Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team: Difference between revisions

	This is not the page to report problems or ask questions about specific OTRS matters.
	This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:OTRS page itself.

This page is automatically archived. Any sections without comment in at least 9 days will be moved to the archive.

Archives

August 2006 - May 2008 May 2008 - present

This page has archives. Sections older than 9 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

(<-)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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This page documents a process on the English Wikipedia, a system used to implement or enforce policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. Changes to this process may need to reflect consensus.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Either post a dif of a personal attack, or withdraw the accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]