Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Joining

how do I read the OtrS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.57.81 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, you could join the OTRS team. More information on that at m:OTRS. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision

Can we talk about the stats? The numbers I think are helpful in they way they are specific.

Additionally, please leave the reinserted header. It is more specific. Can we also talk about its proposed removal?

Feel free to revert me, I won't war over it, but can we talk before we blank it? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd hope there is no further warring over it, and it remains, unless some discussion results in the decision to remove it. I think the information is good to have, as it provides just that many more details about the secret OTRS (as some seem to think) process. Whats the problem? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No warring, I give permission for a reversion of my edit. I hope we can discuss it first. I have some points, but I badly need a shower first. I'll be back on later, and I'll present them. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is no reason to believe these statistics are currently accurate. In fact, a facile inspection of OTRS implies they are currently incorrect.
• There is no reason to believe that, if approximately accurate currently, these statistics are accurate to a precision of xx.x% on any given day, or month, let alone for the whole quarter when the updates are supposedly scheduled.
• There is no reason why the number of e-mails in the English queues, is more important than the fact that OTRS e-mails are confidential.
• There is no evidence that these several statistics will be updated quarterly, when

• a) the previous single approximate statistic was not updated for years
• b) this new regimen was added less than a quarter ago with no record of updates
• c) there is no indication of how these statistics were collected or how to reproduce them (if they were collected in the facile way they are plainly incorrect now)

—Centrx→talk • 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They were accurate as of July. I guess we can add a note "as of July X". - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They were accurate as of about 07:53, 10 July 2008. At this level of precision, they may not be accurate for more than a couple of hours. Even at more approximate precision, they may not be accurate for "the month of July", depending on the methodology. Percentages with decimal places constitute faux details about the "secret OTRS", or misinformation, which increases secrecy while creating the illusion of openness. —Centrx→talk • 14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have actually removed the stats altogether, there will always be accuracy issues unless this is daily updated from the interface. Which can be done, but until a volunteer is found...

Also I have removed specific email contacts. The contact us is designed to help resolve issues before an OTRS encounter is made. This is needed to preclude backlog.

Additionally I have rearranged the quick facts to be below the more important DR note. And I would ask that the two bullets please remain. It is said crayola style for simplicity and to ease on confusion. This is however, up for debate.

What are your thoughts about those edits? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. —Centrx→talk • 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that these several statistics will be updated quarterly" - yes, there is. I have already arranged to get another database dump in early October, so it will happen.

"There is no reason why the number of e-mails in the English queues, is more important than the fact that OTRS e-mails are confidential" - whoever said it was more important?

"there is no indication of how these statistics were collected or how to reproduce them (if they were collected in the facile way they are plainly incorrect now)" - that's because no-one without access to the OTRS system will be allowed to reproduce them as they have confidential information (namely volunteers' details). "Facile way"? What do you mean, I just took a random number out of thin air and stuck it in there?

"There is no reason to believe these statistics are currently accurate. In fact, a facile inspection of OTRS implies they are currently incorrect" - backlog does not equal total tickets received. Provide some evidence that they're inaccurate or else assume that they're right (because they are), basically. "I had a look and they don't seem to match up" doesn't quite nullify the work that went in to generating accurate statistics in the first place.

"There is no reason to believe that, if approximately accurate currently, these statistics are accurate to a precision of xx.x% on any given day, or month, let alone for the whole quarter when the updates are supposedly scheduled" - it is an average of the total for the quarter preceding the census date. The statistics mentioned nothing about receiving xx.x% of tickets each day as y or z.

"this new regimen was added less than a quarter ago with no record of updates" - so statistics need to have an established history before they are able to be included? What rubbish, to be honest.

The simple solution was to make a note of the sample data period. Barring a legitimate reason why I shouldn't, I'll do that tomorrow. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Importance: The statistics, even the most obscure, were placed at higher priority above basics like confidentiality, and then reverted to maintain that priority.

Statistics collection: OTRS members can reproduce them. The statistics can be collected in different ways. If the statistics are collected by merely a snapshot of the number of messages in each queue, the facile way, then they will not be accurate for more than a few hours, let alone a whole quarter.

Accuracy: Without knowledge of how they are collected, there is no way anyone can verify they are accurate. If they were collected in the facile way, they are plainly inaccurate now.

History: The statistics were never updated in the past, and with no indication of how to collect them even with OTRS access, it all depends on you alone to come here every quarter. How can I determine the total number of messages in each queue over a quarter, with OTRS access? How are messages that are moved between queues handled? A significant number of messages in the info-en queue are moved to other languages; is this accurate to three decimal places?

