Talk:OTRS/Volunteering/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Application approval

• Due to the nature of OTRS, it's unlikely that the page will be immediately updated to show Approved or Denied or similar messages.
• Just because you haven't immediately been approved, doesn't mean that we don't want or need you: We may just be watching your behavior on your home wiki to determine eligibility, waiting for you to be more familiar with Wikipedia, or possibly we just don't need more people at the time.
• Don't fret. The best thing to do would be to put in your willingness to assist, then go back to doing what you were before.
• Please make sure you have a working email on your account, also, please make sure that you give a wikilink to your userpage on your home wiki! Without these, the admin will not be able to "E-mail this user" and you won't be able to receive instructions on how to access the system!
• Leaving multiple messages on the pages of OTRS users asking for access might be considered pushy. Do we want pushy people doing this job?

Update: If your application is approved and you find yourself the owner of a nice shiny new OTRS account, please remove your application. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

~Kylu (u|t) 05:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction.

OTRS/introduction -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19t18:25z

Access to nonpublic data

Due to this, would it be wise to leave a message with every user on this list, so they can remove themselves if they do not comply with the new rules? Majorly (hot!) 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I expect they subscribe foundation-l (OTRS staff are expected to reply Foundation related inquiries too and hence expected to be knowledgeable for its matters), but it would be kind of you to let them know the new policy. --Aphaia 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Identity on mailing lists.

Re [1], it's not a requirement to be subscribed (tho see foundation-l and the section above this one), it's there to filter out people who are dicks on the mailing lists. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-22t17:41z

I see. But endorsements can filter them out too, I think. I'd like to prevent this process to become too bureaucratic :) guillom 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Un petit avis personnel

Je trouve qu'il existe un ostracisme des permissions OTRS à l'encontre des contributeurs autres que ceux de Wikipédia. Je trouve cela dommage. Pour ma part, cela m'a appris à n'avoir plus aucune confiance vis à vis des admins de OTRS, compte tenu que je me suis fait lourdé comme le dernier des malpropres. Vous penserez ce que vous voudrez de ce que je viens d'écrire. Cela me sera totalement égal.--Bertrand GRONDIN – ^Talk 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Les candidatures ne sont jamais déclinées en fonction des projets d'origine des volontaires, mais en fonction de leur maturité et de leur capacité à répondre de façon courtoise. guillom 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

C'est bizarre, je ne te crois pas ! En voyant ceux qui, sur WP ont l'accès sur OTRS, j'en connais plus d'un qui sont manifestement immatures ! Je persiste que les ukazes de certains ayatollahs de WP veulent nuire aux autres projets francophone. Quand cessera-t-on de nous prendre pour des contributeurs de seconde zone, des Untermenschen. Quant à la prétendue courtoisie, ce n'est qu'un prétexte parmi tant d'autres. Il faudrait cesser de prendre les contributeurs des projets autres que WP pour des imbéciles.--Bertrand GRONDIN – ^Talk 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bertrand, tu me crois ou pas, franchement je n'en ai rien à faire. Arrête donc de monter sur tes grands chevaux et de faire le gamin capricieux qui n'a pas eu sa sucette. Et puis, le rôle de martyr ne te va pas du tout. guillom 09:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

List of volunteers

Does anyone know where I can find a complete list of OTRS volunteers? The lists I've found so far are not complete. Any help would be appreciated in directing me toward a complete one. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, do OTRS volunteers have to identify themselves to the Foundation? I've read the resolution posted above, but someone has told me the Foundation has made an exception for OTRS, is that right? Could be I've misunderstood. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a full list on internal wiki, which is not publically available. Many volunteers wish to keep their OTRS work private. Volunteers currently should be willing to identify themselves. Majorly (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Majorly. Can you say which internal wiki, and why some people might want to keep their OTRS work private? Maybe there is a good reason that I'm missing, but offhand I can't think of one. Also, when you say volunteers should be willing to identify themselves currently, does that mean there is a grandfather clause for some volunteers, or how does it work? I'm asking because the Foundation passed a resolution that volunteers with access to personal data should ID themselves to the Foundation, but I've been told that, while this is being enforced with ArbCom, checkuser, and oversight, it's not being enforced with OTRS, which is arguably more sensitive than the other things. So I'm wondering who has decided to make an exception for OTRS (if I've understood correctly), and why. Sorry for all the questions, and for being so uninformed, but I'm trying to understand the background to something I'm not at all familiar with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem. It's here. As you'll see, pages are closed to viewing unless you have an account there - and only board members, officers and local chapters are supposed to have accounts there. Some may want to keep such work private as OTRS often involves dealing with "difficult" people. Sometimes it is best that you are not associated with your wiki account from the OTRS system. Volunteers with checkuser/oversight/steward access are identified so that any legal problems are easily sorted out. OTRS is mostly harmless work, which anyone could do without a problem (e.g. confirming permission for an image). I don't recall it being done for arbcom, but the change for OTRS was made on 2nd June this year. It had previously been open to anyone, then with the access to private data policy the age limit was brought in for a while and then removed. Hope this answers your questions. Majorly (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does, Majorly, it's very helpful. Thank you for taking the time to explain things so clearly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional and required info?

