Open main menu


< Commons:OTRS(Redirected from Commons:ON)
OTRS Noticeboard
Welcome to the OTRS noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers, or OTRS volunteers with one another. You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 161 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018

OTRS Noticeboard
Main OTRS-related pages

Shortcut: COM:ON

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days.
Translate this header


Ticket #2018062010007572 (Bob Reis from Anything Anywhere)Edit

Bob Reis from the website Anything Anywhere has sent an e-mail to the Wikimedia OTRS team giving permission for a few very specific pages on his website, due to the nature of his website (being a commercial business) I had made a deal with him that I would ask permission per page (or pages) and that he would evaluate permission to be released under free licenses based on several circumstances, usually if I would also use some of his images in a Wikipedia article and kept him up to date on it, the licenses however are free for re-use but as I would ask him separately per a number of pages I prefer that if an OTRS template for uploading his images would be created that it would be something alongside Template:Anything Anywhere1 so it could leave room for a future Template:Anything Anywhere2. I know that the backlog is 99 (ninety-nine) days so I have no hurry with this ticket being processed (also I am working on several huge projects on Wikipedia and have to import images from earlier tickets anyhow), however when it is processed could the agent who processed the ticket leave a message on my talk page with the template I should use for every upload? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, these separate templates for separate permissions should probably all organise into the same maintenance category (Category:Media contributed by Bob Reis (Anything Anywhere)) if possible so they can be grouped together, but as the permission will essentially be either per page or per group of pages each ticket should have its own template. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Update permission of File:Kylie Padilla, Filipino - Australian actress.jpgEdit

Hello! Can I ask you an update of the above-mentioned photo I uploaded? The photo was posted on her Twitter account (@kylienicolep) more than a year ago, and I'm glad that it is so unique that is why I use to use the photos from her personal Twitter account instead from her Facebook and Instagram accounts.

PS: If you have an update regarding that particular photo, feel free to answer to my response. TY. RenRen070193 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@RenRen070193: The owner and subject of a photo is not usually the copyright holder, the photographer usually is. Please have the photographer send permission via OTRS (with "[Ticket#: 2018072910003049]" in the subject line without quotes) with a copy to you. We have not heard from any of them yet, just you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @DarwIn.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@RenRen070193: Still waiting for the copyright holder authorization...-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@RenRen070193, DarwIn: Are there any updates or can we close this request? Ciell (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ciell: Hi, authorization from the photographer is still missing, as far as I know.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ticket 2009101410050321Edit

Ticket 2009101410050321 seems to be for scanned copies of File:The world starts tonight front newcd.jpg and File:Natural force front.jpg album covers sourced from a record retailer, for which the art work is owned by the record company and not usually freely licensed. Please check if this is valid. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz: The permission was from Cherry Red Records, which matches the source on those files but doesn't match the record label on the English Wikipedia articles for those albums. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Exactly! Cherry Red Records does not have the necessary permission for those record covers and the OTRS is invalid. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Secondarywaltz: FYI, I've started DRs for those two files. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


Please kindly check why this file was deleted even when one of the moderators verified the copyright release at:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalvm (talk • contribs) 09:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Kunalvm: is not mentioned at or or Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kunalvm or even User talk:Kunalvm#Deleted content - how is one supposed to find it? Do you have evidence that "one of the moderators verified the copyright release"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:

Jeff, the copyright is clearly granted. Just tell me where do you want the mention to and it will be done ASAP. I can put it where ever you tell me. Please kindly stop blocking our requests. If you have the option of looking at the file history you will see the copyright was already validated by some other user. Obviously now that it's deleted, I can proof nothing Kunalvm (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kunalvm: and (or in the footer for all) would be ideal with a pointer to it at User talk:Kunalvm#Deleted content. Is it fair to assume you would like all your files which were deleted to be restored?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Request from "14.10.2018 um 20:42 Uhr" and Ticket#2018071510002076Edit

  • ticket:2018071510002076: I have sent additional information on 20th september, and that email was received, but nothing happened since then. It should be easy, as the ticket only references a legal assesment by WMDE. I really hope, that this can now be resolved, so that I can concentrate on the new ticket below.
  • Request from yesterday: I have sent the request yesterday (20:42 CET, from c.suthorn address to permissions-de). The mail was sent successfully, but I did not get a reply with a ticket number. The request contains proof a a press accredition to an event, and I do not want to upload files before the ticket has been verified. One of the files shows an author signing her autobiography. The author has articles in various languages on wikipedia, but with newest foto from 2014. The book has an article in the english wikipedia, but with a fair-use picture only. Other language versions may soon have articles, as the book has been translated and may soon become a bestseller.

