Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard

< 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: 18 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, 2019, 2020


OTRS Noticeboard
Main OTRS-related pages

Shortcut: COM:ON

Translate this header
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.


OTRS & WikidataEdit

Please see: d:Wikidata:Project chat#Images for Wikidata - "Global Young Academy" where, it is suggested that it is OTRS policy to reject images that are not provided for use on a specific Wikipedia article, even if they have potential use on Wikidata. If so, this would be very damaging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The "guideline" at OTRS photo-submissions is not to accept files emailed to us for Wikimedia Commons if there's no related Wikipedia article. A Wikidata entry not linked to any project file is a fine way to avoid the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, IMHO. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Moreover, the discussion here should be if a photo for a WD entry it's in scope of Wikimedia Commons. What difference this from any other personal photo? --Ganímedes (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming this. It is most troubling that media wanted on non-Wikipedia sister projects could be (is being?) rejected in this manner. When and where was this guideline drawn up, what consultation took place, and how can it be urgently updated to be fit for purpose? Who can track down correspondence with the authors of any previously-rejected material, wanted by non-Wikipedia sister projects, that should have been accepted? I've answered your latter question where I first saw it, on the Wikidata page linked above. As for scope, please see COM:INUSE - with which one would hope all OTRS account-holders would be very familiar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
What I see it's the misuse of Wikidata for a not very clear purpose. Not everyone has an article in Wikipedia, but... we must accept his photograph because someone creates an empty q in Wikidata? Does it make it notable? I'm very worried about the implications of this. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:INUSE is unambiguous, and is part of COM:SCOPE; it is not for OTRS to override. Your post does not answer my questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the trick: according to Wikidata guidelines (Wikidata:Notability): "An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals, that is if it meets at least one of the criteria below: 1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons." So, adding a file to Wikimedia Commons and linking it to Wikidata, the young scientist creates an element in Wikidata under scope. So, they become notables. This is how this work, right? Even if the file is in use, can be deleted if the photograph is not in scope. Self-promotion is not in our scopes. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You've just posted virtually the same screed on Wikidata. It really would be better if you did not split the discussions between venues. COM:INUSE remains unambiguous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You did it first bringing the discussion here. However, as you've said, "COM:INUSE is unambiguous, and is part of COM:SCOPE". COM:SCOPE also says COM:NOTUSED: "File not legitimately in use. A media file which is neither:

  • realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor
  • legitimately in use as discussed above

falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons." All these photographs are not in our scope because even when existing the possibility of been used one day in the article of a notable scientist, the truth is they're not. Their only purpose is the promotion and can be deleted. The "potential use in Wikidata" in an empty element for self-promotion it's clearly not in our scope, and not a responsibility to OTRS. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As I noted on the other thread you have running on this issue [1], there is a realistic possibility of the educational use of these images, by dint of the general academic excellence of the individuals. Really, just drop the stick. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't erase self-promotion. It's the same with painters, singers, footballers... --Ganímedes (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
"You did it first bringing the discussion here." No, I posted a pointer here, to a discussion elsewhere. I'm tired of your fallacious finger-pointing, at both venues. Your own quote from COM:SCOPE shows that images used (or intended to be used) on Wikidata items are allowable. If you're not prepared to abide by that community consensus, what are you doing replying to people on OTRS? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
To be clear on this point: WD does want freely licensed images of every singer, painter, footballer, scholar that an editor sees fit to make an item for. That's much broader than the range that have their own WP article. [There may still be concerns about self promotion if the editor has a COI, and Wikidata will have to deal with those on time. But a) that is for WD discussions to manage, and b) I see no such concern here.] Moreover, notability decisions should be the union of those on all involved projects -- If any project feels that knowledge is notable, it should be included. We are not here to police what free media other projects can read, see, or think, just to maintain a healthy shared commonspace. --SJ+ 14:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Since this seems a better place than Wikidata to discuss the matter, I'll repeat what I asked there. Where (if anywhere?) did OTRS end up with that very limiting policy? I'm completely with Andy on this. I doubt that even half of our pictures on Commons relate to any Wikipedia article, unless you count, say, that any picture of any part of a city corresponds to us having an article on that city, or other reductio ad absurdum interpretations (which would lead to a far more liberal policy for OTRS, anyway). For example, we do not have, nor are we likely to have, a Wikipedia article on this long-gone Lutheran church in Seattle, but we'd certainly want more pictures of it. I could come up with a hundred similar examples, probably without venturing more than an hour's walk from that building. - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Not every image, but I can warranty you that more than once I've approved files in OTRS only to see how Commons deleted them because they're from painters without an article, or musicians deleted in Wikipedia for self-promotion. It's not OTRS the problem, believe me. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Jmabel, as both an OTRS agent and Commons admin, I'm not going to upload a file which is contrary to Commons policies, e.g., derivatives of copyrighted artworks, FoP (depending on country), CSCR (again, depending on country), and so forth. The example of the church you cited is not an issue, because it certainly could have an educational purpose and meets SCOPE. No one has disputed that, to my knowledge. The question I raised in the first place concerns only what we as OTRS agents should do about non-notable persons having no Wikipedia article, in light of OTRS Help:Photosubmissions (which has been the case since 2010), but where there is a Wikidata entry albeit lacking any WMF project use. By the way, in ticket:2020022410001019 there's now additional correspondence.  JGHowes  talk 02:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This seems to contradict what was said above and on Wikidata. Is the guideline "not to accept files emailed to us for Wikimedia Commons if there's no related Wikipedia article" or is it not? Because the example I gave would be exactly that. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
What was said was taken out of context; to be clear, the original question was posed at WD specifically about photo submissions for people not having Wikipedia bios and the OTRS guideline's application pertaining to the Global Young Academy WD entries for such persons. The guideline, which I already linked above, states: "If the person is trying to submit an image of a non-notable person (or one we don't have an article for), it might be best not to upload it. Use the 'no article, not notable' boilerplate." – nothing to do with churches!  JGHowes  talk 05:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
And it's clear that that guideline which was written two years before Wikidata came into existence is harmful. [Also, note that the linked OTRS wiki page, on which the policy you cite lives, is not publicly viewable.] The questions I asked above, which have so far been ignored, were "When and where was this guideline drawn up, what consultation took place, and how can it be urgently updated to be fit for purpose? Who can track down correspondence with the authors of any previously-rejected material, wanted by non-Wikipedia sister projects, that should have been accepted?. It would be good to have some answers, and soon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
What is harmful is the misuse of Wikidata to introduce not-notable person information avoiding the control systems of the other projects. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You're becoming tendentious. If you wish to change COM:SCOPE, raise an RfC and see how you get on. If you wish to change Wikidata's notability criteria, raise an RfC on Wikidata. Otherwise, you must accept those policies, and that they exist by consensus on their respective projects. If you do not do that, you should not be working in OTRS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
"non-notable persons having no Wikipedia article" You seem to be conflating two issues. "no Wikipedia article" does not necessarily equate to "non-notable". Firstly, it may be that a Wikipedia article has not yet been written; and secondly. Wikidata has its own definition of notability (to which you have been referred in the parallel discussion on that project), which rightly differs from Wikipedia's (for any of the 300 Wikipedias; since you don't specify). "where there is a Wikidata entry albeit lacking any WMF project use" Wikidata is a WMF project, so that statement is illogical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps GYA should start by writing those articles and submitted by revision. If those scientists are so notables, certainly there will be no problems to finding sources. When the article is approved, we'll be very happy to received and approved their files, if the permission come from the right copyright holder, of course... --Ganímedes (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"When the article is approved, we'll be very happy to received and approved their files" There is no such requirement. Do keep up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It should be, then. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As is quite clearly set out in the COM:SCOPE policy, “a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata. Commons does not rely in any way on the narrow definition of ‘notable’ as used on the Wikipedias, nor whether a Wikipedia article does or could exist; that’s simply not relevant.

Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design acceptable to Commons.

If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and hence the link to the image on Commons. Commons would then delete the image as not in use (if not otherwise educational).

The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently been added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far as I know no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment. Well, if I'll receive as OTRS agent a file that might consider not to be in project scope I'll upload it and add permission (if the copyright issue is ok) and open a DR for the scope issue. I don't think it is only my own decision as a OTRS agent. It should be a community decision. If the file legitemily in use in Wikidata then definitely not be deleted. -- Geagea (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Global Young AcademyEdit

Dear all, thanks a lot for all of your engagement and countless volunteer hours. I'm representing this effort of the Global Young Academy as well as many different other networks who have joined this effort to bringing excellent young scientists to wikidata (from India to Iraq to Italy). We are happy to receive advice on how to streamline this process. We are asking that scholars of national young academies themselves upload their pictures rather than doing this in bulk. Most scholars are professors, all of them are prize-winning scientists and all have wikidata entries now (Wikipedia pages exist for a great number of them, but these are not written by us (see here: https://w.wiki/DQr)). The Bangladesh Young academy https://nyabangladesh.org/ (to take one example out of 50) is one of the first contributors. Sooner or later, all 50+ national young academies will be submitting pictures. The plan is to then engage our senior academies and senior academy networks to do likewise, as well as the framework organizations through which they are organized (InterAcademy Partnership, ALLEA, African Academy of Sciences, Royal Academy...). So we are very much interested in setting up a process by which this is streamlined. Apologies for the many individuals who do not send in photos with the correct specifications, we want to support wikimedia as much as possible, help us to do this. PPEscientist (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I've seen some consent-templates refilling with "I took the picture and am the photographer.". And then you see the file and found this: (general case but no related to GYA). How could he be his own photographer???? Start with honesty could be a good touch. Maybe you should start from here, introducing yourself and explaining your intentions, instead of wait to see nobody notice what you're doing... --Ganímedes (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The elements in Wikidata are worthless, because they're empty. Only the name and a date, nothing else. Not even a link. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Your claim is false; as I have pointed out, with examples, in the above-linked Wikidata discussion, where you also posted it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Given User:PPEscientist's comment above, it would seem that the current OTRS policy as described here runs directly counter to WMF's current initiative to better cover areas of the world where traditional sources may be relatively sparse. An initiative like the Global Young Academy would seem to me to be exactly the sort of thing that would help us identify people worthy of coverage in those areas. It is no surprise that Wikidata would be the first place where many of these would show up, because the efort is lower to create a Wikidata item than a Wikipedia article. - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no clue what is discussed here, but I'm quite sure that if a file is within Commons project scope, it will be processed by other like any other case. If anybody thinks different, please advise. --Krd 16:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that some OTRS volunteers dispute that images for use on Wikidata are in scope. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

EvaluationEdit

I'm trying to evaluate the discussion above, and I am stuck at one point. I think there is merit to the points raised by both Pigsonthewing and Ganímedes, but for some reason you do not address each other's points directly. Please tell me if I'm summarizing your points accurately:

  • Andy: The overriding policies are clear, permitting images on the basis of just a Wikidata item. Any subordinate policy or guideline that disregards that is inappropriate and should not be followed if it contradicts the overriding policy.
  • Ganímedes: If the policies are interpreted the way Andy says, there is a substantial loophole that will bring problems to the Wikimedia projects: if both Wikidata and Commons permit inclusion merely on the basis of inclusion on the other project, that makes it possible for a self-promoter or vandal to introduce any arbitrary Wikidata item and associated media file.

If my summary is accurate, I have a question for each of you.

  • Andy, do you understand Ganímedes' concern, and could you respond directly to it? Do you (a) have some reason to believe that spam and self-promotion would not substantially increase, or (b) think we should blindly follow the policies, even if that would result in a firehose of spam; or (c) think we should work to modify the policies in some as-yet-unspecified way, to mitigate that spam, or (d) something I've missed?
  • Ganímedes, do you recognize that policies pre-dating those you are following/advocating dictate that files should be included on Commons if they illustrate a Wikidata item? If so, what policy approach (as opposed to practice) do you think would help create a clearer framework for volunteers to follow, and mitigate your spam concerns?

I hope this helps clarify things. The questions here are tricky, and in my view there is no easy answer; but answers become almost impossible if we let the discussion devolve into personal animosity. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Pete Forsyth. Yes, it's exactly as you summarizes. And the problem it's exactly that: we're opening the door to anybody to creates a q element and upload his files here, notable or not, spammer, vandal, anyone, just because it's got a q in WD. AS the article of the GYA says (translated in some other Wikipedias), the GYA has 200 members, who change each 5 years. So, it's to spect we'll receive more of these files. Even more, checking the first name, Patrick Cobbinah (Q64907170), there is not even one independent reliable source. And that's the problem exactly: by linking directly to Wikidata there's no need of any source. Yes, our policies say if the file is linked to a sister project the file can stay, but... What if this is a cross-wiki spam case (i.e.)? Is still valid the same argument? But, I think this discussion it's in the wrong place. Is not in OTRS board, but in Village Pump, were should be pointed, IMHO.--Ganímedes (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The first email from Robert Lepenies (of GYA) it's over 180 days, so it's not a new issue, but it wasn't a problem till more photos see the light in Commons and OTRS. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Pete and Ganímedes. it seems to me the discussion you want (about whether WD should have an entry for someone who no independent source online) is worth having, and should be had at WD. (Andy: what is the best forum for that?) Maybe if -- only after! -- photo spam becomes a particular problem, there could be a discussion board on WD specifically for entries with uploaded photos. But commons should not be making that decision. And thr OTRS permissions queue is definitely the wrong part of the process to make that decision. --SJ+ 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you have permission from that named individual to reveal such details of their OTRS correspondence publicly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The name it's in the main category; the date of the permission, in the OTRS ticket of the file, all in the public domain. What permission do I need? --Ganímedes (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't ask about that; I asked you about the personal information in your post - information which is not in the category or file description. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Pete: you say "The overriding policies are clear, permitting images on the basis of just a Wikidata item", and indeed they are. But that is not what we are big told by OTRS volunteers; it is not what the garishly highlighted quote above says (and it certainly not how it is being interpreted by OTRS volunteers).
We who are not OTRS account holders are not able to see for ourselves what the quoted OTRS policy says, because instead of being on Commons, it's on password-protected wiki. I have asked some simple questions, above, about that policy: "When and where was this guideline drawn up, what consultation took place, and how can it be urgently updated to be fit for purpose? Who can track down correspondence with the authors of any previously-rejected material, wanted by non-Wikipedia sister projects, that should have been accepted? They remain unanswered. I wonder why that is?
Yes, I understand Ganímedes' concerns; he believes - and has clearly stated his belief, not least in the discussion here - that images of people should only be accepted if they are for an existing Wikipedia article, and that mere use on Wikidata is insufficlent. I have quoted and refuted this (as indeed have others), and suggested courses of action should he wish to pursue them, in the original discussion on Wikidata - where his response was to accuse me of not answering his unspecified questions; when I asked his for evidence of that, he failed to reply (and that's not the only time he has ignored my questioning his baseless assertions).
From what little we do know (and we don't know what other cases exist), at least some volunteers have been rejecting images provided in good faith to illustrate items on Wikidata that are well within scope (which, incidentally, d:Q64907170 most certainly is; note that it currently lacks an image) - images which would almost certainly be kept if uploaded and subjected to a Commons deletion discussion. A figure of twenty such instances has been mentioned from this one set of contributors alone.
The questions in hand are not "tricky" and there is an easy answer: COM:SCOPE says that if an image is used (i.e for use) on Wikidata, it is in scope. it is not for OTRS to unilaterally overrule that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Andy, by "overriding" I don't mean OTRS, that's the opposite. And I'm trying to express what I understand to be your point, which I think is a good one, not make one of my own. OTRS policies need to comply with the inclusion policies of the projects, not the other way around. I think the OTRS concerns here are subordinate to the question of what the main policies of the projects tell us to include, so to me it seems natural to talk through that stuff first, before getting into the questions around OTRS.
As for what's tricky, here's what I mean: If you make policies broadly more inclusive, the possibility of increased spam tends to go along with that. Finding a balance (including more good stuff without including more bad stuff) is the kind of thing that requires careful thought, observation of unintended consequences, etc. etc.
I'm glad to hear that there has been good discernment. So far, I've only looked at the discussion on this page, and I probably won't have time to delve into those specifics. So it's helpful (to me at least) to have them summarized here. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't suppose that you are making your own separate point; and my use of "overriding" was to describe the demonstrated and admitted actions of those OTRS volunteers posting here. They argue the unseen OTRS policy, or their interpretation of it, overrides, or should override, COM:SCOPE.
This is the secondary discussion; the primary one is that on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
What WD accept or not, is not our concern. We must be worried about what we accept here. I don't want to continue arguing in circles. What is missing here it's the fact that, to be included in another project is not enough; if there is other concern as spam, promo, notability, etc, files can also be deleted, even if they're "in scope" (because they're linking to a q in WD). So, the question is: is it enough to have a q element in Wikidata to be in Scope in Commons? I know Andy, you'll say yes, but that's what I'm challenging and that's the point Wikimedia Commons must discuss. And I'm sure that can't be done from OTRS/Noticeboard, that has another goal, and has been long misused the last two days. This is my last intervention here. Thanks. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You say you don't want to argue in circles, yet you keep doing so. So here it is again: COM:SCOPE says, explicitly:
File in use in another Wikimedia project
A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose [...] It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope.
.
Don't be surprised if I decline to respond to any posts where you ignore this again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually Wikidata rather than using images catalogues them.
Moreover, COM:SCOPE current content is roughly four years older than Wikidata itself, I wonder wheter it would had be worded in a different way if written after Wikidata creation. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Poppycock. Anyone sighted can see an image on d:Q181, for example; and many on https://w.wiki/GbZ once the query is run. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Apart from bringing the usual, unecessary, rudeness this doesn't reply to any of the above. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. From where I sit, it seems that the combined inclusion policies of Wikidata and Commons could allow for some really nasty inclusions -- e.g., if somebody created a Wikidata item for the regular Sunday D&D game enjoyed by a handful of 10-year-olds, and uploaded a photo of them to Commons, and linked the two, then the photo on Commons would be allowed (by virtue of the existence of a Wikidata item) and the Wikidata item would be allowed (by virtue of a photo on Commons). What could prevent it would be good faith discernment of volunteers; that's a reasonable approach in the short term, but over time I'd hope that the policies and inclusion criteria could be refined to rely less on subjective judgment.
If the volunteers executing the discernment are OTRS volunteers following an unpublished internal policy, I agree with you, that is less reasonable as a solution. It doesn't live up to our shared values of transparency, and there's not much to inspire confidence in the rest of us that it will be sustainable or consistent. Still, it does leave a big question, and I don't see what the answer is: If the OTRS crowd were to stop excluding these uploads, what mechanism should we expect to address the spam? Is your argument simply that we should expect volunteers in an open decision-making process discern between what "feels" worthy of inclusion, until and unless more nuanced policies emerge?
If that's your position, it seems sensible. I'm honestly not sure whether I agree or disagree. I'm still at the point of trying to understand your position. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You suppose, wrongly, that "a Wikidata item for the regular Sunday D&D game enjoyed by a handful of 10-year-olds" would meet Wikidata's notability criteria. But yes, the lack of transparency is a significant concern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, looking more closely I see at Wikidata:Wikidata:Notability item #4, which I had overlooked:
"Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless either a) there is a corresponding main item which has a sitelink to a Commons gallery or b) the item is used in a Commons-related statement, such as category for pictures taken with camera (P2033)."
This was indeed a significant gap in my understanding, thank you for pointing it out.
@Ganímedes: What do you think of this? I'm looking at your first top-level comment above in this discussion -- it seems that you missed this point as well, no? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
First, they've created the main article, en:Global Young Academy. Then, it was translated or re-created) in some other Wikis (4-5, not sure). Later, they've started to created q elements in Wikidata. Then, they've created their own category, and finally, started to upload their own files, asking to OTRS volunteers to do it. If someone complains in Wikidata --> "But we're linking to Commons..." If someone complains in Commons --> "But we're linking to Wikidata!..." It's more of the same. The category came with the combo. But... Who am I to argue? --Ganímedes (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
en:Global Young Academy was started in Match 2011 by David Eppstein. Category:Global Young Academy was created in July 2019 by Victuallers. What evidence do you have that either did so on behalf of the organisation, or otherwise acted improperly in doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
No answer, User:Ganímedes? No evidence? Perhaps you will now strike your false allegation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I've said I don't will to continue answer and argued with you in this place, and that's what I pretend to do. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that means you are refusing to answer. That much was already clear. My point is, that if you refuse to provide any evidence to support or defend your claim, which is false, then you should strike it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm quite late to the party, but only just noticed this in my notifications. Anyway, I created the :en: article in 2011, as stated above. I have never had any association with the GYA myself; it came to my attention at that time because someone I worked with belonged to it, but my creation of it was independent of that work and I created the article purely because I thought it was a topic worthy of having an article. I have since grown quite unhappy with the long-term promotional behavior displayed by representatives of this organization and have blocked some of its editors on :en: for violations of policy there. So, yes, User:Ganímedes' accusation that the GYA created their own :en: article is false. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Very late in deed, David Eppstein (around 40 days from the last comment and almost 5 month from the above), but I appreciate your comments. I apologize for mine, and I thanks that at least someone admits that the behavior of the organization is promotional. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Even if their behaviour is promotional the images are in scope. It is not in your gift to "punish" behaviour that you do not like by refusing to accept in-scope images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)No regular Sunday D&D game enjoyed by a handful of 10-year-olds but anyone ever being listed among the authors of a scientific paper. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the harm in publishing a photo and wikidata item for an author of a published scientific paper. It seems natural to me that a knowledge-focused project like Wikimedia would help the public access information relating to the provenance of published information. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
If you wish to propose a change to Wikidata's notability policy, then this is not the venue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Were you talking to me here? If so, you've got my point backward. I said that Wikidata's policy (as interpreted above) seems sensible, not that I'd like to advocate a change. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
To repeat, the current OTRS guideline was adopted in 2010 and it states precisely what I've quoted (and highlighted) above. If you're unwilling to observe AGF on that, then this discussion is at an end, for my part. I don't know the answer to your other questions nor can I speak for other OTRS team members. All I can say, definitively, is that I myself have never "rejected" a GYA ticket at OTRS and, to be sure I was on solid ground with this one, brought the question to the Wikidata noticeboard for further advises and clarification, in light of the seeming disconnect between what is longstanding recommended practice for OTRS volunteers and the subsequent development of Wikidata.  JGHowes  talk 20:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I have never said that I doubted that it includes what you quoted, but I very much doubt that you quoted the entire policy, so my statement that "We who are not OTRS account holders are not able to see for ourselves what the quoted OTRS policy says, because instead of being on Commons, it's on password-protected wiki" is fair, reasonable and true. Perhaps you can provide us with a full, unredacted and current copy? Preferably via wiki import, so we can see the full history, too? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I quoted all that is relevant to this discussion. The rest of the page is a step-by-step "how-to" guide for new OTRS volunteers, dealing with how to process and format tickets, syntax examples, use of templates, etc.  JGHowes  talk 01:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • INUSE is pretty clear on this. If anyone wants to change that, then they need to go to VP, not here. If WD wants to change their standards, that's for them to decide. Just as Commons should not be making editorial decisions on behalf of sister projects, OTRS should not be making editorial decisions on behalf of Commons. We follow local policy as we follow local policy. GMGtalk 22:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, please define what you mean by "editorial decisions on behalf of Commons". Do you, as an OTRS volunteer and Commons admin, upload to Commons files submitted to OTRS that violate COM:FOP or COM:CSCR or are out of Scope, such as a non-user's family photos of the kids with Fluffy the cat? I won't.  JGHowes  talk 02:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Probably the kids and Fluffy are out of scope. Unless, of course, one of the kids (or Fluffy) is notable. But that is not what we are dealing with here. I'm pretty certain that in the case you are thinking of, neither the kids nor Fluffy have published scientific papers, hold an academic appointment, have won prizes in the sciences, or have a Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@JGHowes: What I mean is, when I answer tickets on behalf of the English Wikipedia, I do so according to local en.wiki policy, and when I answer tickets on behalf of Commons, I do so according to local Commons policy. Barring any license issues, a large part of the current policy on Commons is that media be used or realistically usable on sister projects. If Wikidata has defined usability for their purpose in such a way, then current Commons policy follows suit. The way to change that is to change Commons policy regarding scope to account for Wikidata, if the community wishes to do so. But so long as that remains Commons' policy, then OTRS should operate within those bounds. GMGtalk 14:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:GreenMeansGo, I fear that you may have been basing your OTRS work on a misunderstanding of Commons policies on Scope. Please see my comment, here, in the discussion above. To be absolutely clear, an image which is already in use in good faith on Wikidata is by policy definition in scope on Commons. Even if the image is of something you personally consider useless for educational purposes (self-promotional, a standard selfie, Fluffy the cat) that does not matter. If the image is in use on Wikidata, that is enough, and assuming the licensing and privacy aspects are OK you should as an OTRS agent accept it. The rule against images that are "not useful for an educational purpose" isn't a separate step to be considered independently of whether the file is in use. Anything in use on Wikidata is by definition considered by Commons to be useful for an educational purpose.
And, to repeat what has been said above, that isn't a loophole since links on Wikidata to unwanted images will be deleted there; the files will then no longer be in use and will be deleted from Commons. Commons policy on this was very carefully drafted to ensure that Commons doesn't override the needs of local projects, is quite clear if you read through the text, and has been unchanged for over a decade. The issue isn't with Commons, it's with the incorrect application (perhaps accidental misunderstanding) of Commons rules by some OTRS agents.
As others have suggested, what needs to happen here is simply for the OTRS private guidance to be published, and probably revised. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm mistaken at all. I completely agree with you in fact and that it what I was saying to the letter in so many words. GMGtalk 19:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. Reading what you said again I really can't understand how I thought you meant the opposite. I have struck the first sentence. My apologies. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - because these scientists are possible future Jobs, Gates, or Tolkien. This is similar to going to US Library of Congress author conventions And taking photos of up and coming authors. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep - because after reading this wall of text my takeaways are: 1) OTRS file acceptance follows secret guidelines that have different outcomes than the default uploader and these need to be transparent for all projects, including Wikidata and 2) the project looks like something we want, period. Now going to read the followup wall of text on how to prevent this happening in future (and can't help wondering here what on earth we have been missing since 2013 when Wikidata slowly started to get illustrated with Commons files!!) Jane023 (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Improving processes to avoid thisEdit

Hi all

What additional information could be added to the documentation for OTRS volunteers to avoid this confusion around rejections in future?

John Cummings (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Great question, but possibly a little too narrowly framed? It seems to me that if OTRS were to publish its policies and procedures, with some explanation of why they are in place, and define a straightforward way to ask questions, give feedback or commentary, that might go a long way toward mitigating the kind of issue that arose here. Of course, all that takes work...but it seems like important work to do. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
One extremely simple answer is to make all policies and templates on the OTRS wiki public.
Though everyone can understand why specific cases cannot be published, there never has been a good reason as to why all the processes and policies that OTRS volunteers follow should be kept a secret. There is nothing there that would be a surprise to anyone. This is not Fight Club. -- (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I contend that an OTRS volunteer should not upload an image to Commons if it's in violation of Commons policies, especially if they are also a Commons admin with a good working knowledge of Commons policies. Take, for example, COM:FOP. Right now, en-wiki has a non-Commons image of the Hallgrímskirkja‎ in Iceland because Iceland does not have FoP. Yet, File:Hallgrimskirkja (21877785058).jpg‎ copied from Flickr is on Commons and used at d:Q271466. This is a violation of FOP and it should not be hosted on Commons.  JGHowes  talk 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@JGHowes: This seems like a good principle, at least for a case where policy or law clearly disallows a file. But it seems irrelevant to the present discussion in several ways. This file was copied from Flickr, not uploaded via OTRS; it's a clear case, unlike the examples above in which there is more of a need to evaluate interrelated policies on multiple sites. Is it relevant in some way I'm missing, and if so, what's your suggestion for ensuring things work more smoothly in the future? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Yes, Pete, I realize that. But now that the discussion is moving towards possible changes in the instructions to OTRS agents, I think it would be a mistake to eliminate the agent's discretion entirely.  JGHowes  talk 01:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I've got no problems. If after verified the authorship and the copyright holder I upload a file from photosubmission queue and it's deleted, certainly a Commons admin will explain to the customer why the file was rejected even with an OTRS ticket, since it's up to us to take that decision, right? So, no problem. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Excellent list, Andy. I concur. I greatly appreciate the service that OTRS agents perform for the projects, and 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). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
See m:OTRS/Recruiting and the links provided there. It's not password-protected.  JGHowes  talk 22:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@JGHowes: I'm confident that most people who have followed the discussion this far are familiar with that page. But do note that (a) it only addresses a small portion of the concerns identified above, and (b) the all-important pronoun "we" is defined nowhere on that page. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm familiar with that page, and its subpages, It doesn't answer any of the above questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hi all, just few words to clarify how the relationship between OTRS and Notability works, for those who aren't familiar with the service. OTRS permissions-commons is concerned on files uploaded on Commons, thus it is Commons' SCOPE that is relevant for this queue (NB: Commons' inclusion criteria is, in a nutshell, (potentially) having a content page on any Wikimedia project). However OTRS agents are not admins that perform speedy deletions, nor they can replace the community in performing DRs by themselves. Generally it is only blatant advertisement or clear out of scope submissions that are (or should be) rejected. All the rest is generally accepted, given that the files have a valid permission. Then it's Commons' community that decides whether to keep or delete the files following the regular processes. --Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification, but it does not address the concern, which is that COM:INUSE policy on Commons does not include usage on Wikidata. Jane023 (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
What? Of course it does! It covers usage in any and all Wikimedia projects. Please see multiple posts above. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
As I have already pointed out above, the issue is that some OTRS volunteers dispute that images for use on Wikidata are in scope, and it is clear that those OTRS admins agents have been rejecting wanted images, supplied in good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
OTRS agents are bound by OTRS policies and the policies and guidelines of the wikis they edit. Most OTRS policies have been copied to Meta and are available here. Best practices for handling tickets are described on otrs-wiki and are covered by the confidentiality agreement. They are written and revised through consensus among OTRS agents and are typically discussed on the mailing lists, which are also covered by the confidentiality agreement. If you have questions about an agent's actions, you should contact the OTRS administrators, who have the sole authority over a volunteer's access to the OTRS system. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. there are 214 pages linked to, from the link you give above which one(s) answer which of the above questions? Which one of the 214 includes the policy from which the the highlighted quote above was taken? When you say "They are written and revised through consensus among OTRS agents", what is "they" (polices, or best practices)? And why are "best practices" covered by a confidentiality agreement? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
You asked what the OTRS policies are: the OTRS policies that have been copied to meta and translated are included in that list. All other content on otrs-wiki is considered non-public information. Best practice guidance is written by OTRS voluteers, policies are written by the OTRS administrators and the WMF. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
What does Wikidata have to do with this? Gryllida (chat) 23:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gryllida: The very first post in this section, made by me and timestamped '19:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)' says "Please see: d:Wikidata:Project chat#Images for Wikidata - "Global Young Academy" where, it is suggested that it is OTRS policy to reject images that are not provided for use on a specific Wikipedia article, even if they have potential use on Wikidata. If so, this would be very damaging.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I added some garish highlighting for Andy's questions, and also for the only answer so far, which does not answer any of the questions. Still waiting. Jane023 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that a fairly robust consensus has emerged among many non-OTRS agents in this discussion, that it would be worthwhile for OTRS to adopt greater transparency in its policies and procedures, and perhaps consider some changes to them. Is there an OTRS agent who can acknowledge this feedback, and commit to raising the question among the other OTRS agents, to explore whether some action can be taken based on it? Pinging Ganímedes and AntiCompositeNumber, two OTRS agents who have been involved in this discussion. Can you help? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I can bring it up on the mailing list. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you AntiCompositeNumber. If you're willing, I think it would be helpful if you could post the text you send to the mailing list here, so that even skeptical Wikimedians can see that the points were accurately captured. Also, I hope you will be able to report back how the discussion goes, and any decisions or efforts that result from it, at whatever time is most appropriate. I'm sure I'm not alone in appreciating your efforts to move this to a resolution. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
"I hope you will be able to report back how the discussion goes" It would be better if the email to the mailing list simply pointed to this discussion and asked people to comment here, in plain view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with Andy on this point. While it's true that there is a great advantage to having all the discussion public, I don't think it's realistic or reasonable to require it. I think it's safe to assume that some discussion will be carried on in private; and if that's the case, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask that the outcomes of that private discussion be reported publicly. That's what I'm asking AntiCompositeNumber to do (or alternately, to ensure that somebody else is assigned to do it). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
As long as the relevant OTRS wiki remain confidential, discussion of their contents will have to as well, and that means restricting the discussion to the OTRS wiki and mailing list. I will likely be able to share if any changes result from this, but likely not in great detail (unless of course, the relevant pages are made public). The mail I sent follows. As a point of clarification, while this section is the only one linked, it is not the only discussion I am referring to.

Hello,

As I'm sure many of you are aware, non-OTRS members of the Commons community have recently expressed concern around the processing of OTRS tickets, especially relating to photosubmission tickets. These discussions have been spread across many fora, but a significant portion took place at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata>.

While some of the commentary has been somewhat misguided, I do think that the discussion has brought up some important points that are at least worth acknowledging:
1. The guidance to OTRS agents is lacking in some areas, and needs improvement
2. There is no systematic review of permissions or photosubmission tickets
3. OTRS procedures are non-public, leading to misconceptions and misunderstandings from the wider community

Thoughts on how to address these points, if it is necessary to address them at all, are appreciated.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi AntiCompositeNumber, I saw your email and would like to help. Where will we be brainstorming about this? Ciell (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: The mailing list is probably a good place to start, but a page on the otrs wiki might also be good for longer discussions on one of the more specific points. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you AntiCompositeNumber. I look forward to seeing where this goes, and I'm hopeful that OTRS can increase the wider wiki community's understanding of how it operates. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: It's been over a week, and there have been no responses here. Have there been any on the mailing list? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

...tumbleweed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Andy,
Yes we do have contact over our email list, and several of us want to be involved in any follow up. But conversation are a bit slow at the moment, I think because there are time consuming other issues in many of our lives right now - COVID pandemic and all. But there's no need to rush, right? We won't forget. Ciell (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Another four weeks have passed, with no response whatsoever from anyone representing the OTRS team; and it is over eight weeks since I posed the questions, above. Can we at least have some indication of when we might get answers? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Ciell (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears that those of us who have raised concerns are now being ignored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but I think this is not the place for this discussion. I think you may take it in the Village Pump, or Meta. But here is a place where few agents helps reviewing tickets. If you want to change a policy, then you need a more open space with more users involved. That's my humble opinion. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
From the header box on this page: "This page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers". And we've already been told that this discussion has been flagged up on the OTRS mailing list. Before anyone can decide whether policies need changing, we need to know what the applicable policies are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
As you wish. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Redux, June 2020Edit

Restored from the archive, as this remains a live issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I think the policy for Commons is very clear. We host files that are in scope and licensed under a free license. Wikidata is a Wikimedia project so any files that is used there in in scope. Personally I don't care about scope when looking at OTRS. Perhaps if someone send me 1.000 dick pics and asked me to upload them I would say no thank you knowing that I would spend hours uploading them only to see the "penis patrol" nominate them for deletion.
There may have been some confusion about Wikidata before but as I read the comments above it has been clearly stated that Wikidata is a part of the Wiki-family so files used there are in scope.
If some OTRS volunteers refuse to upload a photo and say it is because of scope then I suggest that you/they/someone make a post here and we can have someone else review it. Or perhaps just have the ppl create an account on Commons and upload the files themselves. --MGA73 (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You say you "think the policy for Commons is very clear", but this whole issue arose because individual OTRS agents were interpreting it differently to each other. The individual agent in the case cited has not said that they will change their behaviour, nor has anyone else indicated that they will be prevented from rejecting material which the policy apparently says should be accepted. Furthermore, there are ten questions, highlighted above, to which no answers, let alone "clear" answers, have been given. The questions cannot be avoided indefinitely. We generally have no way of knowing when a valid image has been rejected via OTRS, since the system is not public. Your comment about pictures of penises seems to be a - rather bizarre - straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Anyone can edit I support Andy or anyone else producing the documentation to answer these questions. I expect that as an experienced Wikimedia contributor, Andy's first guesses of the answers to all these questions would be correct, and that his reason for asking is not about getting answers but about wanting more infrastructure.
    The request here is for a lot of documentation, and I think the reason why this has not been done is because it is a lot of work on volunteers' time, and because these questions are about some fundamentals of Wikimedia operations which are ubiquitous, a bit boring to established Wikipedia editors, and hard to explain. I volunteer to meet Andy or a group of people in a video-recorded live conversation which we post here in this thread to answer the questions. Talking things through is much easier than producing written documentation. I do think that it is too much to ask that the Volunteer Response Team produce a guidebook, which seems to me what is being requested here. I think it is reasonable to want guidebooks for many aspects of Wikimedia projects, but written explanations for any parts of Wikimedia projects have rarely either satisfied people asking for them or been very helpful for transmitting culture.
    I do expect that voice conversation would resolve most or all concerns quickly. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • [ec] "I expect that ... his reason for asking is not about getting answers but about wanting more infrastructure. You expect wrongly. "a guidebook, which seems to me what is being requested here" Also wrong. Please do not attempt to speak for me again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I apologize for my presumption and my lack of understanding. You have my best wishes in finding the answers you are seeking. I also regret that I lack awareness of anything more that I or anyone else in the Volunteer Response Team can offer you. Everywhere I look in this conversation I see misunderstandings. From my perspective this conversation has reached its end and I would tag it as resolved.
        {{Resolved}} Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing, Bluerasberry: Yes I think the policy is very clear: Commons:Project scope and Commons:Licensing. But if you go look at Commons:Deletion requests you will see thousands of DR's because we are a community of thousands of users so every one have their own opinion on what scope is and how to understand copyright.
    As I said I normally do not care about scope when I look at OTRS. If it has a free license (and I think it is legal) I will upload/accept it. If I think it is useless I might start a DR. It has to be really bad before I would say no (like I said if it was 1.000 penises).
    We are all humans. If you disagree with someone about an OTRS case then talk to them or make a post here. --MGA73 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • In case you did not notice, I made such a post here, half a year ago. This long section is the result; and yet the issues raised are still not resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes I noticed the long post :-)
        But as I see it the post started with a question if Wikidata is in scope and the answer is after some discussion that it IS in scope.
        Then there is a request for someone to write a lot of text. But for what? We do not need extra text.
        If you have a specific ticket start a request about that :-)
        We are volunteers so we are not going to look for work by reading old tickets to see if someone made a good reply or not. Well at least I'm not. --MGA73 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • "The long post"? It contained just 49 words. If you see "a request for someone to write a lot of text", then you must see it elsewhere, for there is none on this page. There are ten questions, the answers to which may be long, or short, or simply links. Nonetheless, they remain unanswered, and they are not unreasonable questions. I wonder why they remain unanswered? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 
No more Nutella?
  • Read Commons:OTRS, m:OTRS/Volunteering and Commons:Policies and guidelines. If you have a problem with a permission or a picture ask here. If you have a problem with an OTRS member then go talk to them or start a request at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. As I already said we do not go around and check eachother unless someone ask a specific question. --MGA73 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, you already said that. I asked ten specific questions, almost half a year ago. I've read all the pages you list; the questions are not answered there; just as they have not been answered here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to OTRS agents: Refer to rule 55. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • From this we can conclude that OTRS is not Nutella - we can't make everyone happy... --MGA73 (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure how Nutella taste, but I chatch the idea XD Andy Mabbett: I've told you long before what I think, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. All the doubs you've got are valid, but, again, this is not the place. If you want to know the answer, I think the place it's a RfC in Meta. If you want to discuss why delete file without article or if we should accept files only because they're linking to WD, I think the place is the Village Pump. Only if you need to know about any specific ticket, this is the place. If not, I'm not sure how we can help you (but of course, you're alway be wellcome). Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, I saw your comment about the venue the last time you made it, and I responded: "From the header box on this page: "This page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers". Indeed, you replied to my response, so must have seen it then. Your claim that "Only if you need to know about any specific ticket, this is the place" is contradicted by that statement, and does not seem to be supported by any other policy, or actual practice.
        I have no particular desire to discuss NISHANT_BHUSHAN.jpg, never having seen it or been aware of it before your linking to its now-deleted page. It is true that I came here to discuss a particular set of images, which you personally had wrongly rejected. Your error in doing so seems to have been confirmed in the above discussion, and in the clarification to the guidelines noted by JGHowes a few hours ago, just below this comment.
        It is therefore rather troubling that you nonetheless still question "if we should accept files only because they're linking to WD". Are you now prepared to abide by the cited guidelines, and what are you doing to resolve the issue of the images which you previously rejected, contrary to that guideline?
        That said, although I came here to discuss some specific images, the discussion has uncovered some wider, generic issues - encapsulated in the ten highlighted, and as yet unanswered, questions above - and it important that those issues are resolved. As I also noted in our previous exchange "we've already been told that this discussion has been flagged up on the OTRS mailing list" . We await the overdue results of that non-public discussion.
        You suggest an RfC on Meta. As I also said in my previous reply to you: "Before anyone can decide whether policies need changing, we need to know what the applicable policies are".
        You ask how you can help: It is curious, and somewhat of a pity, that the energy and time that you and others have spent critiquing the above questions, which are not unreasonable, nor complex, have not instead been expended in answering them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pigsonthewing, Your concern about the old guideline for OTRS volunteers vis-a-vis Wikidata was addressed on Feb. 28 when a WMF staff person updated the guideline. (The old guideline, which was written before the introduction of WikiData, said: "‎If the person is trying to submit an image of a non-notable person (or one we don't have an article for), it might be best not to upload it",) The current guideline is now amended to read, "‎If the person is trying to submit an image of a non-notable person (or one we don't have a page on any project for) ‎...". ‎—  JGHowes  talk 23:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Is that guideline on a public wiki, or the private OTRS wiki (see question 2 in the set of ten highlighted above)? If the latter, may we know which WMF staff member made that change? Was that change made in response to this discussion, and if so, why did that WMF staff member - or any - not comment here? Was anything else done, to notify individual OTRS agents of the clarification to the guideline? What steps are in place to ensure compliance with the guideline, and to deal with any cases of OTRS agents who persist in disregarding it, and to review their interactions (and those preceding the clarification) with good-faith providers of rejected images (see question 8, above)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
      • As previously noted, the guideline in question is one of the "helpful tips" for OTRS volunteers and is not publicly viewable. Obviously, the modification was prompted by the discussion taking place at the time here and on OTRS' IRC channel. Indeed, the edit summary accompanying the page change states, "update the tip to include all projects". That's as far as I'm going with this.  JGHowes  talk 01:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Pigsonthewing Just to make things clear Commons is a Wiki so EVERYONE not blocked can upload photos to Commons. Photo submissions is a service designed to make it easier for people that do not have a wiki account to upload photos that we really, really want. It is not meant for being a way for lazy wiki users to have a shortcut to make other users upload photos. So if A send a photo to photo submissions and volunteer B think everything looks okay then B will upload the photo. If B think that the photo is useless then B will probably ask what photo can be used for and if B does not get a good answer then B may not upload it. If A is not happy with the answer then A can just upload the photo him-/herself. Problem solved!
        This long discussion started months ago with the question if photos only used on Wikidata was in scope and it was cleared months ago that it IS in scope. Problem solved!
        As said before we do not have a process where we monitor what other OTRS volunteers does. If someone have a problem with a specific user or a specific ticket then they can write it here.
        So do you have any recent examples of rejected photos or are you just stuck in this to get revenge over someone you do not like? --MGA73 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
        • The statement "we do not have a process where we monitor what other OTRS volunteers does" is very troubling. The rest of your comment appears to be made in bad faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
          • I'm trying to figure out why you keep going in this discussion. To me it is important to know if there is a problem or if you are on the hunt for someone. If you do not have any recent examples I there is no reason to spend more time on this. --MGA73 (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

en:File:Nityanand Swami.jpgEdit

Hi! This file claim that a permission was send in 2009 (or earlier). I could not find a permission. But there seems to be several permissions related to AroundTheGlobe and Swami. For example OTRS:2008101410045759. Perhaps someone are better at searching that I am? --MGA73 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MGA73  Why do you consider that the ticket:;2008101410045759 is not valid? Apparently the permission is for "any images/text from our website under the GDFL license". (if there are private details you wanna discuss, we can move this conversion elsewhere) --Ruthven (msg) 09:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MVASCOEdit

Hi! The user had his identity confirmed via OTRS in 2011 but looking at his talk page I see that many files have been deleted after that date. I wonder if the deletions are okay or if users/admins missed that the identity was confirmed. Should the uploader have done something else? I'm not an admin so I can't check the deleted files. --MGA73 (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73:As far as I see, most of the user's file start with "BORN WITH STYLE", so it looks like the previous files is likely to be those files related to the user, while the latest deleted may not. But anyways, IMO it is better to raise this issue on COM:AN.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Commons image editEdit

I am being harrassed by an administrator. I uploaded a scanned anolgue image to Wiki Commons and have provided proof that I had authorisation to do so from the creator of that image. The creator of the image is a lawyer who sent his sworn statement of his ownership of the copyright in that image directly to the permissions team. Can any fair administrator help me with this image. The sister image from the same set from which similar proof of authorisation was also submitted, remains unchallenged on the site. Ticket#2020063010000411 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Villa_Holzner_Raumplan,_north_facing_fa%C3%A7ade._Hronov,_Czech_Republic.jpg the accepted image as you can see is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Villa_Holzner_Raumplan,_south_facing_façade._Hronov,_Czech_Republic.jpg Wasuwatanabe (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure to understand. Do you say it's the same angle? The same photo but cropped? --Ganímedes (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it the 2 photos are taken by the same person and the photographer is trying to send permission(s) for the photos. One ticket seems to mention both files but there is also a separate permission for one of the photos. So I think the 2 tickets should be linked to help the volunteer. --MGA73 (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Nat, JJMC89: Just for info! --MGA73 (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

2020071610006057 – is it rejected?Edit

User:Stefanraduionescu claims he has not received any particular response for ticket 2020071610006057 than the automatically generated one (..."This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received"...). The tagged files, however (1, 2), state that "the message was not sufficient to confirm permission". Can we know ticket's status and, if it was rejected, why exactly? Gikü (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gikü, Stefanraduionescu: Ticket:2020071610006057 jest przetwarzany, czekamy na identyfikację i zgodę fotografa.
Ticket:2020071610006057 is being processed, we await identification of and permission from the photographer.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me [2] progressEdit

File:Cassie Mogilner Holmes.jpg It has been on {{OTRS received}} for two weeks, but there is no result yet. I want to know how OTRS are going, Thank you. 轻语者 (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  • We are still awaiting a license from the photographer/copyright owner. As stated in our email of 10 July, we can't accept forwarded permissions or statements such as, "My photo can be used on Wikipedia", etc. What is needed is for the photographer to email a Creative Commons ShareAlike license. Without that, this photo won't be accepted.  JGHowes  talk 04:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Jahyanaï_wikipedia.jpgEdit

Bonjour,

La photo "Jahyanaï_wikipedia.jpg" à été autorisée par son propriétaire pour l'utilisation sur wikipédia. Nous sommes en attente de cette validation par OTRS depuis plus de 2 semaines.

Je vous remercie vivement de votre retour, Bien cordialement, —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:861:3284:1DF0:749A:9C27:663C:7C32 (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

The photo "File:Jahyanaï wikipedia.jpg" has been authorized by its owner for use on wikipedia. We have been waiting for this validation by OTRS for more than 2 weeks.

Thank you very much for your return,

Best regards,
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Victoriaquerule (talkcontribsblock logfilter log): Salut et bienvenue. Je suppose que c'est vous, mais veuillez vous connecter. J'ai répondu à Ticket: 2020070610005255. Nous avons besoin d'une licence spécifique du vidéaste par COM:L/fr et d'un consentement sous la forme spécifiée par COM:CONSENT/fr.
Hi, and welcome. I guess this is you, but please login. I replied to Ticket:2020070610005255. We need a specific license from the videographer per COM:L and consent in the form specified by COM:CONSENT.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket:2020061510008461Edit

The permission for this image [3] has been sent by email on 15 June 2020. Regards. --Guise (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guise: Did you not get our email message dated Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:14:22 +0000 requesting permission from the photographer? Convenience link: File:Amethyst x Pearl - Steven Universe Cosplay by Ivy Hale.jpg.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Six month old image copyright claim from UK govEdit

Just noticed this takedown request submitted by someone claiming to be from the the UK Ministry of Defence. It seems to have originally been submitted back in February and a formal Deletion Request created in April. Image still up. Sadly, it's a quality image and used by a whole bunch of articles across many multilingual versions of Wikipedia. But it does seem to violate our copyright and licensing provisions. I have no interest in this other than pointing it out. Regards.░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 21:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

Is there an OTRS ticket related to it? Please let us know the number. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

OTRSEdit

Can someone please check: File:National Scouting Museum - Philmont Scout Ranch (46104433994).jpg?

Thanks.

Evrik (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

An update to ticket:2020051510000951 was received today, and has not yet been processed. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Nat as locking Agent.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Evrik: We now have direct email contact with a representative of the photographer.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cuirt_Festival_1986_Poster.jpg permissionEdit

Regarding https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JuTa#Cuirt_Festival_1986_Poster.jpg_permission, please advise what I need to do beyond what has already been provided. The permission for the image was been sent by email by the author/artist on 18 June 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phogieone (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Phogieone: Sorry, we got no answer to our request dated Fri, 19 Jun 2020 04:17:54 +0000 on Ticket:2020061810005949 about File:Cuirt Festival 1986 Poster.jpg.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Jeff, what was the form of the request? My understanding was that the email from the author would release the image for use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phogieone (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Phogieone: The identities of the creator(s) of the image(s) depicted in the poster, the creator of the poster, and the photographer have not yet been revealed