Talk:Volunteer Response Team/Volunteering/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Optional and required info?

Re [2].

*'''languages:''' Zulu, English-3, Inuit-3, and Sinhala-2
*'''Email sent''': Yes

*'''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)[reply]
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)[reply]
*'''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

*'''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)[reply]

Optional and required info?

Re [3].

*'''languages:''' Zulu, English-3, Inuit-3, and Sinhala-2
*'''Email sent''': Yes

*'''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)[reply]
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)[reply]
*'''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

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

Age Requirement?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't see any glaring flaws in that; unless the admins voice an opinion contrary. Rudget. 18:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. If I gave the impression that I believed otherwise, it was a mistake. - Rjd0060 18:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Depreciated? Majorly talk 00:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • no way - the "process" lacks transparency as it is, it must not become more hidden. --Herby talk thyme 07:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(<-)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)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean. Majorly talk 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that means I get another dan in "circumlocutory diploma-speak" Face-smile.svg. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
... that too :-) - Rjd0060 03:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Something that simple goes a long way. :-) —Giggy 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
← go submit an application, then. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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)[reply]
Comment Comment yeah, that's lame. JzG 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I Oppose Oppose them on the page, I'd definitely Support Support asking users not to use them, and I'm Neutral Neutral on removing them from already existing comments. - Rjd0060 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Why are people making such a fuss? If people want to use templates, let them. At least they're not Support Support or Oppose Oppose. We use Comment 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • I tried to be different by using the "More info needed" template. Did I fail? NonvocalScream 01:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applying for a specific queue

Admins coming in these days from 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)[reply]

Maybe 4 years late, but Yes check.svg Done ;) The Helpful One 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Removal of permissions?

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If memory serves, the "strong recommendation" a while back was that candidates be over the age of sixteen. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Tiptoety talk 09:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Babel boxes

moved from an application

  • Question 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes check.svg 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do you really need to copy the 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, filed bugzilla:40347 ("Implement ability to safely link e-mail addresses"). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CAN YOU STOP BEING SO HELPFUL. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make me. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Comments" on prospective OTRS helpers

The instruction on the OTRS page is to take this to the talk page so I'll do just that. Since I started on here a while back it has been absolutely clear that OTRS issues were not a vote at all. However I do not recall having comments removed before. It is quite easy to provide diffs for unhelpful behaviour I imagine. However if you have worked alongside a project member for some years providing diffs for helpful behaviour is plain bloody silly.

