Volunteer Response Team/Volunteering

Volunteer Response Team General information List of current volunteers Reports Access policy Activity policy Mailing list policy

For prospective volunteers Becoming a volunteer Apply to volunteer Ask a question

(Translate) ()

OTRS volunteers are always welcome, but there is a fairly selective application process, given the nature of the work. Generally, OTRS administrators must be familiar with you and your work on Wikimedia projects before accepting you as a volunteer and issuing you an account. It may take some time before you receive a response in regards to your request, so please be patient.

If you are truly interested in helping out with OTRS and have not yet received a response as to that status of your application, please feel free to join the IRC channel and introduce yourself to some of our members. You still may be able to help out without an OTRS account (for more information, check out OTRS/IRC channel).

Before applying to volunteer, please read OTRS/info-en recruiting and make sure that the following statements accurately describe you:

• you're willing to work on difficult, sensitive, and at times hostile messages;
• you're courteous, skilled at resolving disputes, friendly even in the face of hostility, sensitive to the needs of those outside Wikipedia, and have exemplary discretion;
• you're willing to provide identification to the Wikimedia Foundation (please see Access to nonpublic data policy for why we ask for this).

Please note that there is a firm recommendation of 16 as a minimum age for participation in the OTRS system, to ensure people have adequate real life and Wikimedia experience before taking on what is a considerable and important responsibility for the Foundation and the projects.

====[[User:Example|]]====

*'''languages you can reply in:''' Zulu, English-3, Inuktitut-3, and Sinhala-2
*'''most active user talk pages:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Example]
*'''Email sent''': Yes

I'd like to help out on OTRS because . ~~~~

Feel free to specify if you are entrusted with any special tools on wikis (sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser, etc.). You may also add to your application links to archives of help desk posts, or identification on active mailing lists if you think they are relevant.

Please also send an email to volunteers-otrswikimedia.org linking to your application on this page and giving your age, each time you apply. Thanks.

Note: Additional language skills are a plus. Currently, additional help is needed in: Arabic (العربية), German (Deutsch), Italian (Italiano), Hebrew (עברית), Dutch (Nederlands), Spanish (Español), and Norwegian (Norsk) queues (in order of backlog). Please make sure you mention any language skills you have.

Elcobbola

• languages you can reply in: English-N, German-N
• most active user talk pages: en.wiki
• Email sent: Yes

I am a Commons administrator and an en.wiki rollbacker (although I presume the latter is not terribly meaningful). I'd like to volunteer for OTRS to assist admin duties on the Commons (e.g. OTRS Pending and Flickr backlogs, etc.) Additionally, one of my primary activities on en.wiki is reviewing images, especially in the context of the Featured Article process. I am also regularly consulted for image advice (see the above-referenced talk page). It would, therefore, be helpful to be able to review and assist with OTRS permissions, tagging, etc. in the FAC and general en.wiki contexts as well. Outside of the review aspect, I'm happy to assist OTRS as needed (e.g. I see above that additional help is needed for a German language backlog). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. - I have seen Elcobbola's work firsthand at both English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and I can say that Elcobbola is a valued contributor on both projects. Especially with regard to OTRS Pending on Commons - this is a backlogged area and we could certainly use the help of an experienced Commons administrator. Cirt 06:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per Cirt. Durova 02:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse A highly trustworthy user with extensive image copyright knowledge. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse for +permissions, +info-de (f). Regards, Daniel (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dorgan

• languages you can reply in: Hungarian, English-2
• most active user talk pages: [1]
• Email sent: Yes

I'd like to help out on OTRS because there aren't enough native hungarian user with OTRS access. Dorgan 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Support I know Dorgan. He is admin and bureaucrat on the Hungarian Wikipedia and admin on the Hungarian Wikinews without any problem. Samat 18:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per Samat. Durova 00:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Trusted in multiple capacities on 2 Hungarian wikis and willing to help out in a language that could use additional people with access, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

David Fuchs

• languages you can reply in: english-N, de-1, es-2
• most active user talk pages: [2]
• Email sent: yes

I'd like to help out on OTRS because, well, I'd like to. Also having an OTRS account would allow me to verify OTRS permissions on free images, which would be useful in assisting me checking image use at en.wp's Featured Article Candidates. I'm an admin at the english wiki, too. David Fuchs 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"checking image use at en.wp's Featured Article Candidates" How often does that occur? What other experience do you have dealing with possibly sensitive issues with BLPs? Majorly ^talk 23:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