Re [2].

====[[User:Example|]]====
Required:
*'''languages:''' Zulu, English-3, Inuit-3, and Sinhala-2
*'''Email sent''': Yes

Optional:
*'''archives of help desk posts:''' [[w:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/October 2006]]
*'''rfxs''': [[w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example|rfa]], 
*'''user talk pages on most active projects:''' [[w:User_talk:Example]]
*'''identification on active mailing lists]:''' "Mvumbi Doe" on foundation-l and wikizu-l

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

-- Jeandré, 2007-11-18t12:25z

Aren't rfx's and user talk pages mandatory? (I only reverted you know because I think I remember guillom doing it previously with the mailing list posts option.) Cbrown1023 talk 12:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was accepted as an OTRS volunteer at least a month before my RfA on frwiki (the only wiki in which I am admin), so no, it appears it's not mandatory. Arria Belli 17:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

====[[User:Example|]]====
Required:
*'''languages you can reply in:''' Zulu, English-3, Inuit-3, and Sinhala-2
*'''history of most active user talk pages:''' [[w:User_talk:Example]]
*'''Email sent''': Yes

Optional:
*'''archives of help desk posts:''' [[w:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/October 2006]]
*'''rfxs''': [[w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example|rfa]], 
*'''identification on active mailing lists:''' "Mvumbi Doe" on foundation-l and wikizu-l

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

Now with talk page goodness. -- Jeandré, 2007-11-21t18:32z

Jeandré's posted it, if someone has opposition or other comments, feel free to bring it up here. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 16:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional and required info?

Re [3].

====[[User:Example|]]====
Required:
*'''languages:''' Zulu, English-3, Inuit-3, and Sinhala-2
*'''Email sent''': Yes

Optional:
*'''archives of help desk posts:''' [[w:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/October 2006]]
*'''rfxs''': [[w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example|rfa]], 
*'''user talk pages on most active projects:''' [[w:User_talk:Example]]
*'''identification on active mailing lists]:''' "Mvumbi Doe" on foundation-l and wikizu-l

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

-- Jeandré, 2007-11-18t12:25z

Aren't rfx's and user talk pages mandatory? (I only reverted you know because I think I remember guillom doing it previously with the mailing list posts option.) Cbrown1023 talk 12:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was accepted as an OTRS volunteer at least a month before my RfA on frwiki (the only wiki in which I am admin), so no, it appears it's not mandatory. Arria Belli 17:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

====[[User:Example|]]====
Required:
*'''languages you can reply in:''' Zulu, English-3, Inuit-3, and Sinhala-2
*'''history of most active user talk pages:''' [[w:User_talk:Example]]
*'''Email sent''': Yes

Optional:
*'''archives of help desk posts:''' [[w:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/October 2006]]
*'''rfxs''': [[w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example|rfa]], 
*'''identification on active mailing lists:''' "Mvumbi Doe" on foundation-l and wikizu-l

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

Now with talk page goodness. -- Jeandré, 2007-11-21t18:32z

Jeandré's posted it, if someone has opposition or other comments, feel free to bring it up here. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 16:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made it simpler while keeping these ideas [4]. guillom 12:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RfAs are not the only important Rfs, not listing others is even more important; and it's the talk page's history that's important, not the talk page. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-09t09:04z

RfA is an acronym only used on English projects; people from other projects who simply know what "Rf" or "Rfx" means are very rare. Besides, I strongly disagree with your statement according to which the talk page is not important. guillom 09:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Age Requirement?

