I agree with Tomek here. And let me emphasize that not all OTRS admins have access to all queues: in fact, I think only the admins do. OTRS is a very fast system with queues per project and again per language, and access is given per queue. A queue is mostly created per Wikimedia project and language, except for the subject-related queue like WLX which is just for the competitions, and maybe chapters and WMF. Most of us only have access to a few queues, if more then one. But this access comes with knowledge, so if you are concerned about a person's knowledge on the subject of the emails they are handling, just reach out to one of the OTRS admins and express your concerns. Vriendelijke groet, Ciell Op di 7 jul. 2020 om 08:47 schreef Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com>om>:

czw., 9 lip 2020 o 18:53 Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> napisał(a): What evidence? Again - OTRS wiki contains mainly technical stuff - such as some basic advices how to answer properly to e-mails, how to avoid typical mistakes, boilerplates for typical, redundant questions + some discussions about technical boundaries of what could be accept and what not regarding copyright agreements (for example how to be sure that agreement comes from person who can really sing it) and when and how to add OTRS copyright templates. This is made not public - first of all as discussions about disputable cases contain quite often personal details, and there are some "tricks" how to recognize fraudulent agreements, which if made public, could have made life easier for potential impositors. General copyright rules, procedures and copyright agreement templates are made public in most wikis, and that are real rules that are followed by OTRS agents responsible for permission queues. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission or https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomoc:Pozwolenia_na_wykorzystanie and most complicated - on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/

Jonatan: Implying that there's more secrecy than necessary, is unhelpful. I would dare say that if the policies that Andy is looking for exist (given his inquiry he's looking for a specific set), they should and would be available on meta. If that is not the case, that is more likely due to laziness and/or lack of time than by design - so if you know of policies where that is not the case, please bring it up internally, ask for objections to publish it, and lets rectify. I agree with Tomek that your line of answering with non-answers bring up conspiracies. Andy: I'm sorry that you're unhappy about your experiences with OTRS. It seems that you're particularly concerned about the Commons/Permissions queues. I'm not exactly clear on what policies you're looking for (although I get the gist). If you're talking about policies related to how permissions are handled (what threshold are we using, what level of scrutiny, etc), I would say that in the end, that is up to the Commons (or alternative receiving) community. If you're talking behavior, I'm indeed not sure if we have much 'policy' other than some guidelines and common sense. together the relevant pages and documentation. But you're right that this is a bit of a mess - much of OTRS has grown organically. I doubt you expected much different. All in all, I'm afraid there are no hard black-and-white answers that people can give you to these questions, because the questions are too broadly formulated for a diffuse system like this. I know that is not satisfactory, but there is little use in pretending it's any different. Now I should note that I'm not super active on OTRS, and especially not on the permissions queues - so it may well be that I have overlooked something super obvious. But I would be highly surprised. Best, Lodewijk On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:26 AM Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

