Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Ha Ha

As of July, 2006, approximatley 200 emails per day are received, about half of them in English.

How many are intended to be in English? --♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you get access to work on OTRS?

Generally, one is invited to OTRS by a member of the Communications committee. If you plan on at some time being available for OTRS duties, it would be best to be:
  1. An admin on the project that you plan on assisting with.
  2. Known in the community for your discretion and trustworthiness.
  3. Able to help in the workload on a regular basis.
  4. Able to deal with frustrated, disgruntled, and otherwise annoyed people who may address the recipient (you) with possibly foul language, insults, and other nastiness, and yet still reply in a kind, understanding, and professional manner.
Hope that helps! (User:Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 22:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: There is now a page, m:OTRS/Volunteering, for those who really want to make it known that they're ready and willing. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
m:OTRS/volunteering - that link may help more :) Martinp23 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of OTRS-based permissions, the templates {{PermissionOTRS}} and {{PermissionOTRS-ID}} are now available on Wikipedia English. These have been imported from Commons whole cloth.

(See original at Commons:Commons:OTRS (Yes, it should say Commons twice.)

~Kylu (u|t) 05:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Backronym?

"OTRS" is a cool shortcut, and I was disappointed to find that there was no actual name for it. So I've come up with one: Organized Team Response (to) (something). I was thinking "Sabotage" but I know there could be a better name for that. Hbdragon88 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Open-source Ticket Request System" [1] [2] -- Jeandré, 2006-11-28t17:49z
Darn. It does mean something. I like my made-up backronym better though. Hbdragon88 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Spouse's name removed when public record already.

The name of Iowa State Representative Art Staed's wife was removed (under OTRS according to the edit summary) from the Wikipedia article on him. It's not a big deal - many Representative articles don't include the name of the Representative's spouse - but I'm curious as to why it was removed under OTRS when it's already publicly available via the Project VoteSmart link at the bottom of the article? (Relevant link). --Tim4christ17 talk 04:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm not complaining about the removal, I'm merely curious about the justification for the removal. --Tim4christ17 talk 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Doc's next edit summary indicated "not encyclopedic". It also wasn't attributed at the time, but even if it was, the info's lack of notability is still a good reason to remove it. If the New York Times had an article about family members, that would make it notable enough (disclaimer: I'm obviously not an inclusionist). -- Jeandré, 2007-04-01t18:58z
It actually was attributed, by way of the Project Vote Smart link at the bottom of the article (as I mentioned above). But I can see how it could be considered to be non-notable (though I don't agree). Certainly makes more sense than using OTRS as the rationale. --Tim4christ17 talk 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Project Vote Smart is a directory that seeks to include all data that fits in their fields. They did not make an editorial decision to include or not include the information, as a secondary source does. —Centrx→talk • 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
An external link is not enough, a cite must link the specific information to a specific source page.
Agreed that just saying it's OTRS isn't a good enough summary. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-03t19:48z

Nutshell.

Suggest we change the "do not" and email, and explain about confidentiality:

"If you disagree with the change made to an article in response to an OTRS ticket, please email the OTRS volunteer or send an email to OTRS instead of just reverting the change. The OTRS volunteer is likely in possession of confidential information that shouldn't be published on a public site." -- Jeandré, 2007-04-11t07:43z

No, I think the "Do not" is just fine - if someone doesn't know what's going on (and they don't, if it's an OTRS issue), they should not blindly revert, because they may be introducing actionable libel or defamatory statements into the encyclopedia. The harm to the encyclopedia is slight if good information is temporarily removed. The harm to the encyclopedia is grave if bad information is replaced. FCYTravis 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
With OTRS only mentioned when the action can not simply be explained as a BLP, A, COPYVIO, etc. edit, how about:
"If you disagree with the change made to an article where an OTRS ticket is used as the reason, please email the OTRS volunteer or send an email to OTRS for someone else to review it and do not undo the change until consensus is reached. The OTRS volunteer is likely in possession of confidential information that shouldn't be published on a public site."
Kept in a box but without bolding? -- Jeandré, 2007-04-12t09:15z
What's the email for OTRS? The link just gives general Wikipedia addresses, should these be used?
I've come here via an unexplained (other than OTRS) blanking, and I find this page rather confusing. If the reasoning for removing the material is confidential, how can we ever know what is or isn't okay to put back in future? (The material in question had some POV stuff which should have been removed, but some basic facts could have been left in - however, I have no idea what the reasoning is.) Mdwh 16:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
E-mail the OTRS person that dealt with it. They may be able to give you some pointers.--Docg 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not policy

Hi there. This page seem to be saying OTRS volunteers have special powers on Wikipedia.

I've seen no discussion of this, or announcement by Wikimedia saying 'OTRS volunteers have special indemnity on en.wikipedia.org'. The OTRS pages on Meta seem to suggest exactly the opposite, that OTRS volunteers are expected to work within the consensus lead framework of each individual project.

Proposals that there should be special 'super-admin' powers granted to some vetted users has been a perennial suggestion in the past, but has never gained support. If you want OTRS actions to be un-revertible, you should try and get general community consensus to agree, or get a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation providing this.