Are OTRS volunteers required to be 18 years of age? 74.4.117.0 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, 16 is the minimum age for participating in OTRS..--Cometstyles 00:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comets is right, it's 16, and that's just a firm recommendation. (From the attached page: 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.) Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to delete/cancel the use of this page

I think it's time that volunteers were chosen in a different way. It has become an RFA-like process, with people who have no idea about how OTRS works making comments about things they know nothing about. Instead of this becoming an attack/interrogation process like RFA is, and since comments here aren't necessarily taken into account when the admins decide on someone, I think from now on potential volunteers should email only, and not post anything here. If admins need any more information on someone, they can ask the OTRS volunteers in private, who are most familiar with the process. Majorly ^talk 18:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll show my support for changing things in the way you have suggested, however, I realize and note to everybody else that the decision will lie in the hands of the OTRS admins, no matter what sort of decision is reached here. Thank you Majorly, for taking the initiative. - Rjd0060 18:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not god, and are sensible enough to realise that if there is overwhelming agreement here, particularly from qualified people, it would be foolhardy to go against it. Majorly ^talk 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any glaring flaws in that; unless the admins voice an opinion contrary. Rudget. 18:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course. If I gave the impression that I believed otherwise, it was a mistake. - Rjd0060 18:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I support public recruiting page with comments only allowed via email. My second choice is Majorly's proposal. Thank you Majorly for your initiate here. NonvocalScream 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with NonvocalScream; I think that the community deserves input into the process, but that the current way it's being handled is unworkable. Allowing comment via e-mail, with public recruiting, is the best way to handle this. Ral315 (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with Ral315, but I also think that this page should not be deleted but retained for historical value. Cirt 20:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Hard to say. Any vote or analogous process is doomed, because in the end the final decision is up to the OTRS admins and the qualities they seek are not necessarily well understood by the community, but volunteering is to be encouraged and messages of support which give concrete examples of the kind of thing which would make the individual a good OTRS volunteer would seem to me to be useful. JzG 20:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of leaving it the way it is and only allowing comments via e-mail. One question whether or not people would be e-mailing supportive and unsupportive comments. It seems to me that it would significantly increase the amount of e-mails the admins would have to sort through. It would also be hard to organize the comments in a mailbox. John Reaves (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• No go. The subject was raised about a month ago on the mailing list of OTRS volunteers, and I explained in details why this page was useful for OTRS admins. I disagree with the opinion that "It has become an RFA-like process"; the current applications rather show the opposite. As I have already explained, I find the current page useful, as it's a central place where people can comment and OTRS admins can read comments. I believe less people would send comments by email; besides, it's much more practical for OTRS admins to have one place to look at, rather than to need to search their email box to gather comments. Last but not least, people usually send personal emails to various OTRS admins, and we need to forward them to the other admins if they weren't in the loop. Let's keep one central, public place where people apply, where some others give useful opinions and where OTRS admins look. Anyway, OTRS admins are the only people who process this page, so if they like it that way, it should stay that way; unless there are other good reasons I haven't thought not read about here. guillom 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In deference to your judgment, I'll go along with that. We just don't like watching the thing sometimes because of some threads and the way the develop. NonvocalScream 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you missed Rudget's application this morning that sparked this message. Anyway, it doesn't matter what us mere peons think, you're the boss. Majorly ^talk 22:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And FYI, Cary has been saying this page should be deleted for a while now. Is this your opinion on the page, or the admins in general? Majorly ^talk 22:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

hmm because something didn't work for someone doesn't mean it should be deleted and we have had this process for a long time, nothing has changed and its still good and the e-mailing the OTRS admin idea will not work for very long since it will get tiring for them to read and accept or ignore e-mails from users who may have a grudge or is over exaggerating something and this way if someone does make a Libellous comment, someone else can come and defend them etc, Yes it is NOT a vote and it will be easier to remove "support" votes by people than to get this proposal cancelled ...--Cometstyles 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cometsizesstyles: This has been an ongoing issue, with rudget being the straw the flipped the balance. For the rest of your argument, particularly the comment about others needing the defend. Its not needed here, the otrs admin can go look at something for his or herself. List moderation also works for email specific senders and our otrs admins. Very best NonvocalScream 01:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work for *a lot* of people. Rudget is the latest example of how this page is turning into an RfA process. Despite Guillom's blindness to this issue, it is a big problem preventing suitable people from even applying for fear of unneeded hostile interrogation. If OTRS admins are too lazy to look at emails, perhaps it is time some better ones were appointed. Majorly ^talk 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Our admins have my confidence, they do just find. No need to change them out, guillom works hard. NonvocalScream 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I missed Rudget's application, because I happened to be offline 2 days. I didn't sign my comment as "the OTRS admins", I signed it as "guillom"; the other OTRS admins are free to comment on this page as well. Your proposal is going to increase the workload of OTRS admins for no particular benefit. Last, I would ask you to stop feeding this drama by being so hostile; just because someone happens to disagree with you doesn't give you the right to call them "blind" or "lazy"; I expect better from an OTRS volunteer. guillom 09:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose fully depreciating this page and then only having email applications. There would be no way to know who had applied if that was the system. Whether to have email-feedback only is something that's neither here nor there for me. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Depreciated? Majorly ^talk 00:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