In any event, of what use are these trivia, and of what use to three decimal places of accuracy? —Centrx→talk • 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Centrx, you said excellent, now you have removed it again, please tell me here your issues with that? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of it was excellent. —Centrx→talk • 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, can we discuss your proposed removal :) ? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needs to say where ticket system is

I have a ticket number from an edit summary and thought the editor who referred to it originated it. Turns out he didn't so now I'm trying to figure out where to go with a ticket number to figure out volunteer but that is not made clear. I left a posting on the Volunteer coordinator's page that did mention ticket number as well as incorrect name of editor, and will ask her for the right editor now. But it would help if it was made clear how to do that cause it would have saved me a lot of time knowing where to go from this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The ticket system is unfortunately not publicly available. You need to ask an OTRS volunteer if you need to know what the content of a ticket is. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Usually random users aren't referencing ticket numbers like that. This is a rarity. I'm sure if you asked Jayjg for more information he would have pointed you in the right direction (well, he should have). By the way, Bastique (Cary Bass, Volunteer coordinator for the foundation) is a "he". If you have any questions you are welcome to ask me, but please realize that we can only give out limited information in reference to OTRS tickets. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense if it is unusual that someone who was NOT the volunteer himself referenced a ticket number. Jayjg in fact already had told me to ask the volunteer but since he didn't say who, I thought he was being coy about it being himself. So will ask him directly. Thanks everyone. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason that there are few OTRS volunteers. These people are privy to confidential information sent to the wikimedia foundation by people who use their real names and addresses. Also, subjects of wikipedia articles who believe their articles are libelous or misstated will contact the foundation directly, and it is the OTRS volunteers who try and resolve these issues in a tasteful, appropriate, respectful, and proper manner. This information is normally not disseminated into the public wikipedia talk areas, for obvious reasons, and we should give the volunteers the benefit of the doubt, as they 1) have access to this information and 2) will be erring on the side of protecting the lives and privacy of the real people about whom the encyclopedia references. If you wish a ticket confirmed, once you know its number, you may ask an OTRS volunteer to take a look at the issue. A list of many of the volunteers with access may be found here: m:OTRS/personnel. -- Avi (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This article says: "If you disagree with a change made to an article where an OTRS ticket number is used as the only reason, please e-mail the OTRS volunteer that made the change. Please do not undo the change until discussion has concluded." In this case WP:BLP1E was first given as excuse for redirect and then rejected by other editors. Then OTRS ticket reference was added on top of it. Right now there is a headed debate at on ongoing legal cases as a reason for deleting articles, and the Mike Godwin as the Foundation's attorney [/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Proposed_guidance_.28cont.29 "kicked it back to the community"] (according to recent BLP:talk) to decide about such "censorship." In this case a well known property developer may be facing prosecution for his illegal contributions, so this is a case covered under that guidance. If it is merely that he doesn't like publicity, as the article itself says, as does one of the first articles that came up on a search, should that be the standard by which we delete or redirect articles? That's why I brought it to WP:BLP/talk. These are the points I would make to the volunteer, if and when I find out who it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI after inquiries from me and another editor the OTRS volunteers revealed themselves on the article talk page. Well, at least next time I run into one of these I won't have to bug you all! User:CarolMooreDc 71.163.215.161 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Note on donating copyrighted materials?

I was hoping to find a link to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online somewhere on this page, as I understand it is one of the primary uses of the OTRS, but couldn't find one. I'm not sure how to appropriately do this, so it would be great if someone could. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The "quick facts" has already the entry: "*Approximately 15% of all mail that OTRS members handle is Permissions-related." This seems to cover it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The link is to a different page, and shouldn't the specific email address be included somehow? Would be pretty useful. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If one drills down, one eventually finds the information you seek to link directly here. Whether or not it is a good idea to link it here, I have no particular opinion at this time. This page is kept as succinct as possible; the information you wish to add is arguably not going to be sought here, but rather elsewhere. In other words, is it likely that someone would be unaware of copyright permissions and yet aware of OTRS? I suggest you seek further input than my, admittedly agnostic, opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The page is kept as short as possible. I would rather not list every possible link to every possible page/use. New editors will find that page before they find WP:OTRS. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the email addresses were what I was hoping to find on this page. Template:OTRS-talk links here, and I think this is a likely first place one would look. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 20:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what that template has to do with donating materials? Basically, the routes one should take, the email address is there. We (other agents can correct me if I am wrong) don't want WP:OTRS to be a starting point. Would rather emails to start from the applicable pages (contact us, donations, etc.) Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I just thought that for an experienced editor who just plain needs to refer to the email address, or point it out to an image uploader, the shortcut WP:OTRS might just spring to mind before others. Never mind, though. We may all just appreciate the exercise gained from the extra digging.

