means users who don't agree with OTRS; I take it to mean the people that do not have the information that OTRS possesses in the ticket and thus are unable to make the decision themselves for lack of information. OTRS is indeed obligated to confirm copyright or defamation, but there is a very real risk of harm if the information is able to be restored by the know-nothings while OTRS users are investigating. Please think, M. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(If this is relevant, I have no involvement with the OTRS system, I came to this page via the village pump posting.) We do not have a deadline to complete Wikipedia. It seems to me that, if content is removed because there is a reasonable allegation that it is defamatory/copyvio/etc. then the correct action for an editor who disagrees with that allegation is not to restore that content; rather, the content should be left out while the dispute is resolved. And, to my mind, "confidential information that has been supplied to the Wikimedia Foundation and is documented in OTRS ticket 12345" counts as reasonable in this context. From my reading of this (rather long) discussion, it seems to me that there are two areas of dispute: (a) whether this page should be tagged as policy or not, and (b) what an editor should do if they disagree with an edit that is justified primarily by reference to an OTRS ticket. Addressing these two points:

(a) Using the definitions at WP:PG#Role, this page feels more like a guideline than a policy, in that it "advise[s] ... on how to apply and execute policy under specific circumstances" - the policies mainly being WP:BLP and WP:COPYRIGHT, and the circumstances being that a legitimate concern has been raised via OTRS.

(b) In line with the principle of Revert only when necessary, good faith edits intended to improve an article should not be reverted; and the first stage in any dispute resolution should be to discuss the issue. Obviously, the preference should be for such discussion to be done on-wiki, but where confidential information is involved there may well be a point where the OTRS member has to say "Sorry, but I can't give that detail in a public forum. I can go in to more details by email if you wish." It is, by necessity, going to be harder for editors without OTRS access to get the full picture when confidential information is involved, but that is an inevitable consequence of having confidentiality. This is no different, in principle, to the fact that it is harder for non-admins to participate in deletion reviews or tag new pages as recreations of deleted material because we don't have access to the deleted content; the only difference being the size of the group that have the limited access and the method of selection.

Yes, we as individuals and as a community need to trust the OTRS volunteers; but if we cannot trust a hand-selected group who are accountable (via the Communications committee) to the Foundation Board of Trustees that we have elected then I think we have bigger problems to worry about. -- AJR | Talk 13:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the OTRS membership are appointed by the OTRS admins, who are appointed by the Wikimedia Communications Committee, who are appointed by the Board. OTRS membership does have a layer of insulation in that way, and lack of any more direct vetting by the projects and editors. I think it's always a good idea to be reserved in trust of those granted special position, even if they are elected into the position. --Barberio (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No. OTRS members are accepted by OTRS administrators who are appointed by Cary Bass. The communications committee and the board have nothing to do with either. (note that if you're getting your information from m:OTRS, it is a bit dated). - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that with an admin issue, you are able to request information, and eventually discover what it is. Also, admins are heavily vetted for their activities on Wikipedia, while elected officials are heavily vetted for managing the foundation. An OTRS admin threatened to block me above for 'demeaning OTRS'; gave "a better username might help" as a reason for reverting me on their talk page; and has "closed" the above discussion while being substantially involved. I, personally, do not trust their selection of volunteers. I don't trust many of the volunteers involved here to know policy, to remain neutral and calm. If it's a critical issue, rather than just some company changing their name (to avoid a bad reputation? would OTRS users know?), then just hand it off to our lawyer.
My main concern with this trust thing is that OTRS users can basically perform office actions (which, too, may be undone once the dust clears) and avoid the consensus process on the basis of 'secret info'. I don't think they'll lie, no. I just don't always trust their judgement.    M   20:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-)If you do not trust their judgment, you have the recourse to contact another volunteer whose judgment you do trust and ask them to look into it. You may bring the issue up on the talk page of the article (while respecting BLP etc. of course) or on another dramaboard to get more eyes on the issue, you may e-mail the list (which all volunteers to a given queue can see). You may open an RfMedCab, RfM, RfC on the user, article, or both, or a full-blown RfAR. There are many options; all that is asked is the patience to leave the protective edit in place while you pursue your options. -- Avi (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What if the editor doesn't trust the judgement of anything less than an open discussion? What if the editor acts entirely according to our policies, but gets blocked by OTRS anyway? What if the RfC requests the secret information, so that an informed judgement can be made? What if a couple of editors feel that RfC would be a waste of time, but encourage the OTRS user to start one, if they'd like?    M   20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, then that editor is exhibiting a distinct lack of good faith, and perhaps wikipedia is not the best place for such an editor, as there must be some level of trust. See #4 at Wikipedia:Five pillars. -- Avi (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that all OTRS actions on enwiki are 100% according to policy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not. And this isn't the issue - the issue is whether an opposer of an OTRS action is obeying the rules (including the AGF guideline). If they are, the OTRS volunteer has no right to block or censor them.    M   22:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please point to one instance where an edit which included a ticket number in the edit summary (since those are the only ones for which someone should ask first before reverting) was not done according to established policies and guidelines here. Just one. Some others have asked for this as well, yet you seem unable to provide any examples whatsoever. If you can find an instance where this policy has been abused, then I will personally bring it up with the OTRS admins (though I know at least some of them are watching this discussion).

Before a volunteer is approved to be an OTRS volunteer, their contribution history is reviewed by the OTRS admins and their demeanor when interacting with people is reviewed. Not everyone who applies is approved, and it usually takes several days for this review process to be completed. If approved to be an OTRS volunteer, they are required to do everything by the book (i.e., follow all applicable policies and guidelines on whichever wiki they happen to be working on for a particular ticket). We very often tell people that we can't do something for them and they need to participate on the talk page of an article to get something done. We refer them to the processes already in place and give them pointers on what they can do to bring up an issue or concern. I've only put a ticket number into an edit summary once or twice in all the tickets I've handled (not sure how many that is, but it's more than just a few) as most of those edits were just common courtesy things such as removing obvious vandalism or an unsourced BLP claim. You're working yourself for no reason here. As I said before, ALL OTRS issues, including (and perhaps especially) those which reference ticket numbers in the edit summary, are done according to established policies and procedures. All of them.