depreciate, v; "reduce the value or cost of". To deliberately reduce this to a historical page with no use is not a good idea, in my opinion; all nominations need to be public. Whether the commentary on them does is another issue altogether. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nominations should be public; suggestions should be private and sent to an e-mail list This is not an RfA. OTRS deals with sensitive issues and volunteers should not be selected based on any popularity-based metric. People need to have demonstrated discretion, maturity, common sense, extreme patience, cordiality in th eface of rancor and vitriol, and the ability to put ones own ego aside. The nominations must remain public so that people with opinions (pro or con) may know who is volunteering for these sensitive positions. However, the suggestions to the OTRS admins should remain private, for the sake of the candidate, for the sake of the opiner, and for the sake of the process. -- Avi 05:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  "Volunteers should not be selected based on any popularity-based metric." Good, they are not; if you look into the archives, you'll find applications that were declined although there seemed to be a consensus for support. Comments might be taken into account by the OTRS admin who processes the application. If applicants can't stand some comments about their application, I doubt they've demonstrated "extreme patience, cordiality in the face of rancor and vitriol, and the ability to put ones own ego aside." guillom 09:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  Guillom, I was not finding fault with the OTRS admins. I beleive in the main they have done an excellent job identifying appropriate volunteers. My point was to underscore the fact that this page should remain public for volunteering, but that our comments need to go to you privately. My comments were directed at people with less contact with the system than you have (obviously). -- Avi 14:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• no way - the "process" lacks transparency as it is, it must not become more hidden. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This really is not a transparent process anyway. I'm not sure how much more hidden it could become. I mean, the community at large already does not see if applications are accepted. NonvocalScream 10:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agreed & it bugs me. So let us please not make it any less transparent. I'm not looking for populist voting - I do object to such apparent secrecy. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, agree with Herby. I don't see the benefit in making this a shut shop, and while Rudget's request might have been a bit painful to watch, I imagine some of the BLP stuff he (as an OTRS guy) could potentially deal with would be a lot worse. —Giggy 08:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are just one of the people who make comments there on something you obviously don't know much about (for example, expecting someone to be active on commons to deal with permissions). If you don't know what you're commenting on, don't comment. Majorly ^talk 12:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say personally I find your comment highly insulting. People will never learn anything new about anything if they are met with that sort of comment. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The amount of times I have been "highly insulted" by you in a similar fashion makes my comment pretty tame I think. Demanding something of a candidate for OTRS that they really don't need to have is unhelpful to the process and makes it even more stressful unnecessarily. It's alright for you - you've said you'd not request it, but if you did you'd sail through without any problems. Majorly ^talk 13:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why the ease with which you think I would get something I do not want is relevant to this. Those of us who do not know enough about OTRS I would have hoped would have been helped by those who do. Maybe not. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because you are one of the people who make this process more difficult than it needs to be. I've said what I need to say about this: Commons experience != suitable for permissions, though of course experience there is helpful. Majorly ^talk 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So logically Giggy and I as Commons 'crats might have something of use to say. I was unaware that I was one of the people who make this process more difficult than it needs to be. That would certainly worry me.--Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Gentlemen (and ladies, possibly), can we please keep this discussion on topic? As an aside, Majorly, I know for a fact that there are those whose experience with Herby is such that they consider him to be a significant factor in the solution and not the problem. So while I do not deny, or mean to minimize, any issues you may have with Herby, theer are plenty whose interactions with him have been completely positive and beneficial to the project. Just as with you. We're all human, please remember that. -- Avi 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Majorly ^talk 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that means I get another dan in "circumlocutory diploma-speak" . So please concentrate my first sentence, and let's have you and Herby hash out your disagreements on a side page. -- Avi 15:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I am clueless on the workings of the OTRS process (I, erm, don't deny that I don't have access...), so could someone please explain to me why it's a good idea to have people with no Commons experience working permissions? Thanks. :-) —Giggy 01:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I had precisely 2 edits to commons before I joined OTRS (and those two edits were only to leave a note on my user page and talk page). Now, I've got over 200 (all of which are permissions related, except for maybe less than 10). Permissions isn't brain surgery - if somebody knows about licensing, then they shouldn't have many problems. - Rjd0060 01:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