As for the template, I misquoted; I meant Template:PermissionOTRS. It's probably just me, but when I read the template message stating The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system..., I wanted to further explore this option of permission-granting. My problem was that the provided link should be able to lead the reader to the answer of how image permission through OTRS works, but that template actually links to the meta page, so it's a moot point anyway. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

I have spent a month on this article. The images currently contained in it are scans from my older photos or my current digital photos. (All my photos are from my picture file in my computer) Three images are non-free. (two Chevrolet ads I scaned from ads I have and 1 scan from a car and driver article. I only included 2 images from the web. 1 was deleted and 1 is orphaned

these are my photo images currently in article 73 vega gt-my car my digital photo/ 71 vega panel- my car my digital photo/ 72 vega wagon my grandfathers car (in 1972) my photo taken then. scan made for article/ 71 vega engine my car my digital photo/ 76 cosworth vega and engine- my car in 1988 my photo taken then. scan made for article/ 75 cosworth vega my photo I took. scan made for article/ 76 vega my photo I took in 1976. scanned for article/ 74 vega my grandfathers car (in 1975) my photo I took then. scan made for article.

I have many photos, articles, promo material I have collected for 30 years. The only two photos i didn't have came from the web and they are not in article currently.

How do you want me to list the source of these photos other than saying I created them myself. I did add to source of images if it was a photo or digital photo and what year I took the photo and when non-digital photos were scanned (by my scanner)Also are the copywrites used correct? Thank you. (Vegavairbob12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

This question is better asked over on the helpdesk. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Header to this page

I don't understand the removal of the headers. It should be stated at the top regarding what the topic of this talk page is, otherwise, we get otrs ticket related discussion here. I don't object to the removal of {{policy-talk}} since it appears multiple editors don't want it here, but I do object to the removal of the topic reminder. This needs to be made clear. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...Please re-add it. Also, an editnotice might be a good idea as well, considering even that header didn't help one particular person. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• This header was added indiscriminately to many policy talk pages.
• This header says nothing whatsoever about not talking about OTRS tickets. What's more, it says nothing whatsoever even about the proper subjects of policy talk page discussion. The template is only about "keeping cool" and "follow consensus".

—Centrx→talk • 16:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I gather you must be referring to the other template unintentionally deleted. —Centrx→talk • 16:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

TexasStateBuckWinnMurals.JPG

I submitted this information here once, but never got a response. Any rate, I'll resubmit and hopefully we can get this issue solved. The disputed image isn't tagged correctly. While I don't think the GDFL tag right, I'm not sure which one to use since the owners of the painting have released the painting for use as long as attribution is attached. The attribution is in the summary, but the tag isn't correct. Here is the last email which released the photo:

Hi Sxxx, Good to hear from you again. Your questions for Bxxxx are all good ones, many of which I'm sure she can answer for you, if she hasn’t already, when she returns from vacation I've attached Bxxxx's bio on Buck Winn, and a JPG showing our three sections of the Winn mural (72 dpi/RGB, for the web), which can be seen in the second photo of the Jersey Lilly interior on the Wikipedia Pearl Brewery page. [I didn’t see a Wikipedia entry on Buck Winn, though... another worthy project?] The jpg presents the mural’s as relatively “cleaned up,” not in their current state of disrepair. Again, please attribute the mural as part of the Southwestern Writers Collection at Texas State University-San Marcos. The title we've been using is "Section of Cattle Ranching Mural, 1951, oil on canvas, by Buck Winn." (NOTE: Please do not use TSU--this is the acronym for Texas Southern University. Use the full name, "Texas State University-San Marcos," in the first reference, and "Texas State" for short.) Thank you for your understanding and help in getting the word out about this important work of art. Here is an easy link to use for further information about the Southwestern Writers Collection Buck Winn Mural Project at the Texas State Department of Special Collections. Hope this is all helpful for you. Thanks again! Mxxxxx

Reply left on your user_talk page. --Barberio (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any decisions within the group on this image? I submitted the original email (used my email's forward function), but it's been a couple of weeks and other than what seemed an automated response, I've not heard anything. --Brownings (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)