About twice to three times a month, for example en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Goliad. I've had to ask someone with access to check or email me the OTRS permissions, which can hold up the FAC process, especially if images are the only criterion left to be checked. David Fuchs 02:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem an awful lot to be honest... do you intend to help out with other permissions emails that are in the system? Do you want access to info-en, which is the main queue for general issues with articles, or just permissions, to deal with (mostly) images? Majorly ^talk 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing and able to help with other permissions emails; that said, I would only want access to permissions and wouldn't find any need to be in the main queue. David Fuchs 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think David is understating his work; my estimate would be that OTRS access would be needed at least once every two or three days just for FAC work. Most recent example at w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connie Talbot. He's trustworthy, so I don't what possible harm there is in letting him help out. Giggy 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. David Fuchs (talk · contribs) is certainly familiar with the WP:FAC process, as well as many other areas of en.wiki, and is an accomplished editor and admin there. Should do fine on OTRS. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Diagramma Della Verita

• languages you can reply in: English-en, Malay-ms
• most active user talk pages: ms.wiki
• Email sent: Yes

I'd like to help out on OTRS because, I want to contribute in all aspects of Wikimedia. I am currently a syop editor for Wiki MS. Most of the time I am active in the Malay version of Wikipedia and it's sister projects although I my major is English. I started editing in Wikipedia in 2004 without using any username. In the late 2004, I started editing with the username MSWiki. My old username was MSWiki; as Wikimedia violates this kind of username, I decided to change by username to Diagramma Della Verita. I was elected as an admin in Wiki MS last year.

I do write articles online and I am currently a citizen reporter for Ohmynews International. Click here for the list of articles. I am willing to learn and gain more experience through Wikimedia. Diagramma Della Verita 14:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety

• languages you can reply in: English-N
• most active user talk pages: [3]
• Email sent: Yes