This is not the way to make the community feel involved. I am sure that OTRS personnel are quite at liberty to ignore comments. Removing them is simply a disincentive to involvement. I rarely bother feeling strongly about stuff - life is too short - this I feel strongly about. --Herby talk thyme 16:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and at present the removals look to me remarkably selective - mine and at least one other have gone - others remain. --Herby talk thyme 16:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving my comment from the main page to discuss.– Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
As an aside, are we really not doing these any more? (Herby pointed to the history where a bunch of comments were removed.) They seem like they would be useful - esp. if 99of9 has no advanced tools on, a statement from an admin there that he knows what he's doing seems like the kind of input that you'd want to consider. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
End moved comment. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I have a lot of concerns with this:
  1. First, I don't understand the idea that these comments can't be helpful. If someone is applying for advanced permissions, particularly when they're not administrators, that will lead to them taking on a quasi-official role on their project, of course it's important to know that the people on their project trust them. This is pretty useful knowledge to have about people who will be colleagues of the active OTRS agents - it's nice, as an existing agent, to know that people have their back, and it's useful to think they have some clue. Now, I get the argument that "well, OTRS admins check things really really carefully so this doesn't actually add anything", but this seems to assume that OTRS admins are going to be right 100 percent of the time and never miss anything. That's never going to be the case: OTRS admins are human. Even if they were, in fact, ubermenschen incapable of making an incorrect call or accidentally blink-and-missing evidence of untrustworthiness (or trustworthiness) - what harm does leaving these comments do? I'm slightly sceptical about weighing "it takes marginally longer to read the page" as more important than the obvious drama that a silent change like this has created (and will create).
  2. It seems very hit-and-miss. As Herbythyme has pointed out above, even if we move any theoretical objections to one side, some merely supportive comments have been removed while others ("Endorse for all. Clueful user" - no offence meant, Philosopher) have been left. The actual implementation has been non-optimal to say the least.
  3. I'm uncomfortable with how this decision was made; it seems to be an internal OTRS admins decision of "we are going to silently make this change without consulting anyone". As said, I find it useful knowledge and something I am concerned about knowing as an agent - it's not a purely administrative decision. Cutting these things out also impacts on candidates, the actual communities we serve, and the respondents who do the work, and I'm saddened to not see any of those groups consulted about the decision.
  4. Rjd, as an aside: please do not try and have conversations in edit summaries. It's completely unconductive to resolving a situation and contrary to the decorum on enwiki, at least, since it makes it hard to actively chip in. if you thought the comments weren't appropriate you should have sat down and explained why, not invited the person you're disputing to do the heavy lifting. You don't have an excuse - you're from a wiki where this attitude is taken. Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this policy continues to be implemented, I plan to stop commenting on OTRS nominations and unwatchlist this page. Basically per Ironholds, and because I don't have the time to find diffs of good behavior. I thought that the idea of commenting was to help the OTRS admins get a good perspective of how the community views the candidate, which I understand isn't the overriding factor, but which can be helpful. --Rschen7754 17:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be kinda weird if folk did bother to comment - almost the definition of pointlessness... (& I fully agree with your thoughts) --Herby talk thyme 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues above. While empty supportive comments aren't helpful, a well-considered comment from somebody who knows the candidate well on their home wiki—such as those by Herby—or from an experienced OTRS agent is something that OTRS admins should give serious consideration. I very rarely venture over to Meta, and have email alerts set up for this page because I thought that my input on prospective agents might be useful. If it's not, then I can unwatchlist this page, which would makes my inbox that bit less busy, but it would be disappointing and somewhat worrying to hear that OTRS admins value only their own opinions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The instructions say to "comment"; in the history I checked RJD removed quite extensive comments, with pertinent information to help make a decision, rather than "me too" supports. As noted this isn't a vote, but that has always been taken to mean "you can comment for or against but the final decision will not depend on numbers". And, ultimately, I fail to see the point of removing comments... --ErrantX (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depending on who is giving the blank support, it can be helpful. Obviously it isn't a vote, but if a few generally trusted users and current OTRS volunteers show up at a request and mention that they think the candidate would be good (even with just a simple support and sign), then that should provide the admins with some sense of the candidate's competency. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for bringing this up, Herby. I know of someone who was rejected twice without getting an explanation of the OTRS admins. I always felt this whole "election" was not democratic at all. I mean, the OTRS admins decide, no matter what the community writes here down and we never hear who was given the rights either (unless you have OTRS access yourself). I'd support a different way of electing people, more or less the same as deWP does (electing privately -- on the OTRS wiki and list?) for example. Trijnsteltalk 22:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trijnstel, the difference between OTRS and all other projects is that working in the mail room is a job application. Being accepted is actually a job sorting the Wikimedia Foundation's mail. It's not what we see on our wikis; it has access to extraordinarily sensitive information from both correspondents and respondents. It's not the normal volunteer position on Wikimedia.
  • In passing I'd be interested to know why de and nl queues can have their own choosing system while others can't. Are they special? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That system is historical from when OTRS was first set up and funded by WMDE. The German and Netherlands were set separated from other queues at that time. This is in part because OTRS was initially set up to process general information, but more importantly chapter emails. Keegan (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I generally never saw the benefit of the current system. Consensus works well on most wikis, I observe (ArbCom on en only began choosing CU/OS again since secret balloting produced erratic results: even merely voting ended up with satisfactory conclusions), and I assume that it won't necessarily fail even if implemented in the selection of OTRS volunteers. -- Mentifisto 23:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that empty support/oppose comments are useless, but per Herby I think OTRS admins could at least thank founded support comments such the ones that have been recently removed as it is also a way to demonstrate a user is valuable for the job (& the same with founded opposes, tho). Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly agree with Herby. While the content of OTRS should always remain private, it's not normal that decisions around it (for example, people having access to it) are not made public. The current system clearly lacks of transparency. I was rejected twice by the same OTRS administrator, who simply removed my candidacy and sent me an automatic mail. Any reason ? I don't know, they told me it's something "private"... Meanwhile, I'm a steward who can't access his full toolset, because OTRS admin decided that I should not see and reply to mails sent to stewards... -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't like the way these processes happen. OTRS admins can ignore everything that is said on discussion or anywhere and make their call by themselves. That seems to be a regular procedure. So, if decision it totally up to OTRS admins, I am not surprised to see a comment removed. They could completely ignore this present discussion as there seems to be these weird OTRS rules that allow them to ignore the rest of the wiki community. I don't understand why people are so surprised. For some reason I don't know, this is the part of the wiki that has nothing to do with wiki. A small group of sysops can decide whatever they want without the need of explaining the reason to anybody but themselves, if anybody. And 'privacy' is not the excuse for not giving an explanation of actions as a lot can be said without revealing privacy information.
    If we take as an example Quentin's submission, which was denied twice by the same person with not a single reason, it is clear that community input can be totally useless if admins want so. So, we have this weird situation on which a steward, which is undoubtely trusted by global community, can't have access to stewards' queue, which is part of stewards' tools. If OTRS admins really had enough reasons for denying Quentin's access, we have serious problem for having such a problematic steward with all access this tool provide. Maybe these rules where intended to stop trolls, etc, from bring disruption to this process. Maybe that initial purpose was forgotten and admins are using it to prevent trusted users to participate.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 23:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 24 hours on