If this really is official policy sanctioned by the Wikimedia Foundation, can the correct 'Special Policy' template be placed as an office action? --Barberio 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly do you think it says this and what exactly is the problem with not having a glowing banner on every page? —Centrx→talk • 17:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This page currently has a glowing banner, and one that states that OTRS volunteers have special authority. Would you rather I added a large notice at the top that says 'The rest of this page is bunk. You can ignore OTRS volunteers if they act out of process or against consensus.' ? --Barberio 18:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
All that says is that you shouldn't revert changes where an OTRS ticket is marked as the only reason without discussing it with the relevant OTRS volunteer first. This is simply because, the volunteer will be acting based on information that you will not be privy to. OTRS actions can be, and are regularly, peer-reviewed among the other volunteers. We do disagree sometimes about what is the best course of action to take. But we do so with all the facts at our disposal. --bainer (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You forget something important. Actions are not taken on wikipedia to the satisfaction of OTRS volunteers, but to the satisfaction of the general community. If an OTRS volunteer has something they need to point out to the community, they should raise it for discussion. If it's something that can not be raised for discussion for legal reasons... TAKE IT TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION FOR OFFICE ACTION!!! OTRS is only there to handle the things that don't need to be handled at that level. If someone disputes your action, but you don't want to discuss it because you have legal concerns, then it's not your business to insist on the changes. It needs to be promoted up to the Foundation's attention, and they can decide if the claim of libel was justified and what material needs to be removed.
OTRS volunteers are not the Foundation's Lawyers, they are not Censors, and they are not the Wikipolice. Please don't act like they are. --Barberio 06:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You discredit yourself by acting crazy. —Centrx→talk • 07:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The banner tells people what to do if they disagree with an OTRS action. They are perfectly capable of not following the instructions there, but in doing so they may very well be introducing libel, copied text, or something else legally actionable, or they may be violating Wikipedia's other policies. If they are interested in creating an encyclopedia here in good faith, they would not blindly revert an OTRS action. —Centrx→talk • 02:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, the text reads anything but like a guideline. It starts with a big highlighted direct instruction not to interfere with OTRS actions. One that suggests that OTRS are 'The Wikipolice' and not to be questioned. --Barberio 06:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You say the message that tells people how to question OTRS actions in fact says that OTRS actions are not to be questioned? —Centrx→talk • 07:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Barberio, if you read the text of the page I think it's pretty clear. OTRS-ticketed actions are subject to review but are not undone summarily. This is our way of dealing with serious, valid complaints of defamation and the like from the general public, in particular those who are the subject of Wikipedia content. This is the pointy end, please don't play silly buggers. --Tony Sidaway
I suggest you re-read it, and try to understand the implication of what is written. As written, it makes a *requirement* to contact the admin, and then restricts further actions 'until discussion has concluded.' This basicaly gives OTRS volunteers an unlimited filibuster privilege, or even a 'pocket veto' way of simply ignoring complaints. Also, if you call me a 'silly bugger' again, and I will suspend assuming good faith about you and conclude you are either malicious or just grossly incompetent. --Barberio 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearer explanation of why this is bad... As written, an OTRS Volunteer can delete an article, and then indefinately hold up any action to restore that page by constantly claiming they were right to delete the article, or they have special information they can't reveal. Even if they weren't right, and didn't have special information. And that's if they engage in any discussion at all, if they just ignore it then the article is held stalled in deletion since no discussion ever started. --Barberio 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is flawed in that it denies the intelligence of administrators. 81.104.175.145 14:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, the mailing list has many other people on it who can review the action, and this is not constitutional law. —Centrx→talk • 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect to the "glowing banner" issue, this page is an accurate representation of how OTRS works, and is therefore technically a guideline. Calling it as such may avert future confusion from novice users about what OTRS is and what it does. It's not really important either way, though, but this most definitely not a "proposal". >Radiant< 08:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless you're representing the Foundation, I don't believe you're entitled to make that decision. Please don't 'promote' things to guideline or policy without widespread community support for them. That's what the {{proposed}} and the village pump are for. Go use them. --Barberio 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as "promotion", and the process you refer to doesn't actually exist - nor is this my decision, it is simply an acknowledgement that this page reflects what we already do. I'd suggest you read up on what guidelines actually are. >Radiant< 11:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten based on the Meta pages

I've completely rewritten this based on text from the Meta pages. And I've specifically copied over the parts that clarify that OTRS volunteers are not representing the Foundation, and do not have special privileges. --Barberio 13:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the rewrite because it's a clear attempt to mislead readers about the procedure to be followed for resolving disputes over OTRS edits. Because the contents of OTRS communications are confidential, they cannot be disclosed on the wiki, which means that normal procedures for dispute resolution are unsuitable. --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text for 'Dispute resoultion'

Here's how I would word this... (Removing the ugly box at the top.)

The confidential nature of OTRS communications makes normal wiki-based dispute resolution processes difficult, and may be impractical. OTRS volunteers are restricted in the information they can reveal about an issue. However, this does not mean OTRS editors may take arbitrary actions. OTRS volunteers are ultimately subject to the communications committee and, as Wikipedia editors, to the Arbitration Committee through the normal processes of dispute resolution. OTRS volunteers are aware that OTRS is "not a badge." and their actions are not equivalent to Office actions.
In cases where you dispute an OTRS action discuss the change with the OTRS volunteer, as with normal dispute resolution. If the normal dispute resolution process does not or can not resolve the issue, you can send an email to OTRS for someone else to review it. An OTRS action should have included a reference number that can be quoted.

This doesn't give leyway for pocket veto and filibustering, while still allowing for the special circumstances of OTRS. The ugly box currently at the top of the page should be replaced with a suitable nutshell template. Maybe "In cases where you dispute an OTRS action discuss the change with the OTRS volunteer and proceed with normal dispute resolution. Send an email to OTRS if dispute resolution can not resolve the issue."