--C.Suthorn (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: An Deine verwendete E-Mail-Adresse kann leider nicht geantwortet werden, da ist etwas kaputt. Bitte melde Dich mal von einer funktionierenden Adresse aus. --Krd 09:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: Das wundert mich, gestern habe ich noch Mail unter der Adresse erhalten Ich habe jetzt eine Testmail an mich gesendet, um ggf. eine Fehlermeldung angezeigt zu bekommen. Im Moment kannst Du aber die Mail-Adresse verwenden, die ich fuer Wikimail verwende, und die Du ja auch hast. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Habe Dir nochmal geantwortet. --Krd 10:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: Meine Testmail ist mit 6 Stunden Verzoegerung angekommen, ich habe deswegen bei WMDE nachgefragt. Über die Ticketnummer weiß ich immer noch nicht Bescheid. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: Schaust Du bitte auf File:Stormy Daniels Signiert In Aller Offenheit.webm, Kategorien und Lizenz-Template? Die Mail aus OTRS ist endlich angekommen, jetzt ist nur noch das ältere Ticket offen. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Ich werde nicht auf Zuruf alle möglichen Tickets an der Warteschlange vorbeiziehen und dafür andere Leute länger warten lassen. Das Ticket wird bearbeitet werden, wenn es dran ist.
Wenn es Probleme mit einem bereits bearbeiteten Ticket gibt, die sich nicht per E-Mail-Rückfrage klären lassen, gib mir bitte nochmal Bescheid. --Krd 05:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
OTRS ist schlicht ein chinesisches Zimmer. Dass es zu wenig OTRS-Mitarbeiter gibt, um die Tickets zeitnah abzuarbeiten, ist mir klar. Wie OTRS funktioniert, nicht. Werden die Tickets chronologisch abgearbeitet oder nicht, bleibt ein Ticket beim immer gleichen Bearbeiter, wie laesst sich erkennen, ob ein Ticket haengt, oder einfach nur auf Bearbeitung wartet. Die einzige von aussen zugaengliche info ist eine Tageszaahl, die sich auf die englische Bearbeitungsschlange bezieht. Dann gibt es noch auf einem Server bunte Grafiken, die ich nicht interpretieren kann, und die Kategorie OTRS pending, der taeglich eine Tageskategorie hinzugefuegt wird, bei der aber solange ich darauf schaue keine alten Tageskategorien verschwinden, oder die Anzahl der Eintraege geringer wuerde. Was darin steht (in Bearbeitung befindliche Eintraege, noch nicht angesehene, solche die haengen, oder aufgegeben wurden) ist nicht ersichtlich. Es waere einfach durch ein DB-Tool statistische Inforamtionen und den Status von einzelnen Tickets anzuzeigen, das wuerde auch die OTRS-Mitgleider entlasten, da dann eine Reihe Fragen auf dieser Seite entfallen wuerden. Bedenklich ist die lange Bearbeitungszeit, wenn eine Person, die selber nicht an Wikipedia mitarbeitet eine Frigabe erteilt und dann erst nach ueber hundert Tagen Rueckfragen erhaelt und dann ggf nicht mehr erreichbar ist oder sich mit einer erteilten Freigabe nicht weiter arbeitsmaessig belasten moechte. Zu meinem Ticket: Ich hatte dich so verstanden, dass Du es wohl zumachen willst (oder als gegenstandslos ansiehst). Dem hatte ich widersprochen, aber auch darumgebeten die OTRS-angefordert Bausteine aus den Artikeln zu entfernen (durch Dich oder ein anderes OTRS-Mitglied, aber nciht durch mich, da die Entfernung dieser Bausteine durch ein nicht-OTRS-Mitglied Fragen aufwirft und wiederum Mehrarbeit statt Entlsstung bedeutet. Das wuerde auch die Laenge des Backlogsverkuerzen und die Kategorie OTRS pending entlasten, da es immerhin um 69 Dateien geht, die dort alle aufgefuehrt sind. --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

fotografii Pani Wandy Traczyk - StawskiejEdit

Dzień Dobry,

piszę w imieniu Agencji Make zajmującej się realizacją i obsługą plebiscytu "Warszawianka Stulecia" organizowanego przez m. st. Warszawa w celu uczczenia setnej rocznicy uzyskania przez kobiety pełnych praw wyborczych w Polsce. Tytuł ten otrzymuje kobieta - mieszkanka Warszawy - za swoją pracę zawodową, społeczną lub inne działania, które w szczególny sposób przyczyniają się do rozwoju stolicy.

Chciałabym zwrócić się z uprzejmą prośbą o niekomercyjne udostępnienie fotografii Pani Wandy Traczyk - Stawskiej. Zdjęcie będzie wykorzystane w celu realizacji animacji o każdej z nominowanych Pań, która będzie pokazywana na Gali Warszawianki 2018 oraz będzie streamingowana. Będę bardzo wczięczna za możliwie szybką odpowiedź. pozdrawiam, Katarzyna Łukasiewicz —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Good morning,

I am writing on behalf of the Make Agency dealing with the implementation and service of the "Warszawianka Stulecia" plebiscite organized by the Capital City of Warsaw in order to celebrate the 100th anniversary of obtaining full electoral rights in Poland by women. This title is given to a woman - a resident of Warsaw - for her professional and social work or other activities, which in a special way contribute to the development of the capital.

I would like to ask you with a polite request for non-commercial access to the photographs of Mrs. Wanda Traczyk-Stawska. The picture will be used for the animation of each of the nominated Ladies, which will be shown at the Gala Warszawianka 2018 and will be streamed. I will be very grateful for the quickest possible response. greetings,

Katarzyna Łukasiewicz
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Proszę określić, które fotografie, nie widzę żadnych.
Please be specific about which photographs, I do not see any.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


Hallo! Ich würde gerne erfahren, ob dieses Ticket nur für dieses eine Bild (File:Franziska Teuscher Gemeinderaetin.jpg) gilt oder generell für alle künftigen Bilder von gleicher Stelle. Ich frage, weil User:Flurya auch noch zwei weitere Fotos zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt hochgeladen hat, aber ohne OTRS: File:Franziska Teuscher (2017).jpg, File:Alec von Graffenried (2017).jpg. Dank und Gruss --KurtR (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Otherwise both images have to be deleted, as the source-site expressedly forbids commercial use. --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Im Ticket wird nur eine Datei erwähnt. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, auf Nachfrage auch eine Freigabe für die restlichen Bilder zu bekommen, halte ich allerdings für recht hoch. --Didym (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@KurtR:, könntest du dich erbarmen und hier Kontakt aufnehmen für die 2 Fotos? --Túrelio (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Danke für eure Antworten. @Túrelio: Ich würde es gerne tun, nur habe ich noch nie so eine Freigabe eingeholt und kenn mich nicht so sehr aus. Was genau muss ich dort sagen, was ist zu tun? Danke. --KurtR (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Du brauchst nur an die auf der oben verlinkten Website angegebene Emailadresse eine Mail (deutschsprachig, da ja Bern/CH) schicken, in der du dich ganz normal als Wikipedia/Commons-Volunteer/Ehrenamtler vorstellst und dann den "Fall" schilderst: d.h., jemand hat vor ca. 1 Jahr die 2 genannten Fotos von der Berner Website hochgeladen, dabei aber nicht beachtet, dass deren kommerzielle Nutzung verboten ist, auf Wikipedia/Commons aber nur Bilder hochgeladen werden dürfen (COM:L), die grundsätzlich auch zur kommerziellen Nutzung freigegeben sind. Im konkreten Fall der beiden Portraits ist deren strikt kommerzielle Nutzung allerdings sowieso aufgrund der bestehenden Persönlichkeitsrechte der Abgebildeten eingeschränkt. D.h., selbst wenn die unter einer CC-BY-Lizenz stehen sollten, dürften sie nicht z.B. für werbliche Poster/Anzeigen o.ä. verwendet werden, weil dafür die ausdrückliche Zustimmung der Abgebildeten erforderlich ist. Das solltest du durchaus erwähnen (dient der Beruhigung und stimmt auch). Es sollte aber klar werden, dass die zu erteilende Genehmigung nicht "nur für Wikipedia" gelten darf. Deshalb sicherheitshalber in deiner Mail noch diese Genehmigungs-Vorlage einkopieren, in die du vorher die Datennamen der beiden Bilder einkopierst und den Lizenzgeber bittest, es an zurückzumailen (mit CC an dich). --Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Danke für die Erklärung. Der genaue Vorgang ist mir zu komplex und mein Verständnis zu klein, ich muss leider verzichten. Sorry. Gruss KurtR (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Bilder Category:Firma Strassburger Filter WesthofenEdit

