Talk:Volunteer Response Team/Archives/2016

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

Acting on behalf of copyright owner

I received email consent to license a photo under CC-SA 4.0. from the copyright holder. The owner specified they took the photo and own the copyright. Can I forward the email (with full headers, of course) to OTRS for verification? I this sufficient? The copyright owner is busy and I'd prefer not to have to ask them to email OTRS themselves. With thanks, Mrtea (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mrtea - yes, that is ok. A permissions agent will probably email him to confirm but you are free to forward the permissions along. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Though all info queues are mentioned, the Commons queue has been missed. Can this be added with some explanation to distinguish it from permissions-commons queues? Thanks -- (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Commons queue is mentioned with the other Sister project queues at OTRS#Sister projects. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I see the logo there now, I was searching for the text. An improvement would be to have a more accessible text list as well as a gallery of images, especially for those of us viewing with mobile browsers.
I have no idea how the Commons queue relates to Wikimedia Commons or represents the community there, particularly as the Commons community has little say on who gets allocated this queue, especially for OTRS volunteers who already have access and are later granted access to this queue. Is there an explanation somewhere on Commons that might be open to improvement? Thanks -- (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, the page needs improvement. All of the OTRS related pages do and it's something we've recently been planning. With regards to your latter question, not sure what you mean. I don't work on Commons too often so I don't know what is and what is not available there. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know Commons rather well as the most active uploader there. I'd say that a better explanation is needed on Commons, including a realistic definition of how volunteers on the Commons and permissions-commons queue can be accountable to the Commons community they represent, and have a demonstrable skill set/experience with Commons policies and practices before being let lose on the related queues. This should not be a big deal, as all the current volunteers should be able to already meet such expectations of competence. -- (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created c:Commons:Information team (OTRS). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complete queue list

Could the complete list of queues be included, please? (And if not, why?) Thanks.

Danny B. 03:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I want to propose adding "view deleted file" to the OTRS global usergroup so that OTRS volunteers can review deleted files, deleted file description pages and deleted file description talk pages. The idea behind this is primarily to verify copyright but also to verify attribution for cases where a file was moved from a wikipedia to commons and then deleted. This would be automatically vetted as OTRS volunteers go through rigorous vetting and even disclose real identity.

This access would reduce the amount of pestering OTRS volunteers have to perform on local admins to un-delete and then re-delete files.

-- とある白い猫 chi? 22:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it would be helpful, but I fear that it is not possible. The discussion arose on Commons several times. The conclusion is that granting some viewdeletedfile rights is opposed by the Wikimedia Foundation on legal grounds. Admins on Commons or on Wikipedia can check deleted files and potential sensitive information related to them because that have the approval and trust of the community, as they have been elected; OTRS volunteers don't. --Ruthven (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: I'm not so sure about that. I would tend to say that OTRS volunteers are required to have the trust of the community, and any community members who disapprove of a user's application to join OTRS can comment on their application at OTRS/Volunteering, so they implicitly have the approval of the community, as well. Further, they are required to sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information, which even administrators don't have to do. Ks0stm (TCG) 23:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Edit conflict.) @Ruthven: True, but OTRS volunteers aren't random users. They are vetted by default. Even admins aren't granted access by default. It has been five years since that discussion so the issue can be re-discussed. Bear in mind this proposal is more restricted than the ones mentioned there since it exclusively limits to the file namespace for passive review. -- とある白い猫 chi? 23:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While it is true that anyone can comment at OTRS/Volunteering and that all applications are vetted by the OTRS administrators, the amount of community scrutiny is not quite the same as a request for adminship or an Arbitration Committee election. (The WMF has stated that ArbCom members can request access to oversight, which, I believe, would give a non-admin arbitrator the ability to view deleted revisions.) On the other hand, this proposal is limited in scope, allowing OTRS agents only to view deleted pages in the File namespace. Mz7 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mz7: Indeed. All I hope OTRS agents to gain is the ability to see the file/edit history, binary files and related discussion on the talk page. If a file is deleted but there is a valid OTRS ticket to process that file, we can do that. Or we can verify existing tickets if they still hold. I am a commons admin myself, I can already see deleted files on commons, but I am blinded to files that are deleted on en.wikipedia for example. -- とある白い猫 chi? 19:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]