...and we're a pretty helpful bunch, always helping out the noobies. :-) We also have some guides (with some forceful clues on what not to "O.K.") that are useful. Cbrown1023 talk 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

... that too :-) - Rjd0060 03:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Something that simple goes a long way. :-) —Giggy 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like permissions is fun to work at and for a really good cause. I think I should go and have another shot at OTRS because I'm sure some images that OTRS permissions handle can be useful to Wikispecies. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

← go submit an application, then. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhg

Why are people using those stupid discussion templates now (e.g. {{comment}} ? John Reaves (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they're under the (mistaken) impression that this is some sort of a vote or votelike process. - jredmond 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment yeah, that's lame. JzG 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I Oppose them on the page, I'd definitely Support asking users not to use them, and I'm Neutral on removing them from already existing comments. - Rjd0060 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why are people making such a fuss? If people want to use templates, let them. At least they're not Support or Oppose. We use Comment on global rights requests for stewards, so I don't see why we can't use a template here if we want. Really, what a fuss over nothing. Majorly ^talk 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been attacked!. John Reaves (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

On a serious note, they just seem excessive and people are bound to feel obligated to using them, making it seem like a subliminal construction creep issue. John Reaves (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to be different by using the "More info needed" template. Did I fail? NonvocalScream 01:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Applying for a specific queue

Admins coming in these days from it.wiki have been asked to volunteer to help with Italian Permissions'queue, which was over 150 tickets I think. It is not the case now, but people could have not endorsed them if they had to have access also to Info's queue (due to our effort to "select" very trustworthy and experienced users for that). It may also happen that someone does not want to help with that queue for any reasons, so it is not useful to give him/her an access that will not be used. Maybe the page should also contain a parameter Which queue are you applying for. --Elitre 10:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe 4 years late, but  Done ;) The Helpful One 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Voting

I encourage all regulars to please reconsider the voting style remarks such as "oppose" "support" "endorse" et cetera. We want volunteers. It would not be preferable to scare them away by turning this into a fearful or embarrassing area for a candidate. Best regards, NonvocalScream 01:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of permissions?

Where do I go if I want my permissions revoked? --Gutza 20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whenever one wants his or hers own permissions revoked, one would normally place a request at otrswiki:Administrator requests. I would like to know why you want your permissions revoked though :-). Would you mind explaining it on IRC, e-mail, on OTRS-wiki or here before I deregister you? m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 20:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Age

Can I just ask, is the apparent need to say how old you are a legal thing or a trust thing? I'm just interested, given the amount of bytes devoted to the whole topic ageism at the English Wikipedia. Jarry1250 15:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A trust thing I expect, since there have been several users on OTRS under the age of majority. Though much of OTRS is template-based replies, it does require a certain degree of professionalism, which people who are not adults are unlikely to have, but there are many exceptions. Majorly talk 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Having 10,000s of edits on anti-vandalism, having been complimented on keeping my cool, and being familiar with customer support, I was about to volunteer when I ran in to the request for my age. I don't really mind telling someone -- it wouldn't be that difficult to figure out from my edits -- but it's confidential information that could easily enough be viewed. May I suggest that number of years on Wiki without being blocked is more significant? Regards, Piano non troppo[5] 13:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You email your age, you don't put it on your application. It would obviously be kept confidential. I disagree years of wiki without being blocked to be more significant, considering how easily some trigger finger admins like to block others. Majorly talk 14:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves, the "strong recommendation" a while back was that candidates be over the age of sixteen. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. Tiptoety ^talk 09:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

16: Requirement or recommendation?

