On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:19:55 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that certain OTRS people appear to want WP:OFFICE level powers without either gaining community support or a board ruling.
{{fact}}
I am one of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up.
Being able to enforce this is office level powers.
Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;
Um I suspect that may be problematical in some situations because it could be used as admission that there was a problem.
step 2: tell people as much about why as you can.
given the level of legal qualification on OTRS what makes you think you know what that is?
Step 3: when possessed of as many of the facts as possible, proceed with caution.
People are genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them. Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.
Removing verifiable material is harmful.
As with any trusted position in Wikipedia, isolation and burnout are a risk. Do be sure to be as kind and supportive as you can to the volunteers, because there are barely enough to keep on top of the flood of email, some of which requires a very great deal of work to get to the bottom of.
So get more people. En.pedia got seven new admins last week. How many have been invited to OTRS?
Or of course you could always stand on the outside pissing in, but since all that will do is increase the siege mentality about which you appear to be complaining I don't consider it a smart alternative.
False dilemma logical fallacy