This still needs to be tagged as 'proposed policy' until the general community accept it. (Unless the foundation intervene to step it direct to policy) --Barberio 15:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything up as far as "not a badge" is fine. Everything beyond that seems unnecessary. To suggest that actions are "not equivalent to Office actions" is misleading, since it carries the implication that they are open to common challenge. Mandating discussion is subject to WP:SNOW, since there will be key information that cannot be revealed, in the absence of which some people (no names mentioned) will refused to be convinced. I'm not familiar with the insides of OTRS, but one would assume that other volunteers are able to pick up on the individual tickets and verify their contents, which would suggest that there should be no problem to simply ask a second volunteer to endorse the action. 81.104.175.145 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Use of the Dispute Resolution discussions to resolve disputes is mandated on en.wikipedia.org, and OTRS volunteers do not have an exception from this. --Barberio 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Barberio, you repeatedly refer to "filibustering", but you know that OTRS edits are subject to review. Why do you do this? Please do not treat OTRS volunteers as in any way less deserving of respect than any other editor. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My experience of wikipedia users is that, while still acting in good faith, many editors and administrators allow zeal to override good practice. And this needs to be tempered by explicitly reminding people of the boundaries so they don't miss-step. --Barberio 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
81.104.175.145's statement that OTRS volunteers may check any OTRS ticket is generally correct. There is never a case where an OTRS edit is not subject to challenge. --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not encourage Wikimedia users to mail OTRS unless they need assistance with, for instance, the subject of an article contacting them directly, or have a concern that requires them to reveal personal information about themselves. OTRS is not a part of any project's dispute resolution system, and we don't need mail from users who would like to express their feelings or concerns adding to the backlog. Jkelly 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Some method of review for OTRS actions is fundamentally required. If not wikipedia users emailing OTRS, perhaps instead OTRS volunteers should take their own actions to peer review when challenged? Perhaps with the understanding that they should try to generate a relevent consensus within the OTRS informed group. The weight of opinion can then be provided in any dispute discussion on en.wikipedia.org in order to reason in favour of those actions. This would then mean that OTRS disputes are resolved in an identical process to normal ones as far as the Wikipedia side of things is concerned. --Barberio 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Anybody wanting an OTRS edit reviewed can contact me. That satisfies the requirment of having a method of resolving disputes. --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe it would be appropriate for someone active in OTRS to be an Ombudsman for OTRS. And if we were to appoint an OTRS Ombudsman, it should be a community decision or a Foundation decision. Not that I'm saying having a singe ombudsman would be a good idea, it seems like a lot of work for one person, and would turn into a choke point. --Barberio 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The only people capable of assessing an OTRS action are people with access to OTRS. We don't need an ombudman because no special powers are being used, we only need someone to pop in and review the situation and adjust if appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If OTRS volunteers have no special powers, then any OTRS action can be reverted if the ORTS volunteers can not give suitable reason to the general community for those actions, even if supported by other OTRS volunteers. Being able to say "I can't say why, but this article needs to be deleted." and being given weight is a special privilege.
So you have a choice here,
  • OTRS are entitled to give their word that their action was correct without disclosing sufficient information about the action, and so need a system of review to support that.
  • OTRS are not entitled to give their word that their action was correct and their actions can be reverted if information is not disclosed to support the action.
As OTRS information is generally kept confidential, the latter makes OTRS unworkable. The former needs a system of review which is currently lacking. --Barberio 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You say "any OTRS action can be reverted if the ORTS volunteers can not give suitable reason to the general community for those actions, even if supported by other OTRS volunteers." I think you'd find that the arbitration committee would back up anyone who blocked an editor for disruption if he reverted a properly reviewed, valid OTRS edit. --Tony Sidaway 18:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
They may well do so. But it would be a departure from the current normal practice of how Dispute resolution works, and would result in changes to policy. Don't you agree that it's better to change the policy before the Arb-com find themselves with a case that forces them to?
And in that case I guess you agree that OTRS Volunteers *do* have a special privilege in regards to dispute resolution, and so need a review process in place. --Barberio 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The current normal practice of dispute resolution
No policy change is required. Disruptive editing is still blockable. --Tony Sidaway 19:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This means that if an OTRS volunteer closes an AFD or DRV against consensus, they are being the disruptive party. --Barberio 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never seen anyone close an AFD or DRV as an OTRS action. FCYTravis 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not unknown for admin to close AFD or DRV cases against consensus when they strongly believe policy requires them to. --Barberio 20:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, copyright is a good example of that. This is in the guide for administrators and is in order. Consensus cannot override site policy. --Tony Sidaway 20:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and what does that have to do with the application of sensitivity in OTRS issues? FCYTravis 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the box at the top to refer to m:OTRS/personnel, which lists all OTRS volunteers. Emailing OTRS itself obviously isn't a good idea. --Tony Sidaway 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is e-mail OTRS itself not a good idea, and why not have as an alternative e-mailing the OTRS mailing list? —Centrx→talk • 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Centrx: e-mailing OTRS itself adds to the volume of mail there, hides discussion from the larger community, and may cause the message to go to the wrong person. The OTRS mailing list suffers from the same problems, though not to the same extent. - jredmond 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
How does e-mailing one individual on the personnel list, or even contacting them on their talk page, open the discussion to the "larger community"? How would the message be sent to the "wrong person" on the mailing list? This contact is supposed to take place after the person has already contacted the OTRS person who did the initial action, so who supposed to be the "right person" and how is someone supposed to find out who it is from the flat personnel list? —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you suggest a way for OTRS actions to be reviewed then? --Barberio 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It's already there: e-mail another OTRS user and ask them to look at it. FCYTravis 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
We have a list of people who use OTRS, just ask someone to do it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Well there are multiple problems with that idea...
First, there's nothing you can do to reduce the 'increasing the backlog' effect of review, just move it around.
Second, Reliability. User-A emails someone he randomly picks from the volunteer list, but never receives a response. Did the email get there? Is the volunteer on holiday? Did the volunteer read the email but decide to ignore it? Did the volunteer look at the issue and decide it was okay?
Third, this tips in the direction of closed-shop 'cabal' operation, OTRS has confidentiality issues, but this doesn't mean we want to abandon the whole idea of openness that the rest of the wiki runs on. surely there can be a more open way of handling this? --Barberio 22:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a way to make it "open" in the sense of how you want it. People who volunteer for OTRS are trusted to keep much of the information they see private. The only way I usually let people know that there is an OTRS action is by putting it, and the ticket, in the summary (which is a number). There is the mailing list, but whatever reform you are seeking, you won't get it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, that's just it - OTRS issues are never going to be "open" like the rest of the wiki. The entire point of OTRS is to allow people who believe they have been wronged by information on the encyclopedia to have their concerns addressed in a private manner. FCYTravis 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You say this as if the idea of having an open process that handles confidential material is new to Wikipedia. ArbCom deliberations are kept private, however the ArbCom process is open enough to remain consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. OTRS must come up with something similar. --Barberio 23:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not similar to ArbCom. These are not Wikipedia users we're talking about, these are people outside who don't care about Wikipedia except for the fact that it's libeling or slandering them. OTRS is designed to make sure their very legitimate concerns are taken care of. We are not going to subject them to some sort of endless on-Wiki process where they have to spend time defending the fact that they're complaining about it. We are under a moral, ethical and legal obligation to get our facts straight. FCYTravis 23:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If the concerns are legitimate, they'll survive a review, and the person who created the ticket doesn't need to be involved in any further process. The off-wiki party isn't a reason not to have a somewhat open review process, since they won't have to be involved in the review. --Barberio 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any actual instance of there being a problem or are you trying to create an elaborate process for nothing? —Centrx→talk • 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You do understand that all correspondence handled by OTRS is confidential, don't you? --Tony Sidaway 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mailing list