I can't help feeling that for a part of the project which requires a high quality of communication in its volunteers it is simply remarkable (& very sad indeed) that no one from OTRS has turned up to say anything at all about this. Sadly this whole thing does not enhance the reputation of this process to me (& apparently I am not the only one who feels like this). Whatever else the "rules" regarding this process which appear transient/random should be properly clarified. The alternative is to remove what this quasi secretive process about finding those with good communication skills from the on wiki aspect if that is want the team wants. --Herby talk thyme 15:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Quite frankly, I don't know why nobody has commented yet. Perhaps real-life obligations, I don't know. I've not received much response via email either. Patience is a virtue. However, I will summarize and say the following. This is speaking from my own personal view. There was a brief chat amongst the admins about the usefulness of some of the comments to the page. There was a general consensus. I enacted on that (twice). Note that in the past (going back years), similar has been done. It was just rarely enforced - only when comments started piling on. Since I removed the comments, and people started objecting, I've received almost no input from other admins. I can only assume that it will come at some point.
Of course, I'm happy to hear any comments about any user who applies. Any information could be helpful. The page says to "... please give comments, diffs, or ask questions that may help the OTRS administrators become more familiar with the candidates..." People don't seem to see the that may help the OTRS administrators become more familiar with the candidates part. Comments like "Sure" or "Would be fine" or "Active user" do not particularly do this. If people would really like to leave the comments on, that's something that can happen - it is a wiki, and things change. I believe this whole situation escalated far too quickly. It is a possibility that the discussion was not as in-depth as it should have been. My initial responses to the inquiries about this was that I'd poke and we'd get a clarified response posted here. Pending comment (for lack of a better term) from my colleagues, feel free to leave whatever comments you'd like but please do keep in mind that we are looking for examples of why user would (or wouldn't) be suitable for OTRS. This can include diffs, talk page conversations, etc.. As for the current applicants, they'll probably be processed within the next day or so at most. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine you are indirectly suggesting that my comments were not useful. Common courtesy suggests that communicating with me in a way other than through the edit summary (communication is what OTRS is about isn't it) would have been far far better.
Equally & I have nothing against the comment but Matanya's comment - "I support this request." is to me even less detailed than either of mine but was left - why? --Herby talk thyme 16:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed comments twice. Here and here. The latter of which left the page pretty much blank. The comments you are referring to were left after I had removed comments. I made this edit for an entirely different reason - the comments were not relating to the candidacy, but to the process thus better suited for a talk page. Apologies if you were offended by my use of edit summaries as a way of communication. Yes, perhaps other wikis are more apt to doing so and it was not meant to be rude. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rjd, I'm struggling to understand why comments such as Philospher's as noted by Ironholds above still remain on the page (and Sven's most recent ones). I'm sure you must have read the page since your last removals almost 48 hours ago, so it would appear to some that this is selective removal - unless you've stopped with the removals now? Thehelpfulone 16:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now why on earth would I continue when all of this is going on? :-) Of course it would not be productive and I've even invited comments in my reply to Herby above. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I note that while removing a comment of mine you left "Endorse for all. Clueful user." from Philosopher (again I have no issue with the comment myself). Again I would like to know explicitly what was wrong with my comments that is not wrong with other comments. If nothing else I and others may learn something useful. --Herby talk thyme 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered this, Herby. Here was the last time I removed comments. The comment you and others keep referring to was after that. Again, note the differences in the edit summaries in the the comment removals, and this edit where I removed comments that were not relating to the users application. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a politician? You are avoiding the question. You stated that there was agreement among you that some comments were not helpful and so you removed them (mine included). There are comments there now - one which existed before your last edit on the page - what qualitatively is the difference between my comments - removed and the other one which was left by you? --Herby talk thyme 17:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how to be more clear. So this will be my final attempt. I have stopped removing comments, when everybody started commenting here. That is why comments remain. I still have the same opinion on whether or not such comments should remain and that is no. However, it is not my wiki. I hope this helps clarify. If not, perhaps my colleagues will have more luck. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be pedantic. During an edit you left a comment which was simply "endorse" effectively around 20 minutes before I started this thread and certainly well before others comments on it according to the history of both main page and talk page. --Herby talk thyme 17:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rjd0060: I think what people are wanting here is a specific reason why those specific comments were removed. It's been indicated that the reason given was that the comments were "unhelpful"; perhaps you could elaborate on exactly how they were unhelpful. That seems to be what people are wanting here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally see him as answering that a few times now, though I might disagree with the reasoning. Herby, I'd say that continuing the line of questioning further isn't really beneficial - he has said, once this thread started he didn't remove any more. If twenty minutes before that there was a comment added, perhaps he was on the toilet or not online... there are any number of explanations, and hounding him over it doesn't seem like a productive continuation of this discussion. What the focus should be here is whether or not the removals were justified, and like most people I lean towards no, and would love to have a look at alternative methods of selecting OTRS volunteers. Can we move onto that? Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from a lone OTRS admin

Hi all. I apologize that more admins than just Rjd0060 have not responded to this thread in a timely manner. Speaking for myself I was in a different part of the state attending some career related training. Anyways, my thoughts on this discussion:

  • We as admins are not interested in silencing people from commenting on applicants. Instead, we do not want the OTRS volunteering page to turn into an RfA where people are simply giving their support or opposition, and like Rjd0060 said above comments like "Sure, looks good" do nothing to assist us in making a decision. The reason that this is done is that a large majority of users are not familiar with the work that OTRS respondents do, nor do they understand what qualities are looked for. With that, we do not want the volunteering page to turn into a popularity contest, or somewhere where people can bring their grudges from other projects. (I understand that there are a fair amount of people who do understand what OTRS does and know what are good qualities in candidates). Additionally, being that OTRS respondents are not elected, but selected, a "vote" does not help us in making our decisions.
  • Herby: I sincerely hope that you do not think we singled you out or targeted your post. While I was not aware of exactly what posts Rjd0060 was planning on removing, I supported Rjd0060 in enforcing our rule on no voting. While it may be hard for you to do, I ask that you assume good faith and next time you are welcome to shoot us an email (OTRS admins mailing list).
  • Understandably, many people feel that the selection of candidates is not transparent. And in all honesty, it is not. The reason this is done is because of the potential for abuse. Given that respondents provide their real names (and often list them on the OTRS-wiki), deal with privacy matters in emails, and represent the foundation in one of the most public ways possible we feel that it is necessary to be selective with regards to respondents. In essence, it is like interviewing for a job. The person's possible co-workers do not get to select candidates, but instead a select group of users who were chosen to make the selections.

