Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. The page is the subject of active discussion as a proposed process and should not have been nominated for deletion while that discussion was ongoing. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard[edit]

Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While created in good faith, this noticeboard fundamentally cannot work as its creator hopes and would cause serious problems in other ways.

  1. Wrong location - The email response team ("OTRS") is a Wikimedia team, active across all wikis. It acts as the Foundation's customer service team. If such a noticeboard were to exist it would need to be created at Meta.
  2. Harmful to respondents - A very large proportion of its work relates to people with BLP content and other sensitive matters, copyright permissions and requests, and other tasks handling real-world details of people and bodies. It is absolutely a bad idea to encourage issues relevant to OTRS to be posted on a public website in the majority of cases.
  3. Incorrectly targeted - The work of the team is almost entirely as its name suggests, email response. Its clients are non-editors with a concern, request or suggestion - it is primarily an outward facing service (to non-editors interacting by email) much more than inward-facing (to editors).
  4. Breaks OTRS ticket management - OTRS uses a ticketing system and software to ensure all requests are serviced. Adding a noticeboard provides a route for matters to avoid its usual processes, ticket review, and annotation, and requires that the usual consultation and notes that could be added, cannot be (due to privacy concerns).
  5. Effective policies already cover questions concerning edits on English Wikipedia that respect privacy issues - There is already a good process for genuine inquiries and concerns about actions undertaken by OTRS volunteers, as well as simple but effective coverage and explanation at WP:Dispute resolution, which cover the privacy issues, reverting, and review by ArbCom. A noticeboard is not needed for these purposes.

While in good faith, the idea of an OTRS noticeboard on this wiki is flawed, firstly as OTRS is not an English Wikipedia body, second as its work is unsuited to a noticeboard approach due to privacy concerns and user-base, third because it is a very bad idea to encourage on-wiki postings about typical cases, and fourth because when a rare incident arises, OTRS team volunteers are highly responsive and any actions on the local wiki is clearly to be reviewed by Arbcom (if the ad-hoc answer via usual editor routes is not sufficient).

Recommend deletion for these reasons. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per the nominator's concerns. Ironholds (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mainly per the second point indicated by FT2. Puts too much at risk.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  23:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete purely in that this should be on meta. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 23:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. James F. (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy pending clear consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals)#OTRS Noticeboard, which has so far met with only support (including mine, I note for transparency), after having been proposed at the idea lab. There is precedent for the board at Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, which seems to have existed successfully for some time. We have many copyright clearances of local only concern (article bodies) that people occasionally need to check on; while our agents certainly should know not to disclose private matters, verifying the proper license of such material is fine. (editing to add: of course, the board can be limited to explicitly copyright clearance matters, as presumably the Commons board is.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We already have 3 copyright noticeboards listed in the Noticeboards header navbox. If the coverage is to be limited to copyright work, then the description doesn't say so–and it's duplicating at least one of those.
In addition, on English Wikipedia content with clearance issues is surely either admitted non-free media (which don't get copyright clearance via OTRS by definition), or alleged free media (which are–or should be–moved to Commons by definition and once moved are linked there for discussion), or unclear/problematic/contested media and text (which are covered by existing noticeboards), so it's not clear what copyright clearance and verification queries on this wiki this would be intended to deal with. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a noticeboard to question OTRS clearance on locally maintained content, such as text. There's no reason to ask questions about those at one of the copyright noticeboards; asking an OTRS agent is a sensible thing to do. I've been asked often individually. But this is conversation for VPP, surely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why a new noticeboard to verify OTRS clearance of textual content? (Other media is either non-free hence OTRS can't comment, or free and usually moved to Commons). Add a one-line note at the existing copyright noticeboard saying "If you want to verify licensing of text copied from other sources and held by OTRS, please [email-address email OTRS] quoting the ticket number on the talk page or edit summary. New inquiries cannot be helped by OTRS and need to go to usual noticeboards or be pointed to usual resources. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not a noticeboard? Commons has one, with evidently no difficult. There are currently 1,388 pages transcluding Template:ConfirmationOTRS and 3,467 transcluding Template:PermissionOTRS. Questions come up; writing to OTRS is surely just going to further overburden the system; using the ticket number in the subject line will only cause the same agent to review the request for clarification--bad news if he is busy or gone and even worse if he logged permission when he should not have (as with a recent OTRS question at that Commons noticeboard). But in any event, this is still really a conversation for VPP, where the matter is already being evaluated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was just created because multiple editors thought that having a noticeboard for this would make it easier for those editors who frequently deal in OTRS requests and for those submitting them. --Kumioko (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In my opinion as an OTRS member dealing with permission tickets, such a noticeboard has been used on the commons at Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard and has not had any of the issues above. It has been very useful in asking questions about what images a permission ticket applies to, expressing possible concerns that a mistake has been made on a ticket(i.e A watermark contradicting the author or EXIF tags), and asking if a email has been received (Some emails get caught by a spam filter.) MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It is bad form to delete something at MfD while it is current at a Pump. MfD is not for policy debates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there's nothing inherently bad about the idea and MfD is not an appropriate forum to decide questions such as the scope or procedures of the page. Hut 8.5 09:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Also, wrong location? There is one on commons. At the Village Pump, they are in favor of having such a noticeboard, it is in construction, it is Proposed, not active. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, I have to note that I'm the one who put the "proposed" tag on it, after the MfD. :) I understand the concerns about the board, even though I support the idea. I understand why the board was moved into project space after positive response at VPR, but I do think that the launching of the board was a bit premature. We need to discuss implementation before the board is opened. Probably a link on the talk page of the board to the VPR discussion would have allowed conversation to stay at one place; I doubt that early responders were aware that there was a discussion about it ongoing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MfD is no the place to decide this sort of thing. Lets have the discussion at the VP then decide if this needs to go.--Guerillero | My Talk 01:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suspect that the nominatior and the first few delete voters, many of whom I respect, didn't actually look at the commons board. The deletion rationale falls flat on it's face in light of that, and it fell flat on its face before all these clarifications were made. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update[edit]