Your main concern seems to be that you personally don't get to see absolutely every piece of private data regarding those tickets, and I hate to break it to you, but there's nothing in any policy or guideline here or on any other WMF site which states that every editor must have access to all data regarding all actions on all wikis or sites operated by the foundation. In fact, there are many cases where certain information is held as private and only some people may view it. Examples include checkuser information, certain information provided to ArbCom, an editor's email address (unless they publicly display it or provide it to you by some other method), information which has been oversighted, as well as some OTRS ticket information. The privacy of that information is more important than your desire to view it, and the WMF will (and does) back that up.

If someone opposes or objects to an OTRS action which includes a ticket number in the edit summary (and those are likely the only ones you'll ever know are OTRS actions), then this policy is in place to provide guidance on how that objection should be handled. It very clearly spells out the steps to take to determine why an action was taken. As others have stated, the OTRS volunteer may not always be able to provide comprehensive details due to privacy concerns, but if you do not find their response satisfactory, you are welcome to contact the OTRS admins to discuss your concern. The OTRS volunteer is not blocking anyone or censoring anyone; they are abiding by the privacy policy. Again, please point to even one instance where an OTRS action with a ticket number in the edit summary has not been according to established policy or guidelines. If you can provide a specific example, then we have something to discuss here. If not, there's really not point in continuing to rehash the same information over and over again with you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go searching through all of wikipedia for OTRS-marked revisions - you'd think OTRS might provide a log, but they don't. [2]    M   18:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As the onus is on you because you wish to change existing behavior, if you do not even have data to back up your fears, there is nothing more to discuss. There needs to be content here, not unsubstantiated fear-mongering. -- Avi (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a log (of sorts), but it's part of the OTRS and therefore not visible outside of those granted access as OTRS volunteers. All email replies to people are logged and kept as part of the individual tickets, and they can be pulled up in the future should someone need to reference them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"What censorship", said de t'ing with de t'ree bonce? M, you are sounding incredibly paranoid over what is essentially a nonissue. At this point, I'd be pleasantly surprised if you still showed good faith towards OTRS members given how many accusations of potential malfeasance or Jongilism you've hurled at them. You're just looking for garbage irrelevant to your original request, which has been shouted down by EVERYBODY IN THIS THREAD as fearmongering. Just shut up. You're looking for monsters where none exist; that is a good sign that you're about to cross over from debate into tendentious editing. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, they may simply disagree.    M   22:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

M, you seem confused. No one is preventing open discussion, what is being prevented is the open dissemination of every last particle of data in cases where such dissemination may cause someone real harm or an invasion of privacy. I have listed multiple options for you to follow above; each one of which is straightforward. You will have to accept that there will be sometimes that you will not be able to get ALL of the information you want if it deals with someone else's privacy; it is that simple. -- Avi (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors in disagreement with an OTRS action will not care about the name and birthday of the complainant, they will care only that the reasons are sound. If such editors prefer an open community process rather than an email exchange with OTRS, they are welcome to it. Perhaps OTRS could get further, to start, by describing a case that cannot be equally-well resolved if this page did not exist. Not one such case has been brought forward.    M   00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because you're wasting your time arguing instead of finding proof for your position. Burden rests on those seeking change. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor does one need to be, M. You are the one trying to change the status quo. Can you bring a case where the OTRS imprimatur was abused? -- Avi (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I really wasn't planning on commenting but this is just getting ridiculous. I'll just note that it really doesn't matter what happens to this page. It can be marked as a guideline, policy, essay, be completely deleted or replaced with an image of Abraham Lincoln. It doesn't matter. Chances are (I can't definitively speak for anybody other than myself) that the OTRS volunteers will still continue their normal practices and do what is needed and/or possible to resolve sensitive email inquiries. Just because two or three people suddenly have an issue with this policy (and standard practice), likely because they are uninformed of the actual adherence to process that OTRS actually does involve, doesn't mean that it is broken, ineffective or in need of overhaul. It has become quite apparent, at least in my view, that M and the others are uninterested in reaching a consensus given that they (apparently) are only interested in ensuring that their opinions being represented on this page. Well frankly, users like M and others don't know any better because they have not experienced working on OTRS.

My main point is as follows: Unless there are specific issues which should be addressed by the Arbitration Committee (in cases of issues or concerns with on-wiki user conduct or behavior) or by the OTRS administrators (for any OTRS-related issues) I don't see much (or any) need to continue this unproductive discussion. Address the actions if they arise and stop attempting to increase the level of bureaucracy on the wiki. It must be nearing its threshold. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Then just stop commenting. As usual, there's a complete lack of AGF on the part of those representing OTRS. Nearly all opposition and cries to shut down this discussion comes from OTRS users. Nobody is trying to stop your procedures, we don't care, but we don't want them here. Please don't lecture me about bureaucracy while you defend yet more steps and procedures and conditions and impositions upon editors, as well as special privileges for OTRS users. If you don't like it, stop talking. OTRS has had way, way more than its fair share of this discussion.    M   04:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain at least half of us aren't OTRS users, M. Don't make statements you can't back up. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not, though you have been involved in the page for a while. Barberio seems to also have been involved for a time. Daniel, Rjd0060, Avraham, NonvocalScream, J.smith (5, just in this section) are all OTRS users. That leaves Luna Santin, and AJR. In the widespread community, OTRS users are a small minority; here, they overrepresent at a level of 50% or more (not even counting the above discussion). It is clear that OTRS users are, probably unintentionally, monopolizing this discussion.    M   18:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense we watchlist this page; we have to be able to respond quickly. It is much more telling that there is significantly less support for your position than for the status quo. -- Avi (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You wish to censor our involvement in the discussion? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Has this talk page been mentioned either in a) IRC, or b) the private OTRS mailing list?    M   18:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are aware of watchlists, right? This is the OTRS policy. I have it watchlisted. I imagine most OTRS editors on en have it watchlisted. You're simply going to get more OTRS interested editors here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted. Do you propose that we elect representatives to discuss this for us? o.O I don't understand what you want. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1) How would we know 2) Why should that make a shred of difference. M, you originally had some interesting points that we discussed, and even made some changes to the policy. Now it appears that you are more "flailing" around for something than having anything specific. Even at the village pump the predominance of those responding is supporting the status quo; and if non-OTRS members choose not to respond, that is likely due to their agreement with the majority stated opinion, regardless of who stated it. If the current policy has been widely supported both here and at the Pump, what more do you want -- consensus is against you. -- Avi (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

External responders, when not being flooded out by OTRS users jumping in, have been typically critical of the OTRS page, and especially that right to censor, which has only recently become the main issue:

I still wouldn't mark it as policy, since it's generally just an informative page, but I don't think there's anything that might give grounds for unreasonable censorship any more.--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC) (concerning the changed wording)

I agree that no page should say OTRS shouldn't be reverted, because OTRS volunteers do sometimes introduce problems. I saw one situation where a volunteer introduced a serious BLP violation to a talk page. [5] Editors have to be allowed to use their discretion in situations like that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What the box says is that if the summary of a policy given in the list disagrees with the actual policy, the latter prevails. Nothing about policies not listed. I'm still awaiting an alternative explanation of why that policy (?) isn't listed. Peter jackson (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to declare consensus after a small subgroup very vocally opposes a discussion of their activities and rights on Wikipedia.    M   19:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, M, the consensus has been for ages that this page was tagged policy. You do not get to state that the consensus has been changed after two or three editors at most have loudly complained. -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CCC, especially when there is actually no demonstrated widespread consensus.    M   21:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it ain't changing today. Someday, someone may change it, but it won't be today, and it won't be you, chummer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A RFC is possible M, but I am almost sure the policy will be upheld by an overwhelming majority of people. It is almost impossible to downgrade over existing policies and guidelines. Ikip (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Size

This page is 245 kilobytes long. That is all. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Miszabot seems to be behind in archiving. I tweaked the formatting of the header so we'll see if that helps Miszabot start archiving properly again. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Manually archived and bot reset. -- Avi (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It feels so light in here now... ;) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

History of the page

I am here from the ANI about this page, an editor is removing the policy tag. I always find it helpful to have the history of the tag.

1. 11:35, 4 July 2007 Radiant! makes the page a guideline, "as discussed on the talk page, this should avert confusion from novice users"[3] (this user has probably upgraded more pages than any other editor on wikipedia)

   I think based on this thread.[4]

2. 04:03, 16 July 2007 Daniel makes this page a policy, "If this is going to be "tagged", it's a policy. There's no "occasional exception" to providing confidential information or blanket-reverting"[5]

I didn't look through the entire history, but I think this is the first time the policy tag has been disputed. Ikip (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that 'no occasional exception to reverting an OTRS edit' includes this edit. I agree with this history tracking idea, it would help quite a bit.    M   23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• What is wrong with that edit? NonvocalScream (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's strange that you'd ask, but: the statement 'SE is probably lying through his teeth' is a BLP violation, and would be such even if it was attributed. OTRS users should know better than to repost this sort of content.    M   04:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I mean, that does not appear to be an edit affected by this policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Do OTRS users exercise substantially more care when pasting a ticket number? OTRS users make mistakes, and editors should be allowed to use their best judgement when they do.    M   04:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh I'm sure everyone makes mistakes. I think the main page has been deleted a few times. Use common sense, ignore all rules is the pressure relief valve in any case. This is how I respond to that argument. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
          • If our policy page doesn't correctly describe what we do and think, just ignore it? Editors aren't "know-nothing" simpletons, they're allowed to use their good judgement and common sense when reverting OTRS users. IAR is for exceptional cases - mistakes are mistakes, and rather unexceptional.    M   05:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
            • And part of the common sense our intelligent editors need to use includes that OTRS volunteers usually have access to information that is important and relevant, so they know to follow the accepted procedures that allow discussion while realizing that OTRS editors are acting with common sense as well. So, yet again, other than the fact that you do not like the fact that not everything belongs out in the open, what exactly are you trying to prove? -- Avi (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
              • A formal proof is definitely out of the question :) You realize that I don't actually object to you informing the people whose pages you ticket of what you do, yes? You inform when you make the edit, editors are allowed to use their good judgement thereafter.    M   15:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

<---- The edit you are complaining about was made 3 years ago M when BLP policy was much less clear and it looks as if David is helping someone by listing their objections to an article for those working on the article to work with. If that's the best you can come up with I'd say your pursuit of this is becoming tendentious. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Have you told David that you are talking about them here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Never mind I did it for you but please be more considerate when using editor's contributions to make a point that you tell them about it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure, I'm not complaining about it specifically. I've dropped it entirely since nobody disagrees that OTRS users will sometimes make mistakes that need to be corrected.    M   15:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • 'nevertheless you have bandied this round several public locations so I don't think yu can just stand back and say that it doesn't matter. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
      • "Dropped entirely" is not the same as "is just casual". The number of locations is 2, and in both I took the matter seriously. You have had several courteous responses from me. If there's something else you still require, let me know on my talk page. Thanks.    M   19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I ask that you let this discussion go for a few days... NonvocalScream (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a policy