Would love to help, but before even thinking about applying: Do you have to be over 16, or is it just a recommendation? And if it is a '16 or over' system, why? Surely each application should be judged on its individual merits and demerits, not by a factor that cannot be changed by the editor, something which they have no control over whatsoever - unlike temperament,maturity,civility or general conduct? Acather96 talk 19:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while now, any response would be appreciated :) Acather96 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In the past, people under 16 have occasionally been accepted; but there is logic behind this requirement. For OTRS, because it is very much customer-service based, it is expected that respondants have sufficient life and Wiki experience. So although it has happened in the past, being 16 or over is desirable for professional interactions with the general public. PeterSymonds 16:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Babel boxes

moved from an application

• Question: - Do you have any proficiency in other languages? Can you please mark your language proficiencies, and/or lack thereof, using babelboxes, at your userpages here at Meta and also on Commons? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  I notice that you often ask applicants to do that (add babel boxes on their userpages). That's really unnecessary. Most applicants already indicate their language proficiencies in their application. guillom 15:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No reason why not to do it. It is what the babelboxes are intended to be used for. And especially so on projects that are multipurpose and intended as collaborative for users incoming from multiple different language wikis, such as here at Meta and at Wikimedia Commons. And even moreso helpful for other users to easily be able to find this on userpages of those who state a desire to help out in this particular added capacity. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, Cirt, he said that he want to respond WMUK mails. I don't believe someone will ask in the WMUK queue in another language than English. Béria Lima ^msg 08:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it harms the project in any way to get an actual answer to my question from the individual that I posed it to, as opposed to others answering for him, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You're free to pose questions on people's talk page, and they're free to answer them or not; it's not related to their OTRS application. By posing your questions and request of babel boxes as comments on people's application, you seem to imply the two are related, which they are not. OTRS administrators already ask applicants about their language proficiencies with the application template, and they're perfectly happy with it. guillom 05:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Also, respectfully disagree that this was "irrelevant" and should not have been moved to the talk page. However, I will defer to the judgment of Guillom (talk · contribs), and in the future, I will pose language-related questions to the candidates' user talk pages. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A note about the volunteering page

I've noticed an uptick in questions for volunteer applicants and support/opposition statements from other Wikimedians on the volunteering page.

Access to OTRS is granted by the admins at our discretion, sometimes with brief private discussion, sometimes prolonged discussion, and sometimes with no discussion. It is appreciated that others can contribute their views on the merits of a volunteer in answering emails. We read the page and process after extensive review, which does include these comments. What we need to remember is that OTRS is a different city from the other Wikimedia projects. We don't have up down votes, consensus, or a general policy about acceptance other than being at least sixteen years of age. Questions about experience in controversial topics and/or content does not necessarily relate to OTRS effectiveness.

Consumer relations is what OTRS is about. This can be measured by experience in working with new users and strangers to Wikimedia that took the time to participate when they don't know how to on-wiki (or sometimes do, to ill ends). It's talking to the outside world, and has little regard to internal politics and debate experience. Additionally, while we wave the scary finger about applying it is for good reason: people burn out. If you don't, you're not answering enough tickets :) . The demon is in the volume versus cost of investment, not the nastiness that relatively very few emails contain. Tickets can take months of emails to respond to until conclusion when on-wiki you could have made 5,000 edits.

Long story short: let's keep this page succinct. Keegan 05:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Identification to the Foundation

Currently OTRS members do not need to provide identification am I right? So I think it is time to remove 'Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, or willing to identify if your account is approved, per the access to nonpublic data policy'.--Bencmq 15:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a bad idea. "Willing to identify" is probably the right current requirement, because if identification is required, then they must change their minds or resign. Better to only select users who are willing to meet future/proposed requirements when it comes to that. Jclemens 18:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I suggested the change was that many would believe it is the current requirement. Maybe change it to 'willing to identify if required' would clear the confusion. But yes. It wound't do any bad to leave it as it is. --Bencmq 06:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. It was saying "identified" because for a little bit, users were required to identify. That little change has been undone, so they just have to be "willing to identify", if it's necessary at a later date. Thanks! Cbrown1023 talk 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder...

...The page is starting to look a bit like RFA candidacies. I believe it turns up the heat and this may not be such a good thing. NonvocalScream 03:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

UK OTRS workshop

Hey. If you would be interested in participating in a UK-based OTRS workshop, then please sign up at wmuk:OTRS workshop. Thanks. Mike Peel 23:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo antispam

What is the point in making e-mail harder to copy? Every single decent spambot indexed it years ago, now it is only irritating Bulwersator (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you really need to copy the @wikimedia.org part? If you can't remember that you may have larger problems. Also, your argument might apply to older email addresses but OTRS does come up with new aliases or email addresses from time to time. Killiondude (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be nice if the e-mail addresses could be clickable for logged-in users (or autoconfirmed users, at least). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, filed bugzilla:40347 ("Implement ability to safely link e-mail addresses"). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

CAN YOU STOP BEING SO HELPFUL. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Make me. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)