Best, Tiptoety talk 22:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - however maybe read stuff through. At no stage did I vote on anything - I offered comments on people I've known and worked with for quite some time. The page suggests that, I've done that before and they have never been removed. And with great respect to those posting here I'm guessing I have edited more on Meta for longer than most others... --Herby talk thyme 12:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your characterization is misleading, Tiptoety. The comments removed were not of general support, most of them are very specific as to why the candidate would be good for OTRS. Please do read the diff: [6] and let me know where this voting has taken place. Snowolf How can I help? 12:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my comments were misleading. I was referring to the general concept of removing votes, and was not specifically addressing the posts that Rjd0060 had removed. I have looked at the diff Snowolf, matter of fact I have looked at it three times. As I mentioned above, I merely supported upholding the policy of removing votes and did not specifically state what votes I wanted to see removed. As such, I can not speak for Rjd0060 or why he removed what he did. That said, with respect to Herby's comment, I would have liked to have seen some diffs, or a more specific statement as to why INeverCry is an excellent candidate. While I know and greatly trust Herby's judgement and know him to be a long time Wikimedian, I am still ultimately the one whose name is attached to accepting or declining the request and I do not feel a good argument for doing so is that a trusted user said "excellent candidate." Maybe it would be helpful if it was made more clear as to what is considered a vote and what is considered a comment? Tiptoety talk 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and my comment was just a comment. It can safely be ignored. However it should not be deleted... And back to an earlier point - change the header to remove "comments" as being required/clarify/whatever - it will save folk being pissed off and getting more so in the future. There are still comments there - why...
Providing diffs for good behaviour seems very en wp to me and will ensure I have nothing to do with it. If I could provide simply one diff of good behaviour I would not comment and it would worry me if I could only provide one. --Herby talk thyme 16:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from another OTRS admin

Sorry for the delay, Herby, but in the thirty hours that this has been in discussion I've been at work for 20 of them. The rest of the time was obviously eating and sleeping, and I have a job that doesn't pertain to having the internet handy. So my apologies in delay.

I echo RjD0060 and Tiptoety's comments, as well as addressing Nihonjoe's question from my personal perspective of why comments aren't particularly helpful for OTRS application processing, as well as when they are helpful.

Let's start with the positive: when they are helpful. This particularly applies to queues where we do not have OTRS admins as community members. This is basically every queue that is not English based, Sister projects in general, German, and Italian. In these cases, which are often, the comments are quite useful. Another instance of useful comments is when you can give an example of how a user has a track record of knowing privacy, mature communication, and collaboration that are not inherently apparent when looking at the applicant. The user might have a great track record at a help desk or some other method of assisting people that may be lost in the clutter of contribution histories.

What is unhelpful is comments that are not providing anything above, particular positive "pat on the back" type comments no matter how long or short they may be. This can cause problems when an application is not approved. Rejections happen about as frequency of approval, with many of the applications receiving comments of support that did not provide anything to help us decide. Now, this is going to sound silly, I used to think it was until I started processing applications: That is fluff that harms the applicant because it increases their expectations of our approval. On every other Wikimedia projects, positive comments are net positives. On OTRS, they are not "counted" whether that is a vote or a !vote. It's not a community consensus model. OTRS is not a wiki and does not function as so; it's the Wikimedia Foundation's mail room.

We do not take rejecting an application easily, it is never a flippant or uncaring choice. We're all volunteers, and we all want participants in Wikimedia for further their ability to help do this. Processing a user into OTRS is allowing them into the most private space that we, collectively, have as Wikimedians. We're handing over a set of keys to very sensitive emails, personal detail in emails, as well as personal information about fellow Wikimedians that, in turn, trust us not to let any one that doesn't qualify, and that doesn't even begin to touch on a volunteer's capacity to do the job as well. That is an entirely different and as extensive aspect of review. There is a lot to look for, and there is little to be able to explain when we reject an application because of this.

In summary: if you have a comment that is genuinely insightful to the candidate's qualifications that we might miss in review, by all means point it our here on meta or email the OTRS admins. Same goes for the negative. If the user is active with Account Creation, or Article Rescue, or on IRC helping people, or (fill in the blank stand out contributions), we will see it. Same goes for the negative.