OTRS is not a policy, its a project. I can't see any principal or guidance on these pages to indicate otherwise. I suggest you update your page accordingly. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been for years. -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So what policy or guidance is espoused here? "Every email must have a OTS ticket"? I will have to remember to drop that statement into policy discussions from now on. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What is espoused is what is in the box at the top: "If you disagree with an edit that was made referencing an OTRS ticket number as a reason, or in the edit summary, please follow the steps listed in the "Dispute resolution" section below." And yes, all of the volunteers would greatly appreciate if you remembered that. -- Avi (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be noted that the wording is opposed (and supported) by a number of users (recently here), and appears to be the only policy-like statement in all 1600 words of this page.    M   19:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's very common for a policy page to have a lot of explanation as needed. This is one of the shorter policy pages, so I don't see the issue with that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Supported by far many more than opposed, so the note is unnecessary. Otherwise we would have to tag every last page on this wiki as contested. none of the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of words posted over the past week or so has indicated that consensus has not changed, M; at best, there are three or four people who have stated their opposition. While consensus may change, it takes more than that. -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There are legitimate concerns expressed by multiple parties. We should concern ourselves with resolving this issue. The discussion above was often unclear because there was more focus on shutting it down, or on what editors were doing, etc. I disagree with your evaluation of consensus, it seems that there isn't one yet. I also don't attribute the same weight to the !votes of OTRS users, or !votes that say things like 'we should keep because it's consensus'. The best way to resolve this is to make a serious effort at consensus. This involves being very attentive to the points of other editors - above, the concern was that it's all-info, no-policy, but you automatically responded that it's a policy because it's been 'tagged as one for years' (which is something previously discussed, and it didn't help). Let's try to stick to the points from now on, please.    M   22:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are incorrect, M. It is against the wikipedia philosophy to dilute or enhance the value of the opinions of editors in good standing. For you to say "I also don't attribute the same weight to the !votes of OTRS users…" is not only completely against our philosophy; it indicates your preconceived conclusion and your lack of desire to work collegially with other editors. If this continues, I am afraid I will have to open an RfC. -- Avi (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See the level of consensus section in WP:CONS for a quick refutation of your position.    M   18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The point I am making here is that this is clearly a group of editors collaborating as Wikiproject whose purpose it is to support Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution policy. Whether or not an edit is the subject of a OTRS ticket is a matter of process, not policy, in the same way a parking ticket is an instrument of process that supports law enforcement policy. I may be grasping at the wrong real world analogy here, but if you want OTRS tickets to be enshrined in policy, then you need to conduct an RFC to amend Wikipedia:Dispute resolution at an appropriate venue such as WT:DR, because as things stand, you have rightly or wrongly created the policy equivalent of a content fork which has no legitimacy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Policy" in Wikipedia isn't simply "things we all voted on and decided to put a label above". It can happen that way, but that's not really the heart of it. The guiding principle is that a basic policy documents existing norms. After that, they then can be amended by consensus editing to adapt how that norm works. There is a very well established norm that OTRS exists, that OTRS's existence has extremely wide "buy-in" on English Wikipedia (very few people indeed say it isn't valid and that view has no community traction), and that it's worth having a page explaining OTRS and providing community information on how it fits in and norms for interaction with it. That's pretty much a definition of "policy page" right there.

So there isn't much disagreement that a policy is appropriate, and apparently, not much disagreement that this page is significant enough informationally and within the fabric of English Wikipedia to be tagged as one. The sole questions then are on what detailed norms exist, or should exist, which is what recent collaborative editing has been about.

In general, the community can choose any norms it likes. Thus we revise policies almost at will ("anyone may edit") a lot of the time. However some policies refer to systems and processes with an agreed formality to them. One should not randomly edit Arbitration policy or the local Oversight policy for example, or Wikimedia Privacy policy. They can be edited, but for major edits and changes a more formal process is needed, not just one or a few people's opinion. Judging what degree of consultation a given edit to a policy would need, is a matter of experience.

Hopefully this helps.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my point, and that is a parking ticket documents existing norms, but it is an instrument of policy, not a policy in itself. A better analogy is WP:AFD which is a process that was created in support of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The problems is that WP:OTRS is not mentioned or documented in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, even though it is clear to me that is the key process you are invovled in. It seems to me that this "policy" is not going through the appropriate channels. I think there may be a misunderstanding that the medium by which disputes are being is distinct from the process of disupte resolution when its not. There are many ways by which disputes can be logged and processed, and this is just one of them (or could be as soon as you get approval at RFC). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't using analogies really, more just describing how policies work.

If you feel that as a result of this page, dispute resolution policy needs updating (eg, to mention OTRS or refer to the extra information here in case a ticket or volunteer is the subject of a dispute), then I'd actively concur, and encourage being bold and writing a brief note there, or amending that page, or raising it as a valid point for discussion at that page's talk page. (If you feel conflicted and that something needs writing but you disagree with others what should be said, then I'd advise raising it at the talk page.)

That would be a valid and insightful action. It's also how policies in general develop - someone spots a significant omission, improvement, rewording or addition, and others (by discussion or by not reverting) accept the point.

I understand the distinction between medium and process, but that would seem to answer your stated concerns about "OTRS as a form of, or relevant to, dispute resolution". Is that the concern you are raising? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the dispute resolution page to include information on OTRS issues. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There's now a section on that talk page pointing back here. This isn't actually one of our DR procedure; it's the OTRS procedure. OTRS users have stated that the policy here is just to direct editors to OTRS. Now this is being extended to include OTRS as some sort of new special case of DR, which it isn't.    M   19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the dispute resolution process for dealing with privacy issues (as updated now by FT2), which includes OTRS and several other privacy-related areas. Consensus is against your opinion, here, M, and continuing to complain about it isn't likely to change that. It's been policy for years now, and this discussion shows there is still strong support for it remaining policy. I suggest you find more productive uses for your time than banging your head against the wall here by trying to change something which isn't going to change. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see local consensus among a small group of OTRS users, sure, but there really isn't consensus otherwise. If you want to continue working against the consensus process by diverting the conversation, that's your business. Others would probably prefer it, though, if you could directly address the concerns brought up.    M   01:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-)What are you talking about, M? Both here and on the pump the majority of non-OTRS editors agreed with the current position. It is just a handful of editors, two or three IIRC, who have been dragging out this discussion. -- Avi (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you counting yourself twice, or what? At VP: 81.111.114.131, Chillum, Protonk = 3, SlimVirgin, Kotniski, Peter jackson = 3. Looks pretty even. Let's not distract from the discussion though. Do you have a response to the concerns brought up?    M   02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A list of all OTRS edits

In light of the Rohde case and potentional Farrell case the problem that seems to arise is disagreement with the OTRS edit but not an effective resolution. This may be because of failure to follow the dispute resolution process explained on this page, but even that itself seems purposefully convoluted for the average or newbie editor who suddenly finds their work reverted without explanation. In order to shed a bit more transparency on the process, is it possible that a full listing (such as Wikipedia:OTRS_edits be created so that editors can easily see where such edits have been made and quickly intervene if there is significant and reasonable community opposition to such changes. (Perhaps this already exists and I'm unaware of it) There would be no need for disclosure of private communications, simply a transparent listing of the changes made. Thanks. Joshdboz (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit overly bureaucratic to manually maintain such a list. But it should be doable to create a "log only" edit filter that trigger if an edit summary contains a OTRS ticket number (I figure match "otrs" + a seven or sixteen digit number, should be fairly trivial), have a look at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. --Sherool (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Listing changes made would effectively be multiplying and publicising the information that was removed, I dont think that creating a list of public OTRS edits would be constructive. In fact it would probably raise more legal issues as it would be enable watchers to easily identify when a person of note approached Wikimedia Foundation with concerns of privacy and a simple edit comparison would show them what the change was OTRS editors would then need to have oversight privileges to circumvent 3rd party publications. Gnangarra 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose you're right that it would be quite bureaucratic and unnecessary considering the vast majority are completely uncontroversial (images, AfDs, etc). I still hope it would somehow be possible to be a bit more transparent with that small number of cases that are in the grey area and would benefit from community discussion. Joshdboz (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem its impossible to enter into a community discussion about content that needs to be removed for privacy/legal reasons. This where we need to assume good faith in the edit and contact the editor directly(email/or talk page) or alternatively ask another OTRS person to take a look. Gnangarra 11:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Impracticability

1. I'm not going to log all any of my edits as OTRS. Some of my edits are motivated by a ticket, but appear to be a "normal edit". Such as removing an unsourced statement, libel, or reverting vandalism.
2. Some editors choose not to make membership in OTRS public, this is their right.

