On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:19:55 +0100, geni
<geniice(a)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
--
geni