Most all of you know I'm always reachable by email, I'm fairly timely in my replies, and I'd be more than happy to answer any further questions here, on my talk page, or privately. Keegan (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that people don't know what you check. What do the OTRS admins look at in particular? What is likely to be missed - blocks? ArbCom cases? desysoppings? etc. Secondly, the issue of permission-associated queues (oversight-en-wp, arbcom-en-wp, stewards for example) Is the decision by OTRS admins not to give people in those roles access to those queues a decision that OTRS admins should be making? --Rschen7754 07:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block logs, ArbCom, desysop, those are generally to be checked. I have to caveat that it may be missed, because I'm speaking both for myself and in general. I look at talk pages, contribution space and how it is distributed and why. For example, Rschen7754, I may look at your balance and see where discussion focus is outside of the mainspace and how it relates to effective communication and why you are participating in the conversation. Is it to help, and is it informative? That sort of thing.
With that, these very things that may clue is in for suit might be lacking without an appropriate comment. A user can have a great track record with Wikimedians, or non-Wikimedians just trying to edit, and on the flip-side can't help a non-Wikimedian or a Wikimedian; an OTRS agent needs to be able to do both of these responses. These are little things that can be pointed out to us that will aid in processing the application.
  • Generally, we receive the negatives by private contact, not on meta. Keegan (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to read this properly before I comment more however I have certainly always emailed any concerns in the past. As it stands - from the behaviour here in the past couple of days - it is very unlikely I'll bother in the future. Being allowed to think comments are pointless makes you think comments are pointless. --Herby talk thyme 09:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the flip side of the coin, flat out removing comments discourages people from commenting at all, regardless of whatever they have to say. I'm now very reluctant to comment at all on nominations, if I do at all, because I never will know if the OTRS admins will remove my comments since they view them as inappropriate, or more importantly, remove or not grant my access to certain queues because of my "inappropriate" comments (which, in an opaque system such as OTRS could happen, since on the admin log all the explanation we ever get is "per otrs-admins and ticket #20132432432433423". --Rschen7754 09:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for otrs-en-wp, arbcom-en-wp, and stewards, that is a separate issue. Arbcom and Stewards queue are historic in all but practice; they were set up when OTRS was new and expected to process everything email related. The retention of private mailing lists and wikis have negated this, and it wouldn't surprise me if we shut down those queues eventually. Oversight-en-wp is a queue/role that I promoted to using OTRS, as its function is suited for OTRS. Accounts with oversight flag on the English Wikipedia get an account on the OTRS-wiki because that's the workspace for the templates and reference. Keegan (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not spread false information. Arbcom and Stewards queue are historic in all but practice. Snowolf How can I help? 09:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Send an email to the steward OTRS queue at" - from Oversight policy
Billinghurst modified the global block on (expires 05:51, 12 January 2014) with the following comment: Cross-wiki spam: Amazon Web Services - Service has been used for trojan/spam attacks - Little or no good edits - Please email stewards(_AT_) if you are affected by this block. Special:Log/Billinghurst
I wonder how essential the stewards queue is. But regardless, as an elected steward, oversighter, chapter member, staff, or ArbCom member, you are entitled to access to your respective queue, and it is not the place of OTRS admins to decide to overrule the respective communities. --Rschen7754 10:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was also a bit concerned by the issue described in the emails sent to otrs-en-l on January 10 at 11:01 AM Pacific - something like that should be communicated a little bit better with the respective teams, rather than leaving us to guess what's happening with the tickets - that way we can be more effective in handling the situation. (Sorry for being a bit vague as this is a public forum - I would be willing to clarify to subscribers of the list on request). --Rschen7754 10:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it

To me, there's a fundamental problem with self-appointing bodies that perpetuate in eternity. There's plenty of bodies that handle matters confidentially and that at times cannot give public answers. However, the OTRS admins are the only one that I can think of of some significance that is self-appointing and doesn't provide its reasoning for any decision, ever, even to the directly interested individual. The OTRS system exists to support the Wikimedia Foundation, the Wikimedia community and the Wikimedia projects. All of that is based on our open wiki model of anybody being able to edit everything, to a point. It is the beauty of this system that has drawn volunteers from all over the world to contribute their time and efforts to the Wikimedia projects. It's already bad enough, that for understandable reasons, decision cannot be made publicly, but it should be an individual applicant's right to know why his application has been denied. That is a basic principle of any fair system. The OTRS application system as it stands right now, is not fair. There is no major harm in the community not knowing whether a user's application has been denied or granted and most certainly it is a basic right that one be told why his application has been denied. This is not a job interview, and if that's your mindset, I suggest that you start paying the volunteers who donate their time. We are volunteers, and we are doing this of our own free will and sense of service. To be treated with a modicum of decency is not to ask too much, it is to ask for the bare minimum.

On the specific matter of the steward queue, we consider it an integral part of our toolset and it is frequently used. It is not up to the OTRS admins to decide what constitute our toolset and it is certainly not within their rights to falsely state that our queue is historical. It is most definitively not and I protest this false allegation.