NonvocalScream (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it was intended for only instances where a user actually openly "play the OTRS card" as it where. I would see no point in logging "common sense" actions taken with ample backing in other policies that just happen to be brought to someone's attention via the OTRS system. Also people wishing to not publicize their OTRS membership probably won't take any overt on-wiki OTRS based actions in the first place, so don't think that is much of a concern. Whether or not it's actually a good idea to have a public log of "official" OTRS actions might be another matter (I'm rater neutral on that point), but anyone can "roll their own" using the recent changes feed and a keyword filter anyway so it's not a matter of revealing any more info, just about how accessible we are conformable with making it. --Sherool (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no real "OTRS actions", it is not a secondhand office action. There is only a common sense approach with respect to an edit where OTRS is cited. That we would like the opportunity to briefly discuss it before it is reverted. There is no need to catalogue these. They don't happen often. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just speaking personally, I use the "OTRS card" mostly for completely trivial stuff just to give information where it came from (e.g. correcting birth dates). Rarely do I ever bring up OTRS when taking more controversial actions unless I get asked. Notice with the Rohde article OTRS wasn't mentioned until after the fact. Brandon (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Contact e-mail address

Is it possible to have a contact e-mail address on this page, or a clearer indication of where to find one? At the moment, the wikimedia boilerplate seems to have no contact details for the WMF (I thought it had at one point?) and the closest thing I can find to "contact us" is the "Contact Wikipedia" entry in the sidebar in the monobook skin. This take people to Wikipedia:Contact us. Understandably, that is a directory of options, and no e-mail address is listed there (the aim being to direct people to the right e-mail queue). However, when you follow the "Report a problem with an article" you get to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem, and one of the first links there is "OTRS email", leading to here (Wikipedia:OTRS). In addition, the big red box says "Due to their sensitivity, problems with biographies and other articles discussing living people, raised by the person concerned or their representative, may always go to OTRS email, if desired." I suspect many people reading that click on the "OTRS email" link a few sentences earlier and end up here. However, this page (Wikipedia:OTRS) does not have any contact details at all, and seems more set up for people wanting to volunteer for OTRS, or Wikimedians wanting to learn what OTRS is. What people trying to find a contact e-mail address are meant to do, it seem, is read the pages in full at "contact us", follow the options and advice there, and if all else fails, to find and use the e-mail addresses down the bottom of pages such as this one (info-en-q) and this one (info-en-o). In practice, though, people from all around the encyclopedia, when giving advice, often say glibly "contact OTRS" and throw in a link such as WP:OTRS. Possibly they should be saying "follow the options at WP:CONTACT" instead, but does anyone agree that people may, when trying to remember how to contact OTRS, want to type in WP:OTRS and come here and find what they are looking for? That, and several fruitless efforts on my part and on the part of others, to find contact details on this page, and at meta:OTRS, is the reason for this edit, which I tweaked here, and which was removed here. Is it possible to explain on this page where to go to find OTRS contact addresses? And is it also possible to make sure that people are not sent from the contact pages to here and then back again in a loop? (i.e. don't link from the contact pages to here, if the correct place to find OTRS contact details is actually the contact pages - if a link is required to explain OTRS, then make clear the link is an explantory one, and not to be followed to find OTRS contact details). Carcharoth (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC) After writing the above (which helped get my thoughts clear on this), I made this edit, directing people here for discussion if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no one contact address. The best way to contact OTRS is to go to the Contact us page and follow the relevant links to find the address you want. If your option isn't there, it's likely you shouldn't be contacting OTRS about the problem.

The Wikimedia Foundation contact details are at foundation:Contact us.

If Contact us links back here to get an email address in a circular fashion, it's the Contact us pages which should be fixed, not this one.

It's perfectly fine to explain where the relevant contact addresses are for particular types of queries (as you've done with this later edit), but simply saying "contact info-en@" is distinctly irresponsible, as it would greatly increase the amount of work OTRS volunteers need to do with both sorting out the queries that come in to that address to their appropriate queue, and also having us have to handle queries which should never have made OTRS in the first place. The Contact us pages provide alternatives to simply 'contacting OTRS' in specific situations.

The Contact us pages are something for the community to fix. Last time I tried to edit them I got eaten alive, so I encourage you or someone else to go and fix the circular links.

Daniel (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Page rename

The traditional page name ("OTRS") comes from the software used by the email team to manage its work queue. A rename to a more intuitive name that also better describes the team has been proposed, which also fits well with WMF usage (they're tending to use a different set of terminology too, these days).

At present the page has been temporarily moved by a user to "Volunteer response team". Some discussion on the best name going forward would be useful. I'd like to propose:

• "Cross-project email response team"

These highlight that the team is wikimedia-wide and works across all projects (cross-project conveys this better than "Wikimedia", which might imply it's a Foundation body or team) and that it's specifically an email response team. It also omits "volunteer" which is a given in everything we do, and redundant (there's a non-volunteer email team as well?), and will be in the page intro anyway. Other ideas? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Cross-project" is very good, and could work very well in the title. As it stands, though, some staff respond to e-mails (etc) as part of their jobs - Jay Walsh handles media inquiries, for instance, and the development staff deals with questions and comments from potential donors - so it's useful (IMHO) to distinguish between what volunteers handle and what staff handle. There's also more than just e-mail on the system; the OTRS queues host some faxes, some scans of physical letters, and some voice mail clips, as appropriate.

I'm not married to the current name, though, so if a better one comes out of this discussion then I'll happily move stuff again. - Jredmond (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have suggested "Email response team". Anyways, are there plans to make this change globally? Having one name on en.wiki and another everywhere else doesn't seem like a great idea. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The scans and faxes are related to tickets, almost entirely email; the exceptions are tickets raised in response to phone calls and such received by WMF, a minority of items which might as well have come in by email for the difference it makes. The handling of matters within the team is again almost completely by the volunteers, we may see comment by WMF staff occasionally but the team itself is a volunteer one. If it's not suitable for team respondents (eg a legal matter) it might get sent to Mike or such. I wouldn't worry too much about 100% precision. It's a cross-project team, and it responds to emails. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I support "Cross-project email response team" as it needs to be clear this is not an enwiki team, but a team handling emails regarding any English-language foundation project. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion

This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

info-en (Quality) – how many a day?

As the community is currently considering steps to address the problem of unreferenced BLPs, could someone please indicate how many complaints there are each day at info-en (Quality) involving unsourced BLPs, and what the typical outcome is? For context, see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_of_unreferenced_BLPs#Query (as well as the proposed Wikipedia:Unreferenced biographies of living people and the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people).

Some editors assert that unreferenced BLPs do not seem to have been a significant problem and question whether the present focus on unreferenced BLPs strikes at the heart of the problem (and/or whether there is a problem at all). They have requested data, which I reckon is fair enough. --JN466 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It really varies. Sometimes there is a flood regarding a specific article (or group of related articles), and other times there are very few. There's no specific amount per day, and even an average could be misleading. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you say if it is typically unreferenced BLPs (articles not citing any sources at all) that are the problem, or do you more often get complaints about referenced BLPs that misuse sources, use poor sources, misrepresent sources in a tendentious way, or give some sourced content undue weight? --JN466 14:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

An average could be misleading, but maybe you can help draw a rough statistical distribution. Say, take 12 random weeks (let's say, the first week of each month in 2009) and see how many unique BLP articles generated a complain each week.--Cyclopia^talk 15:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

People typically don't include the sourcing status of the article in their complaint. Getting useful data on that would be rather labor-intensive. From the beginning of July through the end of December 2009, there were an average of 6.6 new emails (not counting replies) every day that were probably a complaint. Mr.Z-man 21:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's take it pessimistically, it means they are ~2500 a year (actually 6.6 * 365 is 2409, but no problem), and let us assume that each individual complain is about an individual different article, again to lean on the pessimistic side. If there are ~500.000 BLPs, it means that ~0.5% of all BLPs generated complaints in each year. Seems consistent with previous estimates. --Cyclopia^talk 13:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. While this doesn't help us in the unreferenced vs. referenced debate, it's a useful figure to have. One point to note: Anyone working in the quality field can tell you that if you've got a 0.5% complaint rate, the actual defect rate in the field is far higher than that. --JN466 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not usually far higher, but usually at least 2-3 times, which would make it 1-1.5%. That's really not statistically significant. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both. Of course the complaints are the only thing we should effectively care about. If a defect doesn't concern anyone, it is of course suboptimal but not a big deal. And let's remember it is a fairly pessimistic estimate. --Cyclopia^talk 16:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

By that logic we should ignore copyright violations until we get a DMCA takedown notice. Even if we ignore the legal issues, there's still the ethical issues of hosting false content about a living person and presenting it as factual. Just because there hasn't been a complaint doesn't mean that its of no concern; it may just mean that it hasn't been noticed yet by someone with grounds to complain (very few BLP complaints come from people not associated with the subject) or the subject hasn't yet figured out that he can complain. Despite the edit button on top, there are still plenty of people who think Wikipedia is written by a centrally organized writing staff. Mr.Z-man 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying we should ignore them. Copyvios that do not generate complaints are to be fixed as soon as they are spotted, because they are a potential problem, but it is not an immediate priority to find and fix them, so much to trump everything else. About the ethical issue, the point is there has to be a compromise between absolute reliablity of BLPs and the open and ever-growing nature of WP. The only way to reduce the risk of WP harming people to zero, is shutting down WP, of course. To find the equilibrium point, that is work for consensual discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for lower-priced items, quality manuals recommend inflating the complaint rate by 20 to 100 times to arrive at the defect rate. Now, a subject's biography article may not be "a lower-priced item". People generally attribute a significant value (or cost) to positive or negative information about them in the public domain, especially if it is in such a prominent place as this. So if there is something broke in their BLP, it is a bigger deal to them, and more likely to result in a complaint, than if a battery-powered torch they bought 2 months ago is giving up the ghost.

On the other hand, we should remember that

• many people don't even know we have an article on them;
• few if any of those who do know check their article regularly;
• many may not know that they can complain, or trust that it will help;
• many of those who are unhappy with the article have never heard of info-en-q or WP:Oversight and never will. --JN466 00:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, that gives me an idea. How many complaints do we think we would get if each biography article had a banner at the top:

  This is the biography of a living person. [...] If you are the subject of this article or the subject's agent, and you find that this article contains inaccuracies or is unfair, please see WP:BLPHELP and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) and e-mail wikipedia at [...].

• I am not for a moment suggesting we do that. But it may be a useful thought experiment; and perhaps some BLP logo with a hyperlink to BLP-related resources could indeed be placed on BLPs. --JN466 00:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think placing the email contact at the top of every BLP would be shooting ourselves in the foot. The email team (of which I am one) would likely get completely inundated within just a couple days as people would email instead of trying the other, more quickly effective avenues. I am absolutely against adding that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I did say that "I am not for a moment suggesting we do that." But the result of the thought experiment is that we expect complaints to skyrocket. Granted, many of these would be spurious complaints from people out to sanitise their BLP of criticism. But I am sure we would also see an increase in the number of justified complaints.
    • What would you think of a "Living Persons" symbol hyperlinked to a page with resources such as WP:BLP policy and the WP:BLPHELP page? --JN466 00:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Giving everyone easy access to OTRS might not be the best idea. I know. I kinda freaked everyone out by giving it out. But I like the idea of adding a more visible "what to do if you wish to have this article fixed" link somewhere. NW (Talk) 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

...and some numbers!