I am a administrator on enwiki, and consider myself a rather active user. During my time there I have participated in multiple dispute resolution cases, which has given me the skills to deal with difficult and stressful situations, and feel that those skills would be put to good use as a OTRS volunteer. I have recently been finding that their are incidents in which I have been deferring to OTRS, and being able to handle them myself would benefit both OTRS and enwiki. Tiptoety 21:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Respected, neutral, fair admin at en.wp, can be trusted with sensitive materials. MBisanz ^talk 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, can you provide some examples of some of your DR cases that you took part in? I'm also curious about this comment. It's interesting your 2nd RfA failed because you were such a user. Now that you have admin rights, do you think it's appropriate to suddenly apply double standards to other users, who really are just like you? It's because of this I'd disagree with Matthew that you're "fair" about things. Additionally, your edits nowadays seem to be mostly protecting pages and clerking the checkuser page - basically, nothing that shows me you have the experience or suitability for this role. Hopefully you can prove me wrong? Regards, Majorly ^talk 16:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Majorly. First off lets address your question about dispute resolution cases. I have never officially handled a DR case (ie: MedCo, MedCom), but I have handled disputes. For the sake of providing some evidence to reinforce my claims here are just a few recent disputes that I have assisted in resolving, a dispute between a administrator and a editor, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia dispute along with others.
  • In reference to the second issue, I am actually glad you have asked that question because it is something I have thought about myself. My first and second RfA’s are most defiantly hypocritical of my current views on administrative criteria, and I acknowledge that it creates the perception of double standards. But that is not the case, when I went up for my second RfA I was under the impression that all that was needed to serve as a good administrator were the skills I had (mostly anti-vandalism work). But opinions can change, and so can views on what makes a good administrator (note I failed my second RfA). Since becoming a administrator I have learned that there is more that is needed (skill wise) than what I had to offer during my second RfA, and feel that in order to be a successful admin one needs to have a more rounded knowledge and skill base. Anyways, (no need for me to go on a rant about my opinions on adminship :D ) I guess I am trying to say my opinion has changed and I see no fault in that.
  • As for your third concern about me not being neutral or fair, I am not quite sure how to form a appropriate rebuttal to that. I mean, all it is is a perception, and if you feel I am not neutral than you just do, and I do not fault you for that (though I may disagree). I guess I look at it this way, it is much easier to prove someone is not neutral than prove they are and, like the law says: innocent until proven guilty, I am neutral and fair until proven otherwise. So having said that, I feel I am neutral and I hope my contributions back that up, but if you feel I am not or have not been, that is your choice to make. I hope this has cleared some stuff up. Tiptoety 22:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the response. When I said I didn't think you were fair, I was referring to the way you voted on RfAs. But yes, people are allowed to change. I used to oppose quite frequently, for instance. Majorly ^talk 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I am not too pleased with your latest edits involving banned enwiki user Peter Damian. Reverting a perfectly good edit just because he made it is ridiculous. Not only is it ridiculous, it's damaging to the encyclopedia. Majorly ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Whether or not you think it is ridiculous, it is permitted under the enwiki banning policy, I don't see how editing within the confines of the policy should be held against Tip. MBisanz ^talk 21:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The policy is open to interpretation. Reverting on sight on the admin noticeboard for example, and blocking the user is acceptable. Reverting perfectly acceptable edits that are improving the encyclopedia is worse than vandalism in my book. There's nothing in the policy that states banned user's edits must be reverted on sight. It even says obviously helpful edits shouldn't automatically be reverted. Majorly ^talk 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Peter was editing to prove a point on ban evasion, and since he was banned by Jimbo for harassment of another user, I'm fairly certain that anything condoning his edits is a bad idea. Reminding him that he and everything he represents is unwelcome at Wikipedia is a good stance to take. In any event, are not OTRS agents expected to follow certain rules and what not. Can you show me where Tiptoety has not followed the rules of English Wikipedia, or any other project he's worked on? MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's this strict rule-following I have a problem with. It shows a lack of common sense. Majorly ^talk 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, if you have a problem with Peter Damian being banned, please take it up with Jimbo. Tiptoety was just the janitor, doing the janitor's job. As it says in the banning policy, you are free to make the edit again in your own name if you feel happy taking responsibility for it. JzG 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with people making articles worse, yes. I don't wish to make the edit again - I shouldn't have to. It should never have been removed. Admins aren't robots, they're supposed to have something called judgement. Anyone can see that the edit is perfectly fine. Blindly reverting it is therefore making the article worse, and shows poor judgement. By all means, block the user/tag their page etc, just don't ruin articles. Cheers! Majorly ^talk 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not a vote, but I support Tiptoety, he seems capable of the kind of fairness and calmness that OTRS needs and is unlikely to violate confidence or commit to something beyond our remit, which is always my major concern with new volunteers. JzG 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure lowering the quality of articles is the attitude we want here... =\ Giggy 00:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • My intention in no way was to lower the quality of articles, and I apologize if it came across that way. My intention was to revert a user who was banned by Jimbo, plain and simple. The reason for doing that was just as Matt described above: Reminding him that he and everything he represents is unwelcome at Wikipedia, and that he can not simply slip by the ban because he chooses to not make blatantly poor article contributions. I am sorry if I offended anyone, cause I clearly have here but really my intentions were to better the project. Tiptoety 00:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't feel the need to expand on our discussion here, but essentially, his positive edits are welcome on Wikipedia, despite what a policy may say. All positive edits are welcome. Giggy 01:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Giggy, over the years we've had many banned users who have been shown the door at en.wiki. Take Willy on Wheels for instance, it took years of admins continually blocking him and reverting him before he finally got tired and gave up. That is the reason we ban someone, to permanently shut the door on them participating at en.wiki. No edits, regardless of how positive are welcome, otherwise he wouldn't be banned. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Matt, I challenge you to show me positive contributions made by Willy on Wheels. I am interested in building an encyclopedia, not in straw man arguments based on policy wonkery. Giggy 03:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That would be Willy on Wheels commenting constructively in a deletion debate. this is Willy making a proper test edit in a sandbox If I had been a user back then, I would have reverted that comment and test edit regardless of its merits since he was banned at the time. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
            • If I were Peter I'd be rather insulted by the examples you just used. Giggy 03:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Majorly (talk · contribs) and Giggy (talk · contribs) raise valid concerns. Positive en.wiki contributor but not sure about OTRS access at this point in time. Perhaps could revisit at some point in the future. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• CommentI am quite certain Tiptoety can be trusted with OTRS access. To Majorly and Cirt, w:WP:BANNED says "Banned users are no longer welcome to edit the encyclopedia, until such time as the ban is lifted." That does NOT say if the edits improve wiki it's okay. Therefore, I have to agree JzG and MBisanz in that Tiptoety was enforcing the policy. If Majorly and Cirt disagree with the policy, they need to work to change it, not drag the issue here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't comment here very often and I confess I was drawn here by external factors pointing to this. I've worked with Tiptoey a number of times on CU related matters. I have found him to be conscientious and hardworking. OTRS needs a deft touch, and a good sense of how to phrase things politely, and knowledge of how to deal with people who may not be happy, in the slightest. Does Toey have that? What I see being raised here are two things...
  • First, that Toey may not have the deft touch needed. I'm not sure I have seen evidence of him NOT having one, and the dispute resolution stuff presented says it's likely he does. OTRS is not like other activities here. We have to wear a different persona, and good OTRS workers do. After all, if JzG can be good at it, it's clear that it's possible to wear different personas. SO I'm not seeing the issue there.
  • The second issue has to do with reverting edits. En policy says edits from banned users are not welcome. You may not agree with the particular ban, but it's our policy there. An admin who chooses not to revert edits is not doing anything wrong. But also, neither is an admin who chooses TO blanket revert edits. On the other hand, blanket unreverting can cost you your bit if you're dogmatic about it. It has to be one by one. It's up to someone else to review the edits, and, individually, one by one, choose which ones they are willing to stand behind, and do so. I think those giving Toey a hard time about that are missing the mark. And playing into the hands of those banned editors who choose to act up, tossing in some good and some bad, instead of arguing their case on merits.