This was mentioned elsewhere before, but can't we have the instructions simply direct people to email the otrs-en-l mailing list (not OTRS itself) if they wish to have an OTRS-based action reviewed? This will bring it to the attention of a large group who have the necessary access and can determine whether the initial course was correct. It avoids getting lost in the volume of OTRS tickets directly, as well as depending too much on any one volunteer's willingness to review things. --Michael Snow 04:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This raises two questions. Firstly, is the mailing-list in fact open to non-subscribers (for write access, not read, obviously)? I don't think it is, because of my second question which is: how would you avoid clogging the list with spam? (This doesn't arise at present which is why I think it's a closed list) I don't think it's any secret that the unblock-l list gets large amounts of unhelpful posts (if I'm wrong, please correct this misimpression here in public so everybody else can see), and the OTRS-l list would surely fare no better. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think non-subscribers are moderated. The mailing lists have some degree of spam filtering as well. I don't think the volume of requests for review would approach that of blocks, for two reasons. One is that the number of blocks is significantly larger than the number of actions for which an OTRS ticket number is the only information. The other is that many OTRS actions don't really impede anyone's editing activity, so nobody gets their dander up the way blocked users can. --Michael Snow 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Still, if we were to go with a mailing list, I suggest it should be a new mailing list rather than the existing one, which is used for discussing very important customer-facing stuff. Cluttering it with requests for review, which can easily be handled by one person, would be unproductive. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What problem?

What problem are people trying to solve here? Are there frequent disputes with OTRS volunteers of which I am unaware? Are there allegations of "abuse of power" by those volunteers? If so, is there any actual basis for that, or is it more of the kind of "all admins are t3h evil"? Perhaps this page simply needs a one-liner reminder that OTRS access can be revoked by the ArbCom in case of abuse, and that this never actually happened in the past (because allegations of abuse are far more common than actual abuse). Radiant! 08:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not wait until someone abuses their powers before putting in checks and balances to prevent it. Surely you don't believe in bolting the door only after the horse has fled? Incidentally, this is a tired old haw of an argument. "Oh you hate all admins! You should Assume Good Faith!" is no argument against ensuring that Wikipedia keeps a sense of balance between it's goals as a open encyclopaedia and the needs of administration and restriction. The fact of the matter is there is always a flow towards exclusionary cabal like 'old boys clubs' in any volunteer lead organisation that need to be quashed before it takes root. If you think the disputes between 'Deletionists' and 'Inclusioninsts' are damaging to the Wiki now, just wait until people start branding OTRS as a 'Deletionist Cabal'. The way to stop that is to ensure openness about what OTRS does, why we need OTRS, what OTRS volunteers are entitled to do and how OTRS actions can be reviewed. And right now that's severely lacking.--Barberio 10:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a lot of rhetoric, but in general on Wikipedia we make rules to deal with actual problems, not with hypothetical problems. People who complain about cabals tend not to get taken seriously. Radiant! 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel that administrators being unwilling to accept the responsibility as well as the power is a current problem. Review is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works, and should not be dismissed with "Well, we don't see any problems at the moment."--Barberio 11:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
False. If there are no problems, there is no need for extra rules. If there are problems, you should be able to point them out to us, which you have so far refused to do. Radiant! 11:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already mentioned the potential problems above, and I have mentioned that there is a current problem in that OTRS runs counter to normal wikipedia openess and has no clear process of review. That's a problem that needs to be fixed.
Can I ask you to please not edit war to get your way, it is highly disruptive. --Barberio 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this is it, really. Any OTRS volunteer's edit can be viewed by any other OTRS volunteer. Any OTRS volunteer can be asked for (or should give) the ticket number associated with any associated edit he makes. This is all we need. The rest? I don't know what to make of it, but it has the look of a one man campaign to do...something. --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
What Tony said. Anyone who distrusts the ENTIRE BODY of OTRS volunteers so much that they can't find even ONE to ask to carry out a review of an action is probably someone that doesn't trust anything at all about the goals of the WMF, or is a conspiracy theorist, and therefore needs to find a different project to participate in. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It might be nice if we could assume that people will always act rationally, and be able to put trust in people they don't know who are acting secretly. However, neither of these things are true. To quote K, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." It is both sane and sensible to plan ahead for people being human. This is why we have things like DRV and Arbcom on wikipedia. And why OTRS needs a clear process of review. The project is not a political sciences experiment, we have to be practical and take steps to prevent trouble before it starts, not leave it to see if trouble does start. --Barberio 17:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, that unless ALL OTRS authorised people start acting irrationally, ALL AT ONCE, your fear is unfounded. And if they DO (scan the list of names... many of the foundation's most respected contributors are there)... a new process ain't gonna help one bit, the whole project will have gone mad already. And as has been said above, we do not invent processes for the sake of inventing process. ArbCom came about because there was a clear need for it to come about, Jimbo didn't scale. DRV came about because there was a clear need to have a place to discuss deletions and seek consensus for possibly reversing outcomes of VfDs. You're proposing a solution in search of a problem. Bring up some specific cases that you think need discussion, point to the ticket number, point to who on the OTRS list you discussed things with and why the outcome was unsatisfactory... that would be a good start. If there are enough of these, a process will arise organically. If you have a specific OTRS action not performed by me that you wish reviewed, give me the ticket number and the nature of your concern and I will investigate. That's a standing offer to anyone (heck, maybe I'll make up a banner for my user page saying that, kinda like the undelete note)... There tends to be new process suggestions from relative newcomers all the time, most of them don't fare well because the newcomers don't get the wiki way of doing things. I haven't scanned your contribs to see how new you are so apologies in any case. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we have Arbcom mostly because there are a lot of trolls and angry, difficult people who just want to get their way without interest for the encyclopedia. If people at large, all and sundry who edit Wikipedia, were as reasonable, level-headed, and dedicated to Wikipedia as the people on OTRS, both individually and together, there would be no need for Arbcom, and there was no need for Arbcom prior to 2004. —Centrx→talk • 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
so what you're saying is that you won't accept any process of review is needed until after someone screws up big enough to cause the entire Wiki to take notice?
As a counter, can I suggest that the early wiki got away with "shutting the door after the horse had bolted" because it was small enough to repair. The project is now too large, and only fixing things after the break instead of taking preventative steps before they break, will lead to huge damage to the project. --Barberio 08:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That's how wikis work. Building up process for the sake of having it tends to get roundly rejected. ++Lar: t/c 10:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a guideline

We don't even have any agreement on the best way to handle review of OTRS actions, mailing list, onwiki notification, contacting individuals, or even if they need review at all. So marking this as guideline was incredibly premature. --Barberio 07:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of your suggestions won't pass; on-wiki is pretty much out of the question due to the privacy issues. We have a mailing list; you are trying to find a problem where there is none. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you tell me why a page listing disputed OTRS actions for attention would cause any disclosure of the private OTRS mail? Having some confidential information does not require the whole process to be kept secretive and hidden away. Any part of the OTRS system which can be kept public and open while maintaining confidentiality of the original complaints, should be kept public and open to remain consistent with the principles of the project. --Barberio 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
We have a list of users who use the system and that is pretty much as public I can foresee this is going. We won't open the mailing list up, we won't put the archives up, and we put the OTRS ticket number in the summary. We have templates for images that are OTRS confirmed and that is it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that it's inappropriate to pop a guideline tag on this page. Pop an essay tag on, whatever. If editors fail to heed the advice on this page, they are likely to come a cropper, and it doesn't make a happorth of difference whether there's a tag there or not. --Tony Sidaway 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. most of what comes out of this discussion will not be a commonly ignorable Guideline. For regular editors *or* OTRS volunteers. --Barberio 08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Example of a way to handle OTRS review