I believe there's an important point about OTRS to discuss, but the present framing -- rooted in a challenging examination of the issue's history -- is making it difficult to get at. OTRS agents, both individually and as part of a collective, have a tremendous influence over the perception of Wikipedia and Wikimedia by those with whom they interact. They interact not only with a large *number* of individuals, but also with some highly *influential* individuals (i.e., people deemed notable enough to be covered in our projects, or to serve as official photographers of those individuals, etc.) WIth great power comes great responsibility. So as I see it, this is a situation in which clearly articulated policies, accompanied by clear processes to permit influence of those policies, and commentary on the implementation of those policies, would be ideal. We would be better off if there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS, and if OTRS were more accessible for comment by individual Wikimedians, and had good internal processes for handling those comments. On that much, I think Andy would agree with me; but beyond that point, I think we diverge. I think Andy wants to hold somebody responsible for the absence of those things, and given the history of OTRS, as described by others in this thread, I'm not sure that's a reasonable objective. But I would very much support an effort to draft, review, and publish policies and procedures going forward. For what it's worth, I was an OTRS agent for several years; but, precisely because of the absence of policies, I reduced my activity to essentially nothing, and I was eventually dropped from the team. (As a paid Wikipedia trainer/consultant, I had opportunities to offer professional services to those seeking OTRS assistance. This is not something I ever did, but I felt that even the perception that I might be doing so would have been harmful to Wikimedia and to OTRS. Since there were no ethical policies offering guidance for somebody like me, the safest course of action was to pull away.) -Pete -- User:Peteforsyth On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:36 AM Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 4:17 AM Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: Glad we agree on this central point! I think if we can stick to mapping out a path that would get us to this, we can have. aproductive discussion. My apologies. I will be more careful about it going forward. Since it seems that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point more clearly. I don't disagree -- the order you describe would be optimal. But it's not in your control, it's not in my control, and I haven't seen anybody who has access to that information commit to taking the first steps. So, it seems worthwhile to discuss alternate ways to get to a goal that (I think) everybody would support. Even if they're a little messy or less than optimal. To me, the outcome is far more important than a perfect process. Let me clarify -- I didn't say there were no policies at all, but that the absence of certain policies made it specifically challenging for me. If memory serves, there were a few policy pages on the OTRS wiki, but not as much detail as I would have liked to see, and there were transparency and trust issues within the OTRS world (between agents and OTRS admins) as well, which made internal discussion there challenging too. -Pete -- [[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote: Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27 February: #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~# We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not answered, above, some arising from that discussion): 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies? 2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public? 3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided? 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or reworded for clarity)? 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by? 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent? 7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy? 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions? 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen? Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions are confidential. #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~# Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how. You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in it, when you replied: Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in the interests of OTRS agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of questions in a forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing policies and a process for amending policies) shortly after I posted it. Or did you have some other unclear post in mind? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Seems to me that if someone does not specify a motivation, we leave it as that - no motivation. It you want to know what it is, you ask. You may get an answer, but sometimes it is not particularly relevant, as the question may be worth asking for whatever reason because the answer could be useful anyway. This strikes me as one of those questions. I would be interested to know the answers, because they would be illuminating and useful. It does not really matter to me what Andy was thinking about at the time other than wanting an answer to a reasonable, neutrally expressed question about something I considered should be freely available somewhere in the system. What was surprising is how long it has taken to get what little information has been forthcoming, but that has little bearing on why the question was asked in the first place. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pete Forsyth Sent: 17 July 2020 23:17 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that are reliably adhered to. It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that. Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?) -Pete -- [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders &lt;effeietsanders(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which I have not made explicit. Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption. No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed. It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we know? I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have said they are. As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more clear about my wish to see them. It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread. That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to which I have already referred. Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but then... Nothing. I do not accept that questions such as, for example: 5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by? 7 what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy? 9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions? 10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen? are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their focus? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

I think he's looking for openness. That doesn't require one to psychoanalyze him; just a straightforward reading of what he has said, especially in the context of wikidom. If there is some reason why OTRS isn't important enough to merit policies, supervision, and transparency, that should be easy to explain. If there is some other reason why we shouldn't trouble our little heads about it, it should be possible to try to explain that. On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 18:01 effe iets anders &lt;effeietsanders(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too generic for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea? ok if it helps, here are some of them 1. are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with instruction with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of legal issues, mail about copyright etc2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review process? is it regularly done?3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal constant activity on content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag? 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator?5. is there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal information related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of arrival and maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?)6. is there a open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got the flag, a link to the request and how many queue they are handling? I think it's enough for now. Alex Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders &lt;effeietsanders(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm not going to waste further energy on that. Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that. Lodewijk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 05:04, Gnangarra &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I don't think it fully answers any of the ten questions discussed in this thread. For example, while it has a list of OTRS administrators it does not - unlike say, the pages about amins on en.Wikipedia or Commons - say what the role of those admins is, or what limits are placed on their actions, It does not say who appoints them (or who can un-appoint them), or to what policies they must adhere. And it does not tell us who else might have access to the same or higher (c/f 'crats) levels of admin permissions that they have. Thanks for your other comments. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