Snowolf How can I help? 10:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowolf, you bring up some solid points, and I agree that it is worth discussing providing unsuccessful candidates with a brief summary as to why their candidacy is not successful. I will say that the reason we have generally abstained from doing so is to prevent a debate amongst those who we decline. That said, I have on some occasions provided a short reason behind my decision and have never had any issues.
As for the Stewards queue, it was the Stewards who requested that their be a queue set up on the OTRS interface. As such, OTRS still maintains control over that queue and can regulate who has access to the interface and the wiki. Should you wish to maintain a mailing list, that would be something different. I see nowhere that says "upon being granted the Steward tools all Stewards will be given access to the Stewards OTRS queue." Tiptoety talk 15:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect I have to disagree. Folks from de/fr/en/etc OS teams automatically gets access upon appointment (at least what I can see you know where), and I see nowhere that says at w:Wikipedia:Oversight that upon being granted OS all OS will be given access. To me this sounds like a blatant double standard. Are stewards so distrusted that can't be granted OTRS access to their queue to handle private requests directed to us? - Much OS requests we get are through OTRS. What's the reason behind that? Thanks in advance. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting point MarcoAurelio, and honestly I had never thought about it that way before. If I remember correctly, the way we do it now was based on an agreement reached between the Stewards who originally requested the queue and the OTRS admins, but I could be mistaken. Let me poke some of the more senior admins and get back to you all about this. Thanks for your patience and understanding, Tiptoety talk 16:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it's easy. You let us know that from now on you accept every steward who applies solely for the steward OTRS queue. Because thát was what another OTRS admin (Daniel) promised to us years ago. "Just email the otrs-admins and tell them that you are a steward and you want to get access to that queue." Trijnsteltalk 23:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the stewards queue issue has been completely blown out of proportion, honestly. Access has never been given to OTRS "just for the stewards queue" and this is not something that the OTRS administrators decided unilaterally. It's either something that came about mutually when the queue was created or something that the stewards involved with the creation mentioned themselves, I honestly don't remember which. The reasoning behind it was that there really was no reason to have OTRS access just for the stewards queue, because the queue just was not that busy and there was no need for tons of helpers because many of the stewards already had general OTRS access. The stewards queue is still not particularly busy with their only having been 500 tickets in its 2200 day (6 year) history. The last 25 tickets go back 35 days.
The scope of the steward role has obviously changed over these last six years, so it is quite possible that there is more of a need for the queue in the daily life of a steward (e.g. because there are now global blocks and locks which can't be handled on-wiki). In that case, the stewards can point that out to the OTRS admins and request that all stewards be given accounts because they changed their minds and decided it. While this just my opinion, I think it's very likely we'd be fine with this and create accounts just with access to the stewards queue if the stewards as a group discussed and requested it. Unless something like this happened though, an account would not be created "just for the stewards queue" because the previous procedure would rule. We let groups run their own queues for the most part, so we would have no idea that the stewards queue was being used for more things and that you guys wanted more agents. It's obvious that there are clear communication issues on both sides that have just blown up the issue and turned it into something that it isn't. Cbrown1023 talk 07:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't believe that a request like the one that Quentin made, that was denied twice, would be so easily accepted only by having a request from stewards. Quentin's access must have been denied by truly serious reasons that a simple request from stewards would not be enough. If all that was needed was a request from the group, why it was never said to stewards?
A request like this should go without saying. It is quite obvious that stewards would support that all stewards have access to something that is part of their tools. I have no doubt that all stewards will support that as soon as they are aware of its need. It is hard to believe that it was not done only because of some kind of old procedure rule. However, I hope you are right and we can solve this issue very easily.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 08:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's best not to talk about specific users, because, like with HR in real companies, that information is usually kept private. So I would hope that you would assume good faith and that there are good reasons for Quentin to not have access, a good amount of which has come up in his RFAs and on his application. If he really wants to make all of it public, then I can ask the other OTRS administrators if they think we should make some of the feedback we received public.
Speaking more generally though, it's important to remember that OTRS work occupies a special place in between local communities and the global community/Foundation and does not really fit directly into either. OTRS agents have to be in good standing on their home wikis and also in the global community/with the Foundation. The work often crosses these boundaries, dealing with real people and on-wiki articles, as well as Foundation-level stuff. It would be very awkward if someone who is not well trusted on the French Wikipedia, for example, started answering tickets on info-fr and made promises to customers that they could not keep or tried to demand that local administrators do something for them. As I said earlier, the stewards queue on OTRS was not active enough that it was necessary for accounts to be created for users that would not participate on other queues. If the stewards decide that they would like to change this and make it so any steward can be given access only to the steward queue, then that will probably be fine. While we think it's not necessary, it's not really up to us to decide, because it is your queue, after all. It's your queue to do what you want and staff with whomever you decide to, even people we do not think are suitable for the Wikimedia Foundation's customer service team.
We really aren't being bad guys here — there's no vendetta against anyone or distrust for stewards in general. I wouldn't go so far as to say a misrepresentation, but it definitely appears that there has been a miscommunication going here. I hope things are clearer and we're starting to move past it. Cbrown1023 talk 18:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If the stewards decide that they would like to change this and make it so any steward can be given access only to the steward queue, then that will probably be fine." I am then formally saying that we feel any steward who asks for it should be granted access to the steward queue, be it his only queue. Snowolf How can I help? 18:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1[7]. No need to say more here I think, other than that I disagree with most of the things Cbrown1023 said here. Trijnsteltalk 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you guys are (understandably, since you're obviously frustrated) ascribing to cabalism what is more likely to be due to inertia. That is, it's less likely that the OTRS admins are secretly conspiring to keep the Stewards from their due rights because [insert evil laugh], than it is that they've not given Stewards-queue-only access up until now because, well, they've never given Stewards-queue-only access up until now, and it didn't really occur to them to change that until people started raising a ruckus about it this week. Any chance we could tone down the frustration and give them a chance to make the change, now that they know people want it made? Fluffernutter (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's not true. I know that the OTRS admins gave solely access to the stewards queue multiple times. Trijnsteltalk 22:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're either reading things wrong or you're blatantly lying, Trijnstel. There are currently two users on OTRS with access only to the Stewards queue of the 23 that have access to the queue. One gave up his access to the other queues but asked to keep his Steward access and I don't know the story with the other, it might have been that it was overlooked that he was only applying for Stewards he was accepted. Either way, one time is definitely not "multiple" and certainly not constructive.
I'm not really sure how you could "disagree with most of the things" that I said above, considering most of it is a description of what OTRS is. However, I'm really not interested in arguments; I'm just interested in fixing this problem so that we can move past it. Cbrown1023 talk 23:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Casey, I'm sorry but you need to assume some more good faith here. Instead of looking at the current situation, if you look at the admin logs, by my count I see 3 different accounts created in 2012 by 2 OTRS admins that were just given the access to the stewards queue, and another user in 2010 that was given access to only the stewards queue by a different admin. By my count that's 4 stewards given access to only the stewards queue by 3 different admins (I can give you the names/accounts offwiki if you'd like), which is "multiple". Thehelpfulone 00:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, THO. It appears there were a few more than I thought and you gave a more accurate count (the current one is not as helpful as the full number), though four is still not that many considering there have been almost 100 stewards. Anyway, you're right that I didn't do as good of a job at assuming good faith on Trijnstel's part. Someone discounting everything you say after you try to give a thought-out and constructive reply mess up your judgement a little I guess, and I apologize. Cbrown1023 talk 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rjd0060 has e-mailed Quentinv57 asking him for his information so that an account could be created for him. Could an existing steward people e-mail volunteers-otrs(_AT_) with a list of stewards who need accounts created on the system? In order to create their accounts, we need their username, e-mail address, and either their real name or a pseudonym with a first and last name that appears to be real. Thanks for your patience while we worked out this issue and I'm sorry for the communications issues we've all had. Cbrown1023 talk 04:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more than good for me. Thank you Cbrown and all admins for taking your time to comment here and provide a quick solution.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 05:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbrown1023, thank you for your collaboration. My apologies for my behaviour; it was inappropriate. I suggest that we wait with creating accounts for the rest of the stewards without OTRS access as the confirmations are coming soon. It's possible that some of them won't be confirmed and then it's a waste of time to ask for email addresses etc. But thanks again. :) I'll contact you when the new stewards are elected. With regards, Trijnsteltalk 21:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss cheese

Frankly most of what is said here by OTRS admins has more holes in than the average Swiss cheese. However as has been pointed out to me here and privately there is little to be gained trying to get folk to actually read and look at what has been said so I'll stop banging my head against the wall.

There are obvious and real concerns expressed here by members of the community whose work I have known and respected for quite some time. There is no denying this is not a transparent process nor does it pretend to be. (I love the phrase a select group of users who were chosen to make the selections but maybe that is my sense of humour).

The issue has to be for the future to ensure such a farce does not occur again as it really does leave people - many of whom are highly experienced, even more than some of the OTRS admins - annoyed, pissed off, disincentivised etc. Personally I would suggest that the page be blanked other than a note asking those interested to email OTRS period. The OTRS admins can then do all the research they see fit and decide. It is not simply about whether people have been blocked or not - I can happily point to people who have not but should be (IMHO) and vice versa so let the men in grey decide whose face fits and be done with. It is no secret that I feel from a Commons/copyright perspective that OTRS is barely fit for purpose as I've expressed that there so I am sure my comments will be treated as OTRS wish anyway. --Herby talk thyme 13:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the "logical" thing from that perspective is moving it all to private emails, but I for one would rather that the process be further opened, rather than the opposite. OTRS admins should welcome community input in the wiki way, rather than seek to limit it. We are all here for one reason, the building of a set of Wikis with various purpose, and it is sad when I see entrenched bureaucrats (not in the mediawiki sense of the term) forgetting what we're here for. The process should welcome community input, both in private and in public; the admins should write whether an application has been declined or accepted; the admins should provide the users who have been declined with the reasons they have been rejected, and allow them to discuss the matter in private. Sadly the comments above have made it clear that while there's a good amount of community dissatisfaction with the OTRS admin's work, the OTRS admins have no interest in taking criticism on board. Some of the people that have commented here are among the most dedicated and clueful people around in the Wikimedia movement, and the OTRS admins would do well to heed their advices and comments as well as provide them with answers, rather than vague and inaccurate statements given without taking 5 minutes to research the matter. They and the community in general deserves better. However it seems that for whatever reason, the OTRS admin have been behaving with the mindset that private should be the default condition, while the wiki way is quite the opposite. Anyway, while the OTRS admins are good editors and do good work, they seem to be in the wrong mindset when it comes to OTRS work and seem to feel they have the authority to override steward elections and don't feel any responsibility to allow users who have applied to OTRS to respond to the reasons they have been turned down for, so I am not sure that there's much that can be done thru discussion. I am very saddened by this turn of even, as somebody that joined this movement over 5 years ago precisely because of its promise of an Encyclopedia that anybody could edit. Snowolf How can I help? 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it should be opened up - wikis are and should be transparent. However the mindset involved is almost certain not to permit that from what I have seen over the years. --Herby talk thyme 14:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me (as a community member) that the process should be made more transparent, not less; that's the quick and reliable way to end this sort of anxiety, soul-searching, confusion, and miscommunication. There are other pros and cons that may balance out overall, but the broad-stroke long-term advantages of having no shadows for people to imagine conspiracies in are tremendous. I certainly can't imagine any reason why stewards wouldn't immediately be granted the access noted above; a second specific reason to move towards more openness. SJ talk  02:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does a support mean? Permissions issues are tricky.

Several people have quoted my recent "Clueful user" (itself a quote of Sven Manguard's comment to my earlier application). And they would rather have diffs. Understandable. But when it comes to permissions issues, there is nothing meaningful that can be said in a diff. Instead, general familiarity with the user is needed - so when I see someone applying for the permissions-commons queue and say "clueful user", I mean "I know from experience that this guy is unlikely to accept insufficient permissions tickets - I'd probably even support him for a Commons adminship." Mileage may vary with less visible and more generic queues such as the info queues, and perhaps (?) more detailed positive support is possible there, but for the permissions queues - where copyvios can be easily (and unintentionally) laundered behind an invalid OTRS tag - that general familiarity seems important to me. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sums up my views almost perfectly. What those of us who are actually familiar with candidates are saying to OTRS admins (who seem to be staying away in droves) is "we don't think you will be wasting your time looking in detail at this application".
3 days ago a simple "sorry we made a mistake" might well have done the trick but communications skills are about communicating. There must be clarified for the future. --Herby talk thyme 08:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Philosopher! I don't process applications as much anymore because of offline activities, but I've been around for a long time and used to do them quite a bit. This is my personal philosophy of how I look at comments.
Basically, anything you can summarize with one-word is usually not going to help me and is going to do more harm than good. This is something such as "Support. ~~~~", "Endorse. ~~~~", "Oppose. ~~~~", etc. — the stuff you'd find at an RFA. Not only do these not reveal anything about the user, they also encourage other users on the page to treat it like a vote, making it likely for the page to devolve into a bunch of people going down the page and giving useless "votes" like on RFA. That's not helpful, especially when the skill set for the two roles are different. Administrators perform administrative tasks on-wiki and OTRS agents process private e-mails off-wiki; one's a moderator/janitor and the other's a customer service representative. We've had plenty of candidates who do good jobs with administrative tasks and are very active on the projects, but their communication skills just aren't at the right level or don't fit the job description. OTRS agents often need a great deal of tact, level-headedness, and patience, something that very active admins sometimes do not heappen. As Keegan mentions, an RFA-like situation just fills the page up with useless comments and also leads to confusion and hurt feelings if it doesn't work out.
About the types of comments that are helpful: other people already mentioned diffs, but that's not really the only thing that's good in my book. Though they certainly exist, diffs are hard to find for "good behavior" and are usually used for "bad behavior". It's still possible to be specific without giving diffs though. For example, comments like "he does copyright cleanup on enwiki" and "most active admin" help because they let us know what they're active in/knowledgeable about and give us an area of their contributions to look at when evaluating. While statements such as "Endorse" or "I saw him once on IRC" are not helpful, something like "I've known him for years and trust him" or "he's very active in admin discussions on Commons and is very level-headed" is good, in my opinion. This is especially true when someone I trust is telling me that they know someone. You can also say that you've just seen him around a bit, but what you've seen has been promising because he shows attention to detail and probably won't accept an insufficient permission e-mail. Something that includes that much information is much more helpful than "clueful user" or "I've seen him on IRC before". Make it at least look like you spent more than three seconds thinking about the candidate before you posted so that your comments actually help me. ;-) I don't know your standard for clueful user, but if you explain your reasoning, then I see where you're coming from and understand your support.
I also want to end by saying that the "not a vote" guideline is nothing new. I remember seeing someone (I think it was you, but I'm not sure) say that they believed this was some new thing and wasn't the case when they recently joined OTRS. It's actually been mentioned on the page for years, it's just rarely enforced unless there's something completely blatant. The current cases were all what I'd consider borderline, which is probably why people took note.
Anyway, that's my two cents and doesn't necessarily speak for everyone else, though I'm sure most of them go through similar processes when evaluating comments and new applications. Cbrown1023 talk 06:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting however... It really does not explain at all the fact that comments that may be deemed unhelpful were left until this edit (I concur/endorse) despite earlier comments being removed. Consistency is completely lacking and no one seems interested in anything remotely close to an apology...
I still fail to see where there is a real relevance if diffs for folk someone has worked with for years and that has not be explained either.
I am sorry to say this but each posting from OTRS admins seems to skate around things and not actually answer specific queries and it is getting very annoying. --Herby talk thyme 21:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think Cbrown1023's comment was extremely useful, thanks! As for the comment, it was me, but I was referring to the apparent ban on comments, not the "not a vote" aspect. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update from the WMF

Hi everyone,
Although I haven't been actively participating in this discussion, I've been reading it with interest, and I want to thank everyone who participated. It's been a good, healthy debate on several topics, some of which were historical ways of operating; others, policies and processes. I think it has been a good example of what makes the Wikimedia communities unique and special, through deep, insightful debate.

I personally have reflected a lot on the role of the OTRS admin team, the role of the Foundation in the management of OTRS, and what the community's role in oversight is. Some of those reflections I've shared with the admin team. I know they've had a great deal of internal discussion about those same topics, as well, because I've been cc'd on some of them, and they demonstrate insightful and deliberate thought around tough issues.

The admin team is currently working on a statement, which I expect they'll issue relatively soon, which lays out some changes to process and some thoughts on how to move forward. I encourage you to read it with an open mind, and I think you'll be pleased. I'm mostly posting this note to tell you that a) they've got some changes to announce but b) they're not done writing yet, so please give them a little longer, and c) to thank you for your participation in this review of processes.

Thanks, everyone.
Philippe (WMF) (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know - I've been brainstorming a proposal, so it's good to know that I should wait a bit longer. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For transparency and accountability, something we're going to improve, I'm working on the post to Talk:OTRS. It will be ready shortly. Keegan (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


For those interested in statistical information relating to OTRS in 2012, please see OTRS/Reports/2012. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]