Hi all. Amory and I did some extensive studying of the OTRS traffic this summer, looking at a period from early 2009. Relevant details:

• There are about fifty tickets a day coming into info-en queues, after the obvious spam is removed; once you discount duplicates, followups, "manually weeded" spam, and things we don't reply to, it comes down to about 35 new tickets a day.
• About half of these refer to specific articles. About a third of those - so five or six a day - were about BLPs, double the proportion the previous year (!)
• Two thirds of BLP tickets came from the subject, or someone close to them - so the subject of the article is much more likely to report a (real or percieved) problem than a passing user is.
• The proportion of BLP subjects contacting us to ask we make a correction in the article was about the same as the proportion contacting us to ask we delete the article entirely.

I don't have details on what tended to happen after the ticket was dealt with, I'm afraid. We do get more people writing to say thanks than you'd expect, mind you!

Our definition of BLP-related and article-related tickets here explicitly excludes reports of simple obvious "TOM IS SOOOOOO GAY LOLZ" vandalism; when we look only at those tickets, which are invariably people reporting something they've just stumbled across, we find that it breaks down as about 15%. This is exactly what we'd expect if the underlying vandalism and traffic rates were roughly equivalent.

Looking at "normal" traffic is actually quite interesting. If we omit all the cases where the subject has written in, the percentage of mails about specific articles regarding BLPs comes down to 12% - again, about the same as their distribution in the encyclopedia.

This last point is a bit ambiguous; on the one hand it suggests that BLPs are no different from normal articles, but that they have a highly committed subject watching them who's moved to write to us. On the other hand, many reported BLP problems are relatively subtle, and many details which cause a lot of concern to the subject might easily be missed by a casual reader - who is much less of an expert on the topic! - and so never reported.

We can definitely say that BLPs are a major issue from the OTRS perspective; they represent a lot of our workload, and are some of the most complicated and stressful tickets the agents handle. Whilst we haven't done any studies on our response to them beyond time taken to resolve, it certainly isn't implausible to suggest they represent perhaps half the net "effort" put into the system; they take longer and are done to a generally higher quality.

Hope that helps... I really must polish up this actual report and put it on meta somewhere! Shimgray | talk | 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that analysis!

One thing about the division between "BLPs" and "articles". Vassyana has put forward some proposals at User:Vassyana/BLP#Article_scope_of_policy whereby it would be made clearer that any article with substantial coverage of living people and their actions falls under BLP policy, not just "biographies". (In fact, he's suggested we should rename BLP just "Living Persons".) Paralleling that, User:Colonel Warden posted some sample libel cases where people have sued (or tried to sue) Wikipedians – see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_of_unreferenced_BLPs#Sample_cases.

In several of these cases, the article that contained the problematic material was not a biography, but one of those types of articles that Vassyana would like to see governed by a "Living Persons" policy (things like companies and organisations).

Against this background, just out of interest, would you say that many of the complaints involving non-BLP articles are related to BLP-like issues? In other words, are most of the complaints outside biographies still essentially about the way people and their actions are being portrayed on Wikipedia? --JN466 01:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We did wonder about this at the time, and the working definition we used was "BLP issues" rather than articles, if you follow me. Routine vandalism to a BLP article = just routine vandalism; lengthy diatribes about a named resident of a small town in that town's article = BLP issue. However, it didn't make desperately much difference - I think only one, maybe two, of our sample set, so a few percent at most, were "unconventional" BLP issues like that.

There were a few - but not overwhelmingly many - articles from people writing on behalf of "their" organisations, and whilst I didn't split them out there's definitely a few cases of people who write in to complain about articles relating to, say, their father who died five years ago. I'd say about half of the tickets relating to specific articles were things (history, art, science) which couldn't under a generous definition be classed as "quasi-biographical", a sixth falls into your gray area - companies, etc - and a third is BLPs "proper". Shimgray | talk | 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, great. So it's about 50:50 person-related vs. "thing"-related. --JN466 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

With a suitably loose definition of "person", anyway! "A third at least" is a safer number to quote, I'd say; even that is disproportionately high compared to their prevalence.

And remember, if we remove all mails written by or on behalf of the subject - which includes the corporate ones - BLPs suddenly drop back to a a mere fifteen percent or so of the article-related postbag, or - in other words - no different from any other articles in terms of reader response. I am still not quite sure what that signifies, but it's interesting to mull over. Shimgray | talk | 02:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've added a link to this section to the BLP RfC. Thanks again. --JN466 02:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shimgray, thank you for your exceptionally insightful intervention. I wonder if you can help to estimate the following quantities (1)How many individual BLP articles were causing justified concerns, via OTRS, to a subject? (2)How many individual NON-BLP articles were causing justified concerns, via OTRS, to an individual subject ("BLP issue")? (3)Do you see a relationship of complaints with the sourcing state of the article (being sourced vs unsourced)? Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 12:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have the data to be sure of some of it, I'm afraid...

• We get, as I say, half a dozen BLP-issue emails a day, of which four or so are from the subject. To a first order approximation, all or almost all of them have some degree of validity - there are frivolous ones, but they're not that common. However, this covers only those articles where the subject has found it, read it, decided to do something about it, and managed to contact us - so clearly only a fraction of the problematic articles get identified this way!
• The majority of BLP issues were about BLP articles - at a guess, I'd say at least 80%, possibly more. Yes, the problems exist in other places, but the biographical articles themselves are definitely foremost by a large margin.
• We didn't look at the quality of the articles in question during the study, so I can't answer this other than anecdotally, and anecdotally I've no real idea! People do complain about sourced material, this much is certain, but generally speaking those complaints tend to be more... nuanced, perhaps? More likely to be resolved by explanation and it being left there than by "my god, you're right, that's *atrocious*, it's fixed now". Shimgray | talk | 18:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of the OTRS users who handles (quite a number of) info-en (Quality) emails, but haven't a huge amount to add to Shimgray and Nihonjoe's points. But if anyone wants more information, let me know. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What does "More likely to be resolved by explanation and it being left there than by "my god, you're right, that's *atrocious*, it's fixed now"." mean? The article says something correct, but needs to be elaborated on? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, some complaints are about the kind of material that anyone would shoot on sight - say, speculative claims of criminality - the editorial value of the OTRS email here lies mainly in letting us know about it, and we tend to respond quickly (and apologetically) with a very obvious conclusion. These cases tend to be more common for unsourced articles, or those with low-quality sources.

Some complaints, however, are objecting to material that's justified - say, something that's negative, but robustly sourced and essential to writing a balanced article about the subject. In this case, it isn't a simple matter of "this requires removing"; it usually leads to a bit of discussion, perhaps some tidying or rephrasing, and the article quite often keeping the original content. These cases are, unsurprisingly, more common for sourced articles.