@Jcb:Ich möchte dich bitten die beiden Bilder, Frau Schnitzler inmitten einer Wirtschaftsdelegation mit Bundespräsident Gauck in Asien.jpg und Frau Schnitzeler zwischen Merkel und Wen Jiabao.jpg (Ticket#2018051410006167) wieder herzustellen. --Nixnubix (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Both files are not mentioned in that ticket. Jcb (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Vielleicht schaust du mal unter Category:Firma Strassburger Filter Westhofen. Ich habe diese Bilder unter diesem Link hochgeladen und die permission als Sammelgenehmigung gestellt. --Nixnubix (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
These two images were uploaded today by Nixnubix who also added the OTRS ticket number which does not verify permission for these two images. He is not an OTRS agent. We require a new OTRS verification ticket. Ww2censor (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about Crownest Highway shieldsEdit


I was looking at the files for the Crowsnest Highway (Alberta: en:File:Alberta Highway 3 (Crowsnest).svg; British Columbia: en:File:British Columbia Highway 3.svg) and they're currently listed as non-free. In reviewing the online sign catalogues from both Alberta (p 5) and British Columbia (p 5), I can't really find anything indicating they're copyrighted. Is it possible to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons? Cheers! -- MuzikMachine (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Field in Piazza Santa Croce.Edit

Hi, i have found on your page about Calcico Storico a photo with the name "Field in Piazza Santa Croce". It is writen that the photo: Permission details This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page. Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2006042110010172.

If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the OTRS noticeboard.

I need this photo for my documentary about Calcico Storico and I am not 100% sure can I use it or no? I have read the license agreement but I didn't get it.

Please, can you be more specific?


Vedrana —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, even knowing that in 2006 the OTRS system had different criteria than now, I have difficulties in accepting this as a valid permission. I do some investigation before coming back to you. --Ruthven (msg) 20:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Mugshot Sofie van den enk.png, ticket 2011112010040412Edit

Permission is highly doubtful. It is a scan, not a photo, it has a very low resolution, and the uploader has a history of trying to submit pictures of the subject with no regards for copyright. Tekstman (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tekstman: my money is on "screenshot from analog television". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tekstman: There is no license version number in that ticket.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tekstman: The email explains it is a picture of a picture he took himself. @Jeff G.: Is that a problem, no license version? It is our standard Dutch template. Ciell (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ciell, Drdreetje: That could be a problem if it was challenged in court.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I checked all our licence pages, but we do state a version number everywhere, though I might not know of another page. @Drdreetje: Can you recall what page you referred the copyright holder to? Just so I can update the text. Ciell (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ciell: "a picture of a picture he took himself" does this mean "a picture he took himself of another picture that he didn't take himself", "a picture that was taken of a picture he took himself" or "a picture he took himself of a picture he took himself"? Is there an uncropped version? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The last one, "a picture he took himself of a picture he took himself", sorry to be unclear. There's no original file in this 7 year old email conversation, so I'm not sure if there's any sense in a follow-up. Ciell (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ciell: sorry to go on about it, but is that your interpretation or is that literally what the ticket says? It wouldn't be the first time someone claims "I TOOK THIS PICTURE!!!" because they, in fact, took a picture.. of someone elses picture. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The OTRS agent asked about the poor quality, to which the author replies: "Het is een uitsnede van een foto die ik zelf heb gemaakt." You could interpreted that both ways, now I think of it: "It is a crop of a picture I made/took myself." Ciell (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ciell: exactly, that's what I mean.. They may have meant "I created this crop, so the copyright is mine, right?" It happens. I can't say if that's the case here, but it happens. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: "That could be a problem if it was challenged in court."
Actually, it wouldn't be. A judge would be much more likely to interpret the lack of a version as "the re-user can pick any version they like" rather than "the author can go extort the re-users for violating their copyright". (this is part of Dutch law: if something is not clearly specified in a contract, it will be interpreted the way that is most beneficial for the signee) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait, that picture can be deleted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdreetje (talk • contribs) 13:37, 5 February 2019‎ (UTC)
  • @Drdreetje: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


Please review this and replace permission if the ticket is correct. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I'm not over the moon about this one. The OTRS agent told the e-mailer to add the Permission ticket. The agent appears not to be an agent any more. The whole ticket is based on a copy and paste e-mail from the copyright holder (not nice...) I think I will e-mail the copyright holder direct to confirm. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz, Ronhjones: I've also spotted it and created {{}} for further uploads. I agree that the permission is quite weak... and thank you Ronhjones for following this up with the copyright holder. --AntonierCH (d) 19:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I sent it to 4 e-mail addresses, one bounced (I expected that), no one has replied to date. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Fré Cohen.jpgEdit

Does the writer of her biography really have the rights to this photo? Or did he just happen to supply the picture from his collection? Tekstman (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Adrignola.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 07:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Tekstman: He just happen to supply the picture from his collection stating it was "copyright free". The permission is weak (forwarded, "for the use of Wikipedia", etc.) and would probably not pass today, but rule sin 2011 were probably less strict. --AntonierCH (d) 19:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

200 days backlogEdit

Today the OTRS reached 200 days backlog. And when I look to his history its growing in average of 2 days every 2 days. I dont know how many very old tickets are in the queue, but it might be an idea if one or several agents could search for them and work on these (hopefully only a few) tickets to reduce the number of days strongly. Just an idea. regards. --JuTa 08:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile several editors are on deletion binges, posting notices to hundreds of images that they will be deleted in 7 days unless they get processed for OTRS! Is everyone aware of what's going on with that? How many images we're losing that should have been given a little more time to for things to be fixed? Is it a problem? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
You would not believe how many permissions emails don’t get sent until the image is deleted and somebody notices that it’s not there anymore. —AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
That's true. But you would also not believe how many users get frustrated because of this process. They upload an image, request permission from the copyright holder, send an OTRS request, get an answer ("message received, please wait till we've looked at your request"), see their image deleted and removed from the Wiki article, complain, get a fresh answer ("OTRS has a backlog, so that it may take some time. As soon as an OTRS agent handles a valid permission, they will take care of undeletion") and look around in utter disbelief. Why can't we sync these processes? The least we could do is to stop deleting images for which an OTRS request has been received. Or am I missing a point? Vysotsky (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
THANK YOU!!! (Please forgive my screaming so ungodlily loud, but I couldn't stop myself when seeing someone finally agree.) The project is sorely amiss with this, urgently in big trouble, and a solution is urgently needed to the overly drastic deletion frenzy. If someone figured out how to effectively sabotage Commons, what's going on right now would be optimal. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll note that images tagged with {{OTRS received|reason=processing}} are not deleted after 7 days, but 30 instead. The issue is that going through and tagging images with this would double the work we have to do to process the queue. TheDragonFire (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Krdbot does add OTRS recieved if it can find the ticket, but that doesn't happen in every case. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I was going to start working on some tickets, although I realized that I can't view the images that were deleted (which is basically all of the ones in the backlog), and thus cannot verify the permission. Is there any remedy to this? Vermont (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, those images shouöd normaly not get deleted. They got hold for as minimum of Commons:OTRS/backlog + 7 days. Currently the oldest pending category is from 28. May which is 207 days ago. Maybe the {{OTRS pending}} was missing on the decription pages. Vermont, if you name them, I can (temporariry) restore those files. --JuTa 02:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I added ", and then tag the subject file(s) with {{subst:OP}}" to Template:Email templates/Consent/en the previous day, so the situation for non-Admins should start getting better. It's down to 199 days 4 hours now.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 07:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Another problem I've noticed, that increases the unaddressed numbers, though not often the oldest tickets, is that several permission emails are duplicates for the same image/s sent without using the receipt ticket number, so they generate a new ticket unconnected to the original request ticket. It may not be noticed or starts the whole process over with another agent, and despite requests to only use one ticket number, they don't, and there is little we can do about it. Ww2censor (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: We can review all the tickets sent by a particular customer when viewing a ticket by clicking "People" and then "Customer", and then merge as appropriate.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I know that and sometimes use it. It's still a problem we have to deal with. Ww2censor (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • An easier solution would be recruiting more members, I wanted to suggest to the Wikimedia Foundation to set up a stand for OTRS recruitment at the last Wikimania but I have no idea how to contact them, also adding it to a newsletter every 3 (three) months could help, when this year started the backlog was less than a month, so it's better to have too much (trusted) members than too little, also one could try to contact former members if they're willing to help again. ----Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be also be helpful if there was a public page that has a table with three columns for ticket number, last date of action, and status (open, pending, waiting for user mail, waiting for action by otrs member, closed, rejected, granted). In the case of my ticket [Ticket#2018071510002076], I gave additional requested information on 20th september and I have no idea, if I need to do anything more, because I am sure I gave all the needed information. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we must remove the "30 days" from Template:OTRS received. I have seen some files deleted at 30 days. Also although the backlog is 199 days - that's for the English queue, some of the other language queues have even bigger backlogs. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I concur. At :en, we do the greater of 30 days or backlog + 7 days and en:user:B-bot tags them accordingly. Deleting things when there is a 6-month backlog just leads to hurt feelings. --B (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Ronhjones: @B: Are you aware that files with {OTRS received} are being deleted 30 days after our first response, not 30 days after being tagged? For the past several years I have been the one who usually handles this process. I always open the ticket. If it is still unanswerred, I reset the timer. example. If there was a response but not yet 30 days ago, I reset the timer to the date of first response. I don't think that anything should be changed here. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Jcb:, a problem with that is that sometimes a copyright holder sends in a new email creating a new ticket. Or the agent who was handling it gets busy and doesn't handle the response, putting it back out into the backlog. Ideally, anything that has been in the {{OTRS received}} state less time than the backlog shouldn't be deleted unless either someone has reviewed it and is certain that we're not going to get an acceptable statement of permission, or unless someone has searched and made sure that no follow-up has been received. --B (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Such a change would paralyse the process completely, leaving a lot of copyright violations online in an attempt to save a relatively small number of files that may be undeleted anyway as soon as the new ticket has been handled. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Maybe there is a way to separate out the "really reviewed" from the not really reviewed images. If Krdbot tags an image as {{OTRS received}} but no human has ever even looked at it, deleting it after 30 days doesn't seem to be helpful. But if a reply has been sent and we never hear back, then that's different. --B (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Yes, that is the current situation. If a file has been tagged by Krdbot but there was no human response to the ticket by an OTRS agent, I reset the timer of the tag instead of deleting the file. Jcb (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The current progress of undeletion is not user-friendly; creating new requests one by one (and checking that the user is an OTRS-agent or not) cots a lot of time. Why do not we make the undeletion tool smarter? Here is what I think: there would be a button for OTRS-agents (the tool or an AbuseFilter would check that the user is an agent or not). The tool would ask the name of the file and the ticket number, than it would create the request with a “verify me” link (ping Jeff G., who is using similar format). It would cost just few clicks and less than a minute, but it would make our work much-much easier. What do you think? Bencemac (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bencemac: We already have the generic {{UO}}. Before that was developed, I developed my own UDR gen URL, which uses my mostly filled out User:Jeff G./NewUDR preload. You are welcome to make DWs.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I was invited here. IMO the OTRS/Wiki image release system is just not up to the job. Women in Red publishes 100 of articles about women without photos. Why? These people are alive and only too pleased to send us a picture and we are 99.9% certain that we are talking to the right person and the picture is either a selfie (or very similar). There are notable/busy people. We can just about convince them that their twitter image is copyright.... but we tell them that they are going to have to send emails to prove who they are who they say they are and then they lose interest.... and I must admit I do too. We have keen editors who are trying to add pictures which everyone knows are OK, but they are accused and hounded as if they have some hidden reason for wanting to help our project. (Not only that our gatekeepers seem to take pride in deleting donated content because it MIGHT (in some strange unreasonable parallel universe) "breaks the rules"). I don't use OTRS and I cannot recommend it even to people who think they may be able to use it (no one has that much patience). It doesnt need fixing it needs rethinking and reinventing. Sadly I don't think that commons will the heir apparent to PD archiving. I am optimistic that another group will fork our content and create a better resource with a rethought way of adding new pictures, films, sounds and 3D scans. I do hope so. This job is worth doing. Commons is a great resource and was a great idea. Victuallers (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it an unimaginable thought that we stop deleting any and all images which admins judge that they look like they will pass OTRS requirements, until time catches up and makes the whole process work again, giving uploaders a fair chance to conform? This (unless I'm mistaken, as I often am) is a good example of an image that someone claims is his, of himself, now deleted only because of the backlog. And this talk page, where a person with a limited enough command of English that it's hard to communicate with h at all, while that person is causing the deletion of a huge amount of images in 7 days after h/s tags them, to me is very scary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: No, this is a good example of the process working just fine. We responded to the ticket 25 November, but we never heared back from the client, so that the file has been deleted 26 December. Jcb (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Each year around chistmas WMF asks for donations and a large part of these donations is used for campaigns to attract new authors, espacially women. As Victuallers pointed out above the otrs backlog scares away this possible authors. Wouldn't it therefore not be a good idea, if WMF used part of this money to employ paid otrs members (and if it only was for half a year to get rid of the backlog) - this might do more for a wider authors base than any women in red edit-a-thon. I also like to come back to my idea of a status/statistics page: Even so the "owner" of my unanswered ticket has been pinged, I am still ignorant about what might be wrong with the ticket (happy new year, btw). --C.Suthorn (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No, a backlog is not a problem at all. "Please patiently wait until an OTRS agent handles the ticket. If an OTRS agent handles a valid permission, they will take care of undeletion." And then wonder why people think Commons doesn't make sense. Vysotsky (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
("The process is working just fine") - When you say "fine" then that means that we missed the chance of sharing a picture with our 1bn users because we pissed off the person who was trying to help us. We wasted everyone's time, But we broke no rules so "The process is working just fine". *What* It needs rethinking. Imagine. I have a procedure agreed by WMF lawyers as imperfect but OK, an email and pic from the donator, a Wikipedian editor in good standing who 99% believes that its all OK and is willing to add it to commons with their reputation on the line if the abuse the process. We can load it, now, today, immediately! The process would work because we take down mistakes (like every other site) and we have a $1m dollar fund to pay out the $2.63 that is owed by the occasional person who can prove that they are the sole heir of a photographer who died 68 years ago and demands that we pay damages. If a site used this process then would you be convinced that the image was PD, I would.... and if I was a judge then I would say that this process was reasonable and law abiding. Victuallers (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Commons isn't "like every other site" - every other site on the planet cares only whether or not they are going to get sued for using the image. We actually only WANT things that are public domain or published under a "free" license. --B (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Info Permission-commons is under 1400 open tickets, which is minus ~100 tickets in the past days. Of course, some other queues have huge backlogs as well. Bencemac (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Many of the older tickets has been waiting for a replied of the customer over 6 months. See as example: Ticket:2018062510009472, Ticket:2018062710005043, Ticket:2018070110004644... Don't you think is it time to quick close those tickets? I don't think they're going to answer and, if they do, perhaps they do or did in another ticket. Others are waiting the response of an agent, such as Ticket:2018061510001801, Ticket:2018062610000139, Ticket:2018062510009276... --Ganímedes (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
PD: Regarding one of the oldest tickets, please see: [1]. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing it at m:OTRS/Personnel, Jayantanth (talk · contribs) is the only OTRS user who speaks ml? If this ticket is in ml, maybe contact him directly? --B (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@B:, I am not native speaker of ML, if you anything shown about India related subject, you can forward me. Jayantanth (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Good idea, yes. However, this is just one of the problems: many lenguages we don't have or have few agents actives, lots of spam generating new open tickets by minutes than we cannot erase or close (even the authomatic response system confuses and replies them, as such Ticket:2018091910005599, Ticket:2018100810003046, Ticket:2018102310009441, Ticket:2018110710005697, Ticket:2018120310001286, Ticket:2018120310007968, Ticket:2018121810001991), Ticket:2019010110000871, Ticket:2018102310009441, Ticket:2018120310001286... ), an inefficient system that make hard to see messages, follow messages, find something... As someone says, it's a 10 yr old sofwate and needs lots of patchs. It would be nice if someone request a new software in the next Whishes of the community campaing. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Besides, many of the new ticket are attendant immediately, but the oldest stay there. I think our delay is not so if we take this in consideration. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: If it's obvious spam, I don't think that someone speaking that language is really necessary to close it. If it's not spam, and nobody who speaks the language is available, what if we just process it using Google translate? If it is the simplest case where they are pasting the CONSENT form (and we can see it is the consent form using Google translate) and their claim of copyright seems reasonable (someone from the company that likely owns the copyright, etc), why not just process it? Heck, even if it's not the simple case, we could reply in English with a "Google translate" translation. Google translate is good enough these days that, while it may miss the nuances of local idioms or humor, if you use straight forward sentences you're going to get your message across. --B (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not been clear. Yes, I know this is spam. Question is: why we get over 4.000 spam tickets open? Why cannot close them as such? Why we even received this? My hotmail or gmail account is able to filter all this, or even avoid them. Instead, we're swimming in tons of spam, forever open, and sometimes (often, I must say) our system answer it. Everybody think this is normal? The system is old and inefficient. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a spam filter at all? If there is, it needs to be a very, very, very, very permissive filter because if someone sends a DMCA takedown notice (which might have a bunch of URLs in it and look spammy), there can't be any chance of the spam filter picking it up. It would be nice if we could blacklist email addresses - there are some newsletters that come in from the same email address every time and if we could simply blacklist them, we could cut down on it a lot. --B (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The system should automatically delete all tikcets in Junk queue after X time (one day, perhaps?). And of course, stop answer them. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"The process is working just fine." Well, it isn't. This user (Sarduzo) went to a German Forum on Commons to ask about the procedure (on 12 November), uploaded an image and sent an OTRS request on 14 November (precisely as advised), to see his photo deleted on 15 December by User:Jcb. When he complained, he got the encouraging answer: "As soon as an OTRS agent handles it and the permission turns out to be valid, they will restore the file". Though I can't take a look at the photograph nor at his request, and thus can't judge the validity of the decision, I do have a judgement about the procedure. If we want to chase away good faith users, we need to continue this way: deleting photographs while the OTRS ticket hasn't been handled yet. Vysotsky (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you considered volunteering to help with the backlog? --B (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking about that too. Since we've got over 100 tickets waiting more than 180 days, delete the files with an OTRS pending is extra unnecesary work. To access validity it's request a restoration, so another request in Noticeboard, wait for an admin... The deletion after 1 moth in this conditions is far unrealistic. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
(A couple CoE later) Yes, I'm doing exactly so: I've attendant over 75 old tickets this week. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I wish we would wait until $BACKLOG days have passed to delete them because it blocks non-admins from being able to process tickets. At :en, I have a bot that automatically tags things that have been {{OTRS pending}} for longer than $BACKLOG days with {{subst:npd}}. I wish we would just do that here - so that humans don't have to make a decision about how long to wait before deleting things. --B (talk)
Totally agree. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thats allready included in the {{OTRS pending}} template. It marks anything "older" than Backlog+7 days with npd. But the value of backlog is just that huge. --JuTa 17:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: backlog is now 162 days and there are less than 1 000 tickets in queue permissions-commons. The number of tickets is decreasing. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think is enough. Over 65 months waiting for an aswer, when many (if no most) times permission is wrong or uncomplete it's too long wait, IMHO. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: That is 5 months 7 days, please check your math.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  Sorry, finger mistake  . Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
We're doing a good job! Increasing the activity in the last month is bringing its fruits, and it's more pleasant to deal with the tickets when the queue is shorter (or lowers quicker). Do not forget to ask to Commons admins to undelete the files that have an OTRS email, in order to check the author and the metadata, if you don't have the rights. Lets carry on! --Ruthven (msg) 17:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: It takes time to answer all these emails and to reduce the backlog. Just wantes to mention that it's positive to see the backlog reducing. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpgEdit

According to last edit, OTRS is received for File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpg. Can someone add appropriate template. --Smooth O (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish:, who added the edit in question [2]. --B (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see on his talk page, Huji (talk · contribs) is the OTRS agent. Huji, what is the ticket number? I tried searching, but couldn't find it (presumably because of the non-Latin characters). --B (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@B: It is 2018122910002094 (PS: adorable username!) Huji (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Huji: Whatever ticket:2018122910002094 is, it is not in a permissions queue and I don't have access to it. Are you certain this is the right ticket number? If it is, someone else (with info access I guess?) will need to take a look. --B (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@B: I'm in the same boat.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the late answer. Anything else needed from me? — Racconish💬 09:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Racconish: Please specify the queue containing ticket:2018122910002094 and tag File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpg more appropriately, or explain how you reached your conclusion in this edit.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Jeff G., I added {{subst:OP}} and would rather defer to an OTRS agent to add the date of the OTRS mail. — Racconish💬 15:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is all the deatils I can provide. ticket:2018122910002094 was originally sent to permissions-commons@ and then forwarded to info-fa@ because of it being in Persian. The original email has a link to the picture on Commons, and the sender of the email states (in Persian) that he or she is releasing this photo under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. The sender's address and name indicate that it is not a person, but a legal entity (it appears to be the "official" email address for an entity (not a person), though the email address is from a publicly available email server).
I am sending this back to permissions-commons assuming that it will make some of you able to access it. Let me know if that worked. Also let me know if you have questions.
My question for you is: what are the procedures for handing these permissions emails? Just because someone sends an email in which they claim to be the copyright holder of a photo, do we accept their claim? Or are there additional checks we do? Huji (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Huji: (Please remember to be careful about what you post publicly from OTRS tickets. I don't know that you want to say the claimants name here unless it has been published already on Wikipedia/Commons.) The first thing I usually do with a free email address is Google the email address and see if it is associated with the person or entity that is the apparent copyright holder. If it is, then at least you know that you're not talking with some random person who just made up an email address. In this case, I'm not sure who the copyright holder is, so I did a Google Image Search for this image and found it previously published at [3]. I can't tell from looking at it in Google Translate what, if anything, they say about the source/copyright of this image, but maybe you can tell from reading it in Farsi? If you are not completely convinced that the person you are speaking with is the copyright holder, then you can ask them to clarify. Ask HOW they became the copyright holder - are they the photographer of the image? --B (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@B: I modified the text so it is less speicific, and asked an Oversighter to hide the in-between revisions. Even though what I shared was not really "private" information, it is best to be less specific on wiki. Huji (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, I looked at the website you found. The website doesn't specify copyright status, but that is quite common among website in Persian. In those cases, we (at Wikipedia) assume the content is copyrighted. The sender of the email seems to be the admin of that website (based on name and email address), but should I ask them to somehow verify that? I will certainly ask them about who the photographer is as well. Huji (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
In this particular case, I don't know that verification that they are the owner of the website is necessarily the issue. The issue is asking where the photo came from originally. Did they take the photo? (I will sometimes say, "did you, personally, hold the camera in your hand and click the button?" That spells out exactly what we mean.) Did someone provide them with the photo? Is it an old family photo that has been passed down? If they, personally, held the camera in their hand and took the photo, then their license is valid. If someone provided them with the photo, then we probably need permission from that person. If the photo is an old family photo from a long time ago, then we need more information about where it came from. --B (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Files durch Huberbe hochgeladenEdit

Folgende hochgeladene Bilder warten seit vielen Monaten noch immer auf eine Bearbeitung und sind inzwischen gelöscht worden:

  • Jans_Armin_2018-07-04.jpg
    • Mail an Permission am 25. Juli 2018
    • Ticket#: 2018072510002995
  • Schray_Cornelia_Elke_2018-08-15.jpg
    • Mail an Permission am 5. Oktober 2018
      — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huberbe (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Starcraft progamers at GG Together booth - 1.jpgEdit

Hello. I have a question about permission. If the permission information can no longer be found on original web links due to deleting an account, or the author cannot be contacted any more, what can I do? Thanks. --Garam talk 10:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Garam: Delete the file, because there is nothing that assures us that it was published with a free license. --Ruthven (msg) 10:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ruthven: This images and all images on User:Garam/permission I uploaded are all free licenses. The permission link is just broken. Thanks. --Garam talk 12:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Garam: Well, it's a good practice to add {{Licensereview}} at upload time, so that the permission can be checked. Without it, and with the links broken, nobody can be sure of it. Not I see as only solution to obtain an OTRS ticket from the authors. --Ruthven (msg) 13:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Thanks for your answer. I have a question. Then, how do we know that author's permission on OTRS ticket is real or fake? --Garam talk 13:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Photosubmissions-de queue: even long backlogEdit

There are some tickets in photosubmissions-de waiting very long. There is one, apparently moved from info-de, waiting 352 days today, with no answer, even automathic one. Can a german speaker agent attend to these tickets? Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


Hello, I realized that my photo crowd_of_women.jpg was deleted. I have the rights to this photo, how can I show that? The user who deleted my photo was jcb. Would really appreciate some help

Weelarkobar (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC) weelarkobar

Do you also have the rights for the 9 images used in Crowd_of_Women.jpg? Platonides (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ticket:2018072510007418 has been forgottenEdit

Dear friends,

There is a current backlog of 49 days for the treatment of OTRS tickets. I would like to alert about the fact that the Ticket:2018072510007418 has been forgotten:

  • The ticket is wating since July of 2018 (more than 200 days !!)
  • More precisely, only 1 image out of 35 has been validated : File:Prince of Persia 1 - Amstrad CPC.png. I don't know why the treatment of the ticket has not been completed.
  • The 34 other images linked to this ticket have all been deleted by User:Jcb on January 26, 2019.

To put things in context, you can read the discussion that I had in December with User:DarwIn (that I would like to thank again) : Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2018#Ticket:2018072510007418_-_Prince_of_Persia_screen_shots.

I'm sorry to say that, but I'm really fed up with this OTRS system: ok, everybody here is a volunteer, everybody gives its free time and that's a beautiful proof of philanthropy. But we have to recognize that the OTRS system doesn't work anymore! I'm strugling since July of 2018 to have a validation from OTRS members!! Can you imagine how frustrating it is for a contributor to wait so much time?? But the worst thing is this: when this ticket will be validated, you can be sure that I will NEVER EVER ask for an OTRS ticket again, as it's almost impossible to have a validation. --ΛΦΠ (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@DarwIn: It's your ticket, should these files be undeleted? Apparently they were never tagged in the handling of the ticket. Jcb (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Based on the information in the ticket, the previous OTRS/N discussion, and the fact that DarwIn has not edited in the last week, I have requested undeletion and added {{OTRS permission}} to the files. ΛΦΠ, I'd like to apologize for the delay in handling this ticket. When a ticket is handled by someone, they are given the first chance to respond to any replies to that ticket. If they do not take any action, it is released back into the queue for other agents to handle. The agent who took the ticket appears to have interpreted the copyright holder's most recent message as being a standard reply saying that all the files were licensed correctly, not as the additional information needed before applying OTRS permission tags. They then closed the ticket without further action. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and thank you for helping to expand the body of free media on Wikimedia Commons. I know how frustrating it can be to have uploads that you know are correct deleted, especially when you have spent time tracking down the copyright holder to obtain a release, as it has happened to me as well. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2019]] (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you very much for your validation of the ticket! And thank you for your kind message above and the explanations about the problem. After this 7-months struggle to get the permission, I just would like to know: how many members are in the OTRS team, and how much emails do you receive per day? It seems that you are only 3 or 4 members to handle dozens of tickets a day... am I right or wrong? --ΛΦΠ (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Actives? Very few. And tickets we've got around 3000+ waiting to be processed. And 8000+ spam tickets, eternally open. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Thank you for these interesting figures! This is huge and I understand it takes so much time to treat the tickets! Why don't we try to completely change the OTRS validation system by opening it to everyone? Every member of the Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Commons, and so on) could validate the permissions. If any other member has a doubt regarding the validation of a permission, he could check the email sent to the OTRS adress and possibly report suspicious situations to administrators (false emails and so on). Isn't it a good idea? It seems clear to me that the current OTRS system cannot continue to work this way with so much emails treated by so few people! --ΛΦΠ (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, handling permissions emails means that you will handle non-public information including people's email addresses and phone numbers all the way to the pictures of identifying documents that people sometimes send us (If you were considering sending us a picture of your passport, please don't. We don't want it.). Because of this non-public data, we are required to follow the meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy and sign the meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. This is an extra level of trust that can not be granted to all users as it would violate the foundation:Privacy policy. In addition, many requests are not very simple. OTRS agents handling permissions tickets need to have knowledge about what copyright laws apply in which situations and how those laws may impact the permissions they handle. For example, we could accept permission from a photographer to use a picture of the Eiffel Tower during the daytime because it is very old. We could not accept permission for the Eiffel Tower at night, as the lighting design of the Tower is copyrighted and there is no freedom of panorama in France. Not all users are experienced enough to make these judgements. The OTRS system is not the only way to archive a valid permission statement. If someone has a website that is connected to their identity, they can upload photos they want to release there and state something to the effect of "These images are licensed under Creative Commons Attribtuion-ShareAlike 4.0 International and may be used under the terms of that license". The permission can then be checked by a license reviewer. This is actually the preferred method for permissions statements, but requires slightly more effort than sending an email and usually works best if permission is given before uploading files to Wikimedia Commons. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you very much for this very interesting response. I had not thought to all these complications. Indeed, it seems eventually impossible to open the OTRS system to everyone. In fact, the OTRS team just needs more members to work well, but I guess they are not numerous to apply. I know it's a little "out of the box" thinking, but don't you think that the Wikimedia Foundation should recruit an employee (instead of a volunteer battalion) to handle all these permission requests with important legal issues? This could avoid repeated bad experiences for contributors and rights holders seeking to release content under a free license. For example, in my case, the rights holder of images with who I found the above-mentionned agreement asked me several times what was happening with the agreement that he sent and that seemed to be blocked. I tried to reassure him several times but it was a very unpleasant situation for both of us because I had no real answer to give, especially when the pictures were removed. It is essential to avoid this kind of situation in the future with other rights holders and contributors! --ΛΦΠ (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
What @AntiCompositeNumber: says it's true. Even so, I think some kind of changes in the interface and the way we handl the tickets are needed. At least new OTRS agents in certain lenguages (da, ko, ml, etc) could be very usefull. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@ΛΦΠ: I always recommend to trusted users who send us permissions often that if they do not get answer in few days, contact me or other agents. For example, former agents probably understand the progress well, so their permissions are most of the time valid. I agree with Ganímedes, e.g. permission-de has 730+ open tickets; we need to involve more experienced people. However, I would like to clarify that queues in English are not in danger. I think the real problem is the decrease of agents who are handling smaller languages. Bencemac (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: Thank you for this piece of advice. And thank you Ganímedes and AntiCompositeNumber for this very interesting conversation. It helped me to understand a lot of things. You do a hard but very useful job: all the Wikimedia projects need more people like you   --ΛΦΠ (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

File:പൂവാറൻ‌തോട്.png and Ticket:2019012410001916Edit

Can you please recover is file, File:പൂവാറൻ‌തോട്.png [ticket #2019012410001916] Davidjose365 (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Davidjose365: What do you mean by "recover" in this context? The file has not been deleted, and OTRS permission was added and the watermark was removed by Arthur Crbz.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Then why is the OTRS notification still in there ?

Davidjose365 (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Davidjose365: {{PermissionOTRS}} "is used to identify the OTRS ticket associated with the permission statement of that file. See Commons:OTRS for more information." Without it, someone could think that that file is a copyright violation because the first version had a Google watermark.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ruthven (msg) 11:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Potwierdzenie zezwolenia na wykorzystanie zdjęcia Big Cyc File:Big Cyc 2018.jpgEdit

Dzień dobry

Kilka dni temu wykorzystaliśmy w naszym serwisie zdjęcie, znajdujące się w repozytorium WC. Konkretnie chodzi o foto z linku: . Zdjęcie opatrzyliśmy stosownym, wymaganym podpisem, czyli "Jacek Jędrzejak [CC BY-SA 3.0 (], Wikimedia Commons".

Niestety, odezwała się do nas kobieta, która uważa się za autorkę zdjęcia, domagając się od nas zadośćuczynienia za złamanie jej praw autorskich. Czy mógłbym otrzymać potwierdzenie zezwolenia na wykorzystanie tej pracy przez Wikimedia Commons? Ticket znajdujący się pod zdjęciem to . Mój adres mailowy to

Z poważaniem

Damian Lebowski

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LB2510 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Confirmation of the permission to use the photo Big Cyc File: Big Cyc 2018.jpg

Good morning

A few days ago, we used a photo in our website, located in the toilet repository. Specifically, it's about the photo from the link: We have provided the picture with the appropriate, required signature, namely "Jacek Jędrzejak [CC BY-SA 3.0 (], Wikimedia Commons".

Unfortunately, a woman spoke to us who considers herself the author of the picture, demanding that we be compensated for the infringement of her copyrights. Can I get confirmation of permission to use this work by Wikimedia Commons? The ticket under the photo is My email address is


Damian Lebowski
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Zorro2212, Polimerek.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)



J' ai plusieurs images importées avec autorisation de l' ayant droit sur lesquelles je vois ce message :

" L’équipe OTRS a reçu un courrier au sujet de ce fichier..... "

Que cela signifie t il ? Merci Migo47 Migo47 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Migo47: Cela signifie que l'autorisation est en attente de validation. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

500px photos by Ioan SendroiuEdit

Dear OTRS volunteers: I've found an unusual situation (documented so far at Commons:Deletion requests/500px photos by Ioan Sendroiu). Someone named Ioan Sendroiu uploaded a number of photographs of Austria (marked as public domain) to the 500px website. Commons user Rodrigo.Argenton uploaded them to Commons:

I noticed that the EXIF tags of the first seven of these photographs had a copyright by "BoAPiX Bo Albertus" and provided an email address. Rodrigo sent an email to that address, and the person responded that these were not their photographs.

This case (where a person listed as a copyright holder says they aren't the author) isn't covered by the directions at Commons:OTRS. I suggested that Rodrigo forward the email to OTRS and I have marked these photographs as OTRS pending.

Is sending such a authorship-denial email to enough for OTRS? Is there anything else Rodrigo needs to do? — hike395 (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hike395: Just checking to make sure I understand: These files have an ambiguous authorship and thus need to be deleted under COM:PCP? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Yes, COM:PCP and ambiguous authorship is what motivated my deletion request. However, Rodrigo.Argenton says he has email that helps remove the ambiguity. — hike395 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hike395, AntiCompositeNumber:,
I email him, in a lack of response, I reach him by the Facebook, there he confirmed that he own the email, that his not the author of the photos.
I request to him send a email via boa to permission, he answered that he would do at Feb 16 , so may be it's already there. I'm not a OTRS volunteer any more, I can't check it.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Handled. DR closed as keep. Ticket received that shows the metadata is invalid. --Majora (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Majora (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

[Ticket#2019021110006961] & [Ticket#2019021110007004]Edit

--Deepak Pallikonda (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear ORTS Team, Pls let me know the status of the two tickets raised .

[Ticket#2019021110006961] & [Ticket#2019021110007004] .

Im still waiting in good faith for the ORTS Team to release the file as soon as possible.

Warm Regards, --Deepak Pallikonda (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)