I've put up an example of how on-wiki initiation of OTRS review could work at Wikipedia:OTRS/Noticeboard. --Barberio 08:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS editors by email. --Tony Sidaway 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Except we've had people say "Don't contact OTRS editors by email". --Barberio 08:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion was that people don't send mail to the OTRS queues, ie the addresses listed in the various subpages of Wikipedia:Contact us. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Then find someone who has the OTRS authorization, at the pages we have on Meta, and find their userpage and click "email this user" since most of us have email. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well let's see.
Your idea has these steps...
  1. Go to Meta and look up who the current OTRS users are.
  2. Pick a user at random
  3. Go to their userpage
  4. If the user has no email go back to step 2.
  5. If the user is on sabatical go back to step 2.
  6. Mail them about the review.
  7. Wait a few days.
  8. If you get no responce go back to step 2.
  9. If you get a responce that says they can't review for some reason, go back to step 2.
  10. Hope you didn't email an admin when they are having a bad day.
While my idea has these steps.
  1. Go to the notice board.
  2. Post a review request.
Which looks clearer and less likely to have problems to you? --Barberio 09:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if it is clear to the simple user of Wikipedia, any public discussion of OTRS actions will be moot and violating some of the rules OTRS has set up for us. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh... did you even read the example page? (before someone deleted it)
It clearly said that confidential information about the ticket was not to be revealed, and that the board would not be used for discussion and any commentary would be removed. --Barberio 10:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if it was deleted, I still can read the page. Anyways, with the page you wanted to create, it will just confuse non OTRS people and won't serve a purpose. I am not sure what you are trying to do Barberio, but you are seeking a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and no amount of you doing stuff will bring "openness" that you seek. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case, sooner or later there will be an inevitable clash between editors used to wiki openess and OTRS closed-shop secrecy. Clearly you don't want to try to prevent that, so be it. Enjoy the drama when it happens, but don't blame me if I say 'told you so'. --Barberio 10:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Right now, what I see is YOU generating drama here. Again, I'm around a lot, my email is open, and if you have a concern about a specific ticket, mail me with the ticket number and I'll look into it. If the "noticeboard" consisted solely of "I have a concern about ticket xxxx" followed by "I have OTRS access and will look into it and get back to you privately" with NO discussion other than that I would not be opposed. But... any such public noticeboard will generate drama, and your item "* Description of the Issue --++Lar: t/c 10:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)" and the "** Example OTRS volunteer responce." are unacceptable. The only thing I would accept is "pleaes contact me" and "OK I did" as a reply. I am adamantly opposed to public explication of anything that might reveal OTRS ticket content. You need to internalise that OTRS volunteers are among the very most trusted BY THE FOUNDATION to handle this stuff with tact, sensitivity and confidentiality, and that they are doing a great job, and you need to trust them. What you are doing now is just basically saying you don't trust them. That's not acceptable to me. Finally... Don't blame me if later I say "and Barberio caused this drama to come about", and don't blame me if I feel you have a solution in search of a problem at best, or are giving the impression that you are actively trying to cause problems, at worst. ++Lar: t/c 10:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, you just helped me make up my mind that this project is no longer a worthwhile use of my time. The continuing trend of administrators to grab at additional levels of power, closed shop and private bureaucracy, and shrugging of responsibility and openness is going to increasingly make this a combative and hostile place to spend time in. Under false guise of 'keeping bureaucracy down' you instead increase unwritten bureaucracy by substituting a hoard of 'unwritten ways' and secret handshakes to get things done. Your whole argument that having a simple board to post requests on is somehow "adding extra process and bureaucracy" than having some half-assed "find an admin and email them and hope" oldboys network.
Enjoy your fishbowl gentlemen. --Barberio 11:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Mind the door on your way out. Information in OTRS is confidential - end of story. There can be no challenge or appeal in the open for this reason. 81.104.175.145 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Barberio, this has nothing to do with administrators. It's about OTRS volunteers. --Tony Sidaway 17:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Barberio, it's unfortunate you feel that way but the point really is not the process per se, it's the public discussion part. OTRS stuff is confidential. Therefore a public review of it just isn't a good idea. A centralised way to let the volunteers know that something might need review is different, and there is discussion on the list already about ways to do that which still keep what needs to be confidential, confidential. I do have to say I find some considerable difference with your statement that there is a "continuing trend of administrators to grab at additional levels of power"... that's just not really a very fair characterisation. I hope you'll reconsider but in the end we are all volunteers here and if you feel this is not the best use of your talents, that's really your decision. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Barberio, if material is confidential, a public review of this material is not possible, it is that simple, for one thing because it would be way too easy to abuse your proposed board. Every association I've ever been a member of (or held office in IRL) had confidential files. E.g. it would be grossly inappropriate (not to mention illegal in many juridictions) for an organization to hand out personal information about its members to outsiders. The same is the case here, as the persons contacting the OTRS volunteers may have good reasons for not wanting to see their personal information (full names, addresses, e-mails) publicised, and we have no right to question any such wishes. Valentinian T / C 17:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Concern

Let me first say that this should be a policy, people ought to have ways like this to contact Wikimedia about WP:BLP issues and such. However the flaw is not providing feedback to editors who may be the subject of WP:OTRS concerns. I am not saying anyone's privacy should be compromised, but if a valid concern about me comes in I'd like to know what the concern is. Simply stating the nature of the concern is not going to identify the source. A person e-mailing to correct an issue on John Travolta may be a fan, an agent, etc. who doesn't know how to use Wikipedia just that something's wrong with the article's info. Anynobody 08:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time, it is issues about articles that have nothing to do with anyone. However, regardless of the email, when it comes with dispute about editors, we send them to dispute resolution. We don't block because of OTRS, we don't reveal your information to outside parties and if there is a concern that is about you, we will do everything in our power to take the hit for you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, and your efforts to address outside concerns. You shouldn't have to take the hit for anyone though if it's a fair hit. (By that I mean a valid concern, I realize you're going to get a lot of invalid concerns nobody needs to know about of course.) I hate to think I could be causing other editors work when I'm totally willing to change my behavior if it's shown to be wrong.

Seriously the situation is almost like a catch-22, as humans the OTRS staff will get sick of having to clean up messes caused by a person who doesn't know they are being made. (I don't mean all at once of course, each editor has their own breaking point when it comes to frustration and these editors will be replaced but the turnover may not be necessary.)

To be clear this must be balanced with the privacy of the e-mailer, but a simple message saying something like: Wikipedia has received an e-mail which shows some of your edits to person x were not entirely compatible with the principles of writing about a living person. Without going into specifics about the mail itself, these are the areas we feel warrant correction. Anynobody 10:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Doing this would be helpful. As a general matter though, keep in mind that most problems were added by anonymous passers-by or inactive users. Most unsourced inflammatory statements are not added by regular editors. —Centrx→talk • 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As Centrx said, a lot of the information I deal with was added by anons. and most of the time, it is just simple "Someone is Gay" vandalism. Complex issues, it's a case by case basis. But most of the time, there is a lot of things we try to do not to get the person involved (unless we know you have a history of doing this) while I know you don't. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a point about some types of editors. Anons and inactive accounts were not part of my original concern. Thinking about it the anons probably should not receive feedback since there is no reliable way of knowing who is using the IP at a given time. Inactive accounts would be best left to the discretion of the OTRS editor who receives the complaint.