That said, the bulk of complaints seem to be of the first type; I don't know if this is because our better articles are better per se and thus less likely to have BLP issues, or if it's because people are less likely to challenge something written about them if it feels like "serious" writing and clearly puts it in the context of other public reporting.

Does that make sense? Shimgray | talk | 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unlike in most situations, the potential "complainer" has the ability to solve the matter himself much more easily than by complaining - ie just by editing. Notable people are surely more likely than most to read the papers & therefore aware they can edit WP too. Typical calculations of assumed defect rates from complaint rates are therefore unlikely to apply here. And all these figures are little use unless we know how many actually relate to unreferenced BLPs, tagged as such. The most troublesome pages are surely those that are heavily referenced - 5 refs on a line is an almost sure sign of trouble (Johnbod's Law). I'm off to add that to my user page. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

From my experience, BLP subjects trying to edit the page themselves usually ends up in one of 3 ways - They get blocked for COI, vandalism (removing bad info looks like page blanking to a recentchanges patroller), and/or copyvio (if they paste in an official bio), the article gets protected, or both. Remember that they are almost always going to be unfamiliar with even basic Wikipedia rules. Some organizations also have policies against editing biographies of their employees on sites like Wikipedia so they won't even correct basic factual errors like birthdays (I've handled a few emails from a news agency that had a policy like that). 5 refs on a line means that the content might be contentious, but it also probably means that its been heavily scrutinized by experienced editors on both sides of the issue. Mr.Z-man 04:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as above. There are a lot of people who a) find editing far too complicated; b) find don't realise they can edit; or c) think we published the material so it's damn well our responsibility to fix it, not theirs. (I have a degree of sympathy with all of these.) Indeed, many feel that it's not appropriate for them to correct it - an idea we help encourage - and so feel complaining, whilst less quick, is more likely to be productive.

The remainder, who know they can edit and are willing to, often find their edits reverted and themselves rebuked because they deleted large chunks of material in an attempt to sanitise the page, or because they replaced it with somewhat non-neutral text, or because people are reacting to the percieved conflict of interest. It tends to end in tears... and a more insistent complaint email.

You're right that we can't judge by existing estimates of problem to complaint rates, but that ambiguity works both ways. Shimgray | talk | 13:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that no evidence has been produced that BLPs tagged as unreferenced produce problems, and the anecdotal points above only refer to cases that have come to your attention, which with 50,000 odd tagged is not going to be a true sample. All of these things can of course happen, but we have no handle on how many BLPs, who are mostly deeply obscure, fix their own issues without anyone else noticing. Complaints about wholly unreferenced BLPs are very likely to be rapidly resolved in the complainants favour, or refs added. I'm asking for links to serious problems caused by BLPs tagged as unreferenced. Are there any? Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever claimed this was a truly indicative sample of the overall problem; I was asked for estimates of the number of complaints we recieve. I am the first to admit we have no metric by which to identify the number of cases fixed before an "outsider" spots them, but I'd love one!

A quick recap of what we do know...

• Over a year, we recieve complaints about ~0.5% of our 400,000 BLP articles (to a first approximation), but only about 0.15% of the remainder of our articles - BLPs preferentially generate complaints.
• The major driver for BLP complaints being sent to OTRS is the presence of a personally involved subject, but this doesn't necessarily indicate anything either way about underling article quality.
• The majority of complaints (both on BLP and non-BLP articles) have some basis for complaining - very few are entirely spurious, and I don't believe this differs significantly by class of article.
• Finally, the sourcing issue. You're right to say we don't have solid evidence either way for quality of the articles which induce complaints; however, this bit should be solvable, since I do have a corpus of known articles which caused BLP issues (ie, the OTRS tickets I identified during the study) and hopefully I should be able to go back over these to see if there's a statistical significance there as soon as I've some free time! I'll let you know as soon as I find anything either way.
• (As to individual cases... hum. The cases I know of are usually cases I've dealt with, where I'd prefer not to go into them because I've dealt with them under a presumption of confidentiality... I hope you can see the dilemma here!) Shimgray | talk | 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Use for Verifying birthdate

Alfred W. McCoy currently lists his birth year as 1945; I changed that on the strength of my 2007 correspondence with him where he corrected me with that year. I'd like to officialize it. As best I recall, our procedure was to have him email OTRS with a statement to that effect and then cite the ticket number, but my memory is from 2006 or so, not too long after Helpdesk-l (which I worked on) was replaced by OTRS. Is that still how things are done? --Gwern (contribs) 00:38 26 February 2010 (GMT)

Regarding legal

Of interest Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Legal. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

temporary OTRS access procedure

How may I apply for temporary OTRS access for research into an issue involving one OTRS ticket?

I asked to see the basic headers and the body on an email on that ticket and was told that that might not be possible because I don't have OTRS access (my login works across Wikimedia but doesn't work for OTRS). My interest is limited to one issue on which another editor and I disagree, affecting the editing of an article. I'm happy to surrender access afterwards.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delayed response, but no. It's thoroughly impractical, given the vagaries of the OTRS interface, to configure a special queue and special access settings just so that a single user can see a single ticket for a little while. It's also more than a little unsavory to do this just to resolve an editing dispute. - Jredmond (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove that if you like

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#I am pissed Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Undelete request for an article with OTRS-ticket

Resolved

Greetings from the german language support team. We got a text-permission for an article here on en: European Master's Course in Embedded Computing Systems (EMECS) Unfortunately, the permission itself is all German: ticket:2010090610002755. The permission seems genuine, I just don't know the procedure here to undelete the article and tag it as "not a copyvio". --Guandalug (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Backlog?

I am wondering if there is a backlog in the system. I'm sorry if this is not the place to post this question. This is in regard to a message I received to forward the email from Ohio County Library that a file I had uploaded was indeed PD. Although I had forwarded the email on 22 December the image was deleted and is still stays that way. I have not received any reply for the forward. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll perform a search of the system to see if that was ever referenced... also, do you remember the ticket number? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I confirm the PD permission in otrs:2010123110005467. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a request for undeletion on the admin's noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Image_undeletion Thanks NonvocalScream (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've restored it, go ahead and add relevant attribution to it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 05:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)