Updated information about the aims of this board. This new board is intended to handle problems related to verification and checking of copyright permissions said to be confirmed by OTRS. The narrative as drafted implied that questions about BLPs, or anything else might be asked here, which is 2/3 of the problem. Moonriddengirl and Morgankevinj have since stated that the aims almost completely relate to permissions verification. The relevant permissions issues are:

  1. While most free media should be on Commons, some media that meets US but not local law can't be moved there and remains kept locally.
  2. Text (specifically) doesn't go to Commons nor gets a "File:" page. So it's harder to add verification to it.
  3. When permission is stated on-wiki to be given via a ticket there is a chance it could be bogus, or astute users may have reason to believe it was agreed incorrectly or due to carelessness. So sometimes, permissions need to be rechecked or verified.

The other uses (judging by Commons FAQ) are likely to be inquiries from users who uploaded images - but either the user never contacted OTRS or gave permission, in which case it wouldn't be an OTRS matter, or they did , in which case they have the email details from prior dialog. Also possibly inquiries chasing other email tickets which are very broad and probably best followed up by email to avoid encouraging non-editors who don't know better, to post sensitive material on-wiki.

MFD impact
  1. Rename? - At the least, rename to Wikipedia:Copyright OTRS verifications. This will largely ensure it is clear what it covers.
  2. Better handling of issues without a new noticeboard? - I still believe there is a better way to handle this that doesn't involve Yet Another Copyright Noticeboard. For that reason and to avoid the listed problems, deletion would be sensible to avoid increasing the plethora of copyright noticeboards, places OTRS must watch, etc. For example, can a bot check all edits purporting to add a ticket # against a list of valid users? Can a usergroup "otrs" be created as on Commons, to allow quick checking or auto-tagging in File: page history? Can OTRS volunteers who note permissions maintain a single page listing all validated items whose history can be watched and content (including text) searched? Can the template for permissions info on the file talk page contain better information how to verify? Can we add useful help to existing copyright queries boards or OTRS project pages? Can permissions queries be directed to an existing board with a {{OTRS verification request}} template to draw attention?

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for image permissions-related queries only. We should not be discussing sensitive BLP-related matters onwiki, but a permissions noticeboard is sorely needed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be ok with renaming it to "WP:Copyright OTRS verifications" or "WP:Copyright permissions verification" or similar, to make clearer its function? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Permissions noticeboard would be my preferred name—more concise. But, the name doesn't really matter all that much. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to question in MFD impact

  • 1. I only have experience with permission tickets, so I am not going to argue for or against this.

    2. A bot would be useful in maintaining the privacy of OTRS agents, instead of an OTRS member group and would likely be more accurate, than depending on the bureaucrats to add and remove users from the group. But the problem with a bot or abuse-filter is that sometimes OTRS agents tell other user to tag the file or a ticket applies to all files using a certain template. If a ticket applies to a collection of texts or files the template should specify that fact. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and use for any OTRS matter. When an OTRS volunteer has used a ticket number in public, community members should be able to ask questions. sometimes OTRS volunteers cant provide the requested information; they should know when that is. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteers know. Do those who might ask questions, or push for details unaware of underlying sensitive issues...? There's already a system which works fine for handling these that handles privacy well and non-contentiously, and there's a very good reason all of that is handled off-wiki for OTRS as well as ArbCom. Users with queries about an OTRS matter have easy identifiable access to the OTRS volunteer involved, or to the team as a whole. While permission rechecks are usually safe, other areas are not. They should not be encouraged in any way to post such queries on enwiki. Much less since OTRS is not actually an English Wikipedia team but a Meta and fFoundation one. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is the same possibility for problems at the other noticeboards. OTRS queries on English Wikipedia can only a) discuss details already put on English Wikipedia by OTRS volunteers, and b) make speculative comments. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. Most people with BLP inquiries who try to contact OTRS are inexperienced users or non-users, and may well believe that this is a place they can c) put evidence and emails related to sensitive issues, BLPs etc, to bring to OTRS attention, if they are encouraged to do so. OTRS info queues get all kinds of personal information sent in - copies of court papers, documents by people's lawyers (not necessarily legal threats), personal information, matters related to defamation or sensitive article issues, copies of emails, far more than Arbcom ever does. We should absolutely not encourage that perception, nor is there a need. Permissions checking is fine. Wider OTRS inquiries presents too much of a risk. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inexperienced users sometimes post such information on the talk pages of OTRS member where it is less likely to be seen by oversighters. A centralized place that can be watch by oversighters and arbcom is a significant advantage. MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the precedents of WP:REFUND and WP:PERM prove, it is beneficial to the project to have a centralised forum to deal with such issues; this encourages consistency in practice and greater peer review. I reject the contention that the noticeboard is doomed by design, it is only by trial that we might see whether it is unworkable in practice, and I concur with those above who think it is poor form to strangle such a proposal in its cradle. OTRS volunteers must be trusted not to reveal information that ought to remain private, and with appropriate guidance and careful scrutiny by OTRS volunteers, admins and oversighters, the noticeboard can plausibly be kept free from inappropriate discussions of delicate matters by others. Disclosure: I am an active OTRS volunteer. Skomorokh 11:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the good reasons at VP although it shouldnt go active until that discussion is concluded. At the moment to question an OTRS permission on an image we have to ask at a friendly OTRS volunteer talk page and hope they are available (or a TLS that is watching is also a OTRS volunteer) this is a far better solution. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard&oldid=1138700592"