Active contributors who are the subject of valid concerns are the only editors I believe the feedback would be appropriate for. There is probably a better way to verify activity, but I just preview an edit using a {{user3}} template and look at their contribs. Anynobody 21:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Note

Since this page is a good explanation of what we do with OTRS (and why you shouldn't arbitrarily go against that) I do believe that calling it a {{guideline}} is appropriate. This obviously won't change anything with respect to the OTRS process itself, but it would make clear to novice users that yes, it is important - and it would avert problems with people who state "you can't do that, OTRS is not policy". I know those people are in fact mistaken, but there's no real harm in educating them this way. Radiant! 12:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is OTRS part of WP:OFFICE actions, or something else? When I said above it should be policy it was under the assumption it did fall within the scope of OFFICE actions. (If it isn't, then I think you are right about {{guideline}} status.) Anynobody 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
OTRS isn't Office. The volunteers are ordinary editors, albeit trusted by the Foundation to handle confidential information. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case I think {{guideline}} is the best option then. Anynobody 02:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It is only pandering to fools to label this "Office" or "Not-Office" or "Guideline" or "Not-Guideline". Just like everything else on Wikipedia, any action is as good as the reasons for doing it. If someone on OTRS removes libellous statements from an article after a complaint from the subject, that action is properly as invincible, and idiotic to revert, as an OFFICE action, and carries no less weight than all the "official policies" combined. —Centrx→talk • 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to fools per se, but to novice users who may be unfamiliar with most of Wikipedia. Long-term users tend to ignore page tags, but to novices they're helpful. What's the harm in doing that? >Radiant< 08:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat concur with Radiant! on this point, but agree with the previous sentiment that OFFICE/NOTOFFICE is not a helpful distinction to make, and may even be a false dichotomy. There's more to Wikipedia than WMF and Everyone-Else™ - the proverbial "them" and "us". 81.104.175.145 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's important to note though, that while OTRS certainly is NOT the office, often a ticket to the OTRS system, especially one in the urgent-en or legal queues, begins the process that results in an office employee taking a WP:OFFICE action. The key note being: the person taking that action will be a foundation employee or designee.

That being said, I think it is important to note that while OTRS actions are indeed subject to review, people need to realize that the vast majority of REAL tickets to OTRS (i.e. not spam, misaddressed, etc.) are things that should NOT be reverted: legal complaints, copyright permissions, copyright violation reports etc. Centrx says it well above, but you really need to not revert such things, regardless of whether by guidelines you are allowed to.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy

Should this page be upgraded to policy? There is not really an occasional exception for this. Greeves (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and did so. Daniel 04:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
No objection from me. >Radiant< 11:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OTRS protection message needs link to this page

The protection message at the top of Lava lamp and St George College, South Australia should link to this page so people can find out why the article is missing. It's an irritating inconvenience and deserves a good explanation. It would also be nice if it gave some idea how long it usually takes before there can be an article again. Days? Weeks? Months? —Keenan Pepper 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It completely depends on the article. In the case of Lava lamp, I'm restoring the article today. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Standard for blanking articles

Based on the Lava lamp incident, I'm recommending that there should be standards for blanking pages under revier of WP:OTRS. An example of what should be done is with the Jack Thompson (attorney) article on March 11, 2006, where the article was replaced with a small stub instead of being erased completely. In addition, there should be a general reason on why the page is being stubbed (e.g. slander issue, trademark issue, copyright issue) since most users do not have access to OTRS.

In the case of Jack Thompson, the process was open, as there was a discussion on why there was an issue (the subject complained about the article's quality and/or accurracy), and there was sufficient disclosure on the issue with the article (there was excessive unreferenced information.) The talk page contained information on the requirements for adding to the article and what to look for to avoid legal problems in the future - which wasn't too difficult.

This procedure worked perfectly in the past under a high-activity article, and as such, should be followed. --Sigma 7 11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the standard for deleting articles about sibjects that are undoubtedly notable? And when is it appropriate to lock a stub to prevent any further info from being added? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Pages are generally only deleted or stubbed if they otherwise violate Wikipedia policy. I think the lava lamp blanking was just a mistake, though I can't find the ticket. —Centrx→talk • 03:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See also

I think, if this is not an office action, the "see also" section should not have a link to office, or at the least make it clear that it is not part of office. 207.172.148.67 21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of volunteers

Does anyone know where I can find a complete list of OTRS volunteers? All the lists I've found so far (e.g. on meta) are incomplete. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As answered on Meta, there is no public list of OTRS volunteers for privacy reasons. A listing of users who choose to list themselves can be found at m:OTRS/personnel. Cbrown1023 talk 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing action

Hello everyone :) Recently an article of some contention, Barbara Schwarz, subject of four prior deletion discussions, was speedily deleted by an admin. After a rather long review it was decided that the article should remain deleted. However there is still enough reliable source material to discuss the subject's impact on two areas covered by other articles. Those articles are: Freedom of Information Act (United States)#Barbara Schwarz and Neutral reportage#Barbara Schwarz v. The Salt Lake Tribune. Since they are about two different topics, the FOIA and neutral reportage, but involve the same person I recreated the Barbara Schwarz article as a disambiguation page between the two (as well as accommodating a disambiguation of a woman with a similar name, Barbara Schwartz).

Now the disambiguation page has been tagged as protected and the talk page OTRS'd, however the information in the articles remains unaffected. Was all of it supposed to be removed? It's hard, but not impossible, to imagine that the disambiguation page is the sole problem. Anynobody 07:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Check OTRS action

Could someone check Image:Shirley-Eaton.jpg. An IP added an OTRS ticket number. I'm sure it is legit, but wanted to double-check as I'm not sure how commonn it is for IPs to do this, as opposed to someone using their logged in account. Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag. It was not a valid OTRS ticket. Garion96 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to check - should we expect OTRS tickets to be added by logged in accounts? Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
They should, and they should also be listed at Template talk:PermissionOTRS#OTRS Access (Garion96 is not). That page isn't a reliable source tho since anyone can edit it. I'll ask for a list to be made on the foundation site with links to specific user pages. Even then, I've seen tickets that weren't correctly checked by the OTRS volunteers and where the free license claim was invalid. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-20t07:58z
Doesn't look like that list will get made, so you'll have to request checks by sending an email to the address at Wikipedia:Contact us which can only be seen by people with OTRS access. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-20t09:00z
See comment of Cbrown1023 a section or so above. For privacy reasons there is no public list. There is another user added list at m:OTRS/personnel. Garion96 (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

request for assistance on new sample permission form, for photos of copyrightable works

Volunteers within the NRHP wikiproject, such as myself, often take photos of historic sites which may include photos of historic plaques or of artworks at the historic sites. Plaques and artworks may sometimes be copyrighted, so to use the photos we may need permission from owners. There are no example copyright permission requests forms which exactly address this need. To address this, I have drafted a sample cover letter, sample statement of Wikipedia image policy, and sample permission form, which is now up for discussion within the WP:NRHP talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Drafting a sample request for permission for our photos of plaques and artworks. I imagined NRHPers would discuss it for a while, then seek OTRS evaluation. But it is in good enough form already, I think, to benefit right away from your preliminary consideration. Could any of you OTRS experts please advise there? Your assistance would be most appreciated. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Assistance appreciated

Please see Image:Oldfashioned.jpg and [3]. Please assist. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That OTRS link is defective. - Mark 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the link to the OTRS ticket. MECU≈talk 00:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is one of those situations where the email forwarded to OTRS purportedly releasing an image into the public domain appears to me to be insufficient to meet our rather stringent demands on such releases of copyright. This is because it does not contain something adapted from this, showing that the releasing copyright holder understands that they are throwing away their copyright and the consequences of that. To me, "same as the other one, no problem" is insufficient to show that this person understood the consequences of the release into the public domain, although if I saw the whole chain of emails I might feel differently. - Mark 00:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Email address??

This page does not list the OTRS address. How can I find it? -Pete (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

which one? It depends what you want to send them.Geni
Whatever address is appropriate for the image you and I are discussing elsewhere: Image:Dburner wiki portrait.jpg. Is there a list of addresses available somewhere? I'm having trouble finding one. I found meta:OTRS, which lists what look like the beginnings of email addresses, but does not state what domain to attach them to. -Pete (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Permissions-en@wikimedia.org.Geni 19:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fish -- I guess I'll have to learn how to cast a line from someone else. -Pete (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume they all end in wikimedia.org but most of them have nothing to do with copyright so I don't worry about them much.Geni 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I added some of the email addresses on the page, I still don't get how so many people find our addresses, I need to google them every time. -- lucasbfr talk 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove some of them... the "Contact us" pages (where the addresses normally live) are designed to help people resolve their own problems if possible, instead of e-mailing about every little thing. I find those pages reduce the number of unnecessary vandalism reports and "OMG security flaw!" messages we get. Also, info-en-q is explicitly for BLP subjects and organizations to write with problems about their own articles; it is not a catch-all for every sort of article problem. - Jredmond (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Contact us. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Much better indeed. -- lucasbfr talk 09:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Directing BLP issues

As discussed here and here, I think we could do a better job of assisting new editors who start off with BLP-motivated deletions. When someone stumbles onto their own Wikipedia article, is horrified to find it full of libel, and blanks the page only to get rapped with a reversion and a warning, should we then send them straight to OTRS for personal assistance, or should we make them wend their way through article talk and WP:BLPN first? Bovlb (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't give an easy answer here. Some BLP-related editors would benefit from time on the article talk page, and some would do better to go straight to OTRS. Unfortunately, we can never really tell up-front who needs what. Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) attempts to refine the process a bit, but it assumes people are clear-headed enough to read through it. (The really livid ones head straight for the address and whine because the address wasn't six inches tall and flashing red.)
It would help immensely, though, if experienced editors would be extra-cautious about biting newbies who edit BLPs. A quickie rollback and templated COI warning is hardly ever effective at calming down somebody who feels wronged by an article about them or their friend/relative/colleague/etc. It would be far better to (patiently!) explain the wiki-nature to such n00bs and let them figure out ways to work with others to improve the article. - Jredmond (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes. I was hoping, rather sneakily, that if the appropriate templates addressed the BLP issue carefully, then this would not only help the recipient, but would also remind template-givers of the need to think twice. (This is why I think {{prod-nn}} is such a good idea.) People do read the templates they leave, right? Bovlb (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem would be an excellent link to include in user warning templates. Bovlb (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to have some of the anti-Verifiability warnings changed (archived discussion). Anyone want to help start that up again at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#BLP and delete templates? -- Jeandré, 2008-05-18t17:43z

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Volunteer_Response_Team/Archive_1&oldid=1136418409"