So, all that said, on balance I'd favour having Toey as an OTRS volunteer, if he is otherwise qualified and wants to do the work. OTRS constantly needs workers, it burns people out. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• *wonders how nit-picking over Tiptoety following policy is a positive contribution* I probably would have done the same thing as Tiptoety as well, it's just how things are handled on enwiki per the policy. That being said, from my experience with Tiptoety I do not see any reasons why he shouldn't be given access to OTRS. (Reverting a banned user certainly isn't a reason not to give him access.) Cbrown1023 talk 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'm fully in favour of reverting bad edits by banned users, but when one improves the encyclopedia, reverting it anyway is silly, IMO. Block, if you must, as a sock of a banned user, but let the good edits stay. After all, policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Giggy 03:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse — Rlevse • Talk • 03:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Diti

• languages you can reply in: French, English-4
• most active user talk pages: [4]
• Email sent: 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am not an administrator of any Wikimedia project (yet; given my knowledge of licensing and legal issues about free licenses, I shall become one soon, as a sequel of [5]), but I would like to help for checking OTRS permissions. I have no antecedents regarding my behavior (I have had the opportunity to participate in disputes, but without being pushy). If help for several OTRS missions is needed, I can carry on issues on info-fr, permissions-fr and permissions-commons (I don't think I could be experienced enough to participate regularly on other English permission issues than Commons). I am a member of Wikimedia France, I especially like interwikis organization (which is why I contribute on Commons, WP:FR and WP:EN) and to help the Foundation more deeply than just translating articles and guidelines on Commons would be something I would really like to do, since I support freedom (as described by the FSF). Diti (talk to the penguin) 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Un peu la même impression que pour la candidature de ShreCk il y a quelques semaines. Si Diti semble être un contributeur très enthousiaste et motivé, avec 700 contributions sur Commons et 2100 sur Wikipédia, il me semble clairement trop jeune. Et je n'ai pas le souvenir que depuis ses premières contributions, Diti ait eu l'occasion de montrer ses talents de diplomate et son sang-froid.

Par ailleurs, au moins, deux éléments me surprennent dans cette candidature : l'absence de mention à la précédente candidature à l'adminiship sur Commons et surtout la mention au statut de membre de Wikimedia (sic) France (quel est le rapport avec la fondation ?).

Bref, il serait souhaitable de d'abord s'impliquer durablement sur les projets hébergés par la Wikimedia Foundation avant de candidater sur OTRS.--Bapti 19:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

En effet, en se basant sur le nombre de contributions, je peux sembler jeune ; je pense que vous attendez peut-être de me voir « en situation » face à un réel conflit, cependant cela peut prendre du temps et je préfère être utile à la Foundation maintenant plutôt que dans une date indéterminée (je ne le cache pas, l'un de mes objectifs sur les projets de la WMF est d'acquérir des outils — d'administration — qui me permettraient de m'impliquer beaucoup plus que la moyenne des contributeurs ; si je vois que de tels outils ne pourront jamais m'être accordés, j'ai tendance à penser que je serais moins productif, mais ce n'est que mon avis).

Loin de moi l'idée de cacher ma première request for adminship sur Commons — qui est somme toute encourageante —, je n'ai pas eu l'impression que son inclusion dans mon développement aurait été souhaitée au premier coup : quelle leçon pourriez-vous tirer de cette candidature refusée ? Je l'aurais postée si une deuxième demande de candidature aurait été faite, à des fins comparatives, pour montrer que les progrès s'acquièrent avec l'expérience (ce que j'ai également compris dans le commentaire précédent). Quant à mon statut de membre de Wikimedia France, il a été mentionné à des fins d'information : n'ayant aucune autre référence d'implication (ou si, je suis un Trusted user sur Commons, pour votre information) à un quelconque projet de la WMF, j'ai utilisé Wikimédia France pour montrer mon soutien (indirect) à la Foundation.

Je prends note de ce commentaire. Diti (talk to the penguin) 20:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)