I guess - Andy's main concern is about permission queues on Commons, as the trigger for his question was a case on Commons. In fact - OTRS agents answering questions for general info queues have no special power - I mean they do not make any "secretive" decisions - they just inform about rules, customs, help newbies with technical issues and sometimes try to help or solve the problem to satisfy both - a plaintiff and the local wiki rules. Basically this was the idea of OTRS when it was created - so the feeling was that strict rules for just answering the questions and helping newbies are not very much needed. Add to this that there is a constant shortage of the active OTRS agents - as this work tends to be boring, repetitive and not rewarding at all - so you may understand why entry barrier for agents is kept as low as possible. If you want to be an OTRS agent - just put your name on OTRS page on meta - ask some of your friends on your local wiki to endorse you and one of the OTRS admins simply checks if your edit history is OK (not too short and with no signs that you have a tendency to be in constant conflict with your fellow Wikipedians) and that's it... It really does not need any extra regulations, as it works as it is now. However, for permission queues is the other issue - because acceptance or refusal of copyright agreement/claim is usually final, so it is quite a power, so I understand Andy's concern that there are no strict rules which are public. How it is practically screened has been already answered several times, but it is true that the process is not written down clearly - it was just developed naturally over time and consist of a) general copyright rules on Commons - which are already very complex and unclear - sometimes even contradictory with eachself and also they change over time, mainly in to direction to be more and more strict which is sometimes called "copyright paranoia" b) local copyright laws - which are also very complex and unclear in many jurisdictions and moreover one needs to know local language and local legal system to properly understand it and apply c) some practical customs, habits and technical rules related strictly to handling agreements via OTRS - the later is partially made public - I have already sent the links to the relevant pages but it was ignored - and partially made non-public. So, maybe - I say maybe - this system needs some sort of reform to make it more transparent and public - but do not expect that anyone can write rules that may cover every possible case - as they tend to be sometimes very complex and individual. And the system will never be 100% transparent - as its idea is to answers E-mails under general WMF privacy policy umbrella. pon., 20 lip 2020 o 09:03 effe iets anders &lt;effeietsanders(a)gmail.com&gt; napisał(a): -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/

Perfect encapsulation of what's gone wrong here in this debate. Andy makes some really solid points; OTRS is a black hole, has a history of being clubby, etc. That history has a lot of smudge marks on it going all the way back to wiki-en IRC channels and the overlap between IRC admins and OTRS admins and how it all fed into toxicity and secrecy. The end goal - transparency in OTRS - is therefore a no brainer, but the strategy being deployed to make progress is ineffective. Below is an example of why: Tomasz notes, correctly, that OTRS agents on *general info queues* (which he distinguished from permission queues) just answer questions, they don't exercise authority. Andy's reply is both argumentative and inaccurate. Tomasz could easily be on-side for genuine reform. He's an insider at OTRS who acknowledges room for improvement. But it wouldn't surprise me if this response converts him to an opponent. This is a common dynamic on Wikipedia itself, and a big part of why people burnout and stuff doesn't get done. No one is inspired to collaborate from what reads as angry, argumentative accusations liberally applied to all participants. Whether you agree with the ultimate objective or not, it's easier to just disengage. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:36 AM Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote:

The WMF has spent the last 4 years developing a strategy to take us to 2030 everything was on the table. OTRS is the one chink in that process that needs to address community concerns I'm all for improving every system we use. I think it would be good if someone stepped up to hold some discussions and walk through on how the system works, and what we as agents deal with. It's best that the community is informed on the processes so that they can get an understanding and help address concerns being raised as well as collaborate on finding solutions where the system is falling over. The starting point must be who, where within the WMF structures is there oversight of OTRS given its agents are speaking for the WMF as well. On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 07:03, Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: -- GN. *Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.netwrote: I don't understand that question. The cited answer was received from &lt;info-en(a)wikimedia.org&gt;rg>. If not, Which ANI? The OTRS volunteer referred to [[en:wp:ANI]]. Cheers, Aron On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.netwrote: > Context is necessary to understand this. > If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI? > Cheers, > Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Aron Manning > Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system > On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad < > gladjonatan(a)outlook.com> wrote: > > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the > > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions > > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? > > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS > > agents sign. > I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer: > > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a > boomerang*. > > > Yours sincerely, ... > The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't > thought about contacting OTRS since then. > Aron > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Hoi, How can OTRS be part of Wikipedia, it is there for any and all projects. Thanks, GerardM On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 11:05, Peter Southwood &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: To clarify: the OTRS agent referred to ANI as the place where an issue should be resolved. Indeed it was not helpful, as the issue has already passed that stage. However, the part of the correspondence relevant to this discussion about the accountability of OTRS is the second part of the sentence: "hope you're not hit in the face with a boomerang." I think it needs no explanation how inappropriate and hostile that sentence is. As OTRS is a primary point of contact, somewhat equivalent to customer service at for-profit companies, this kind of communication is not painting a healthy image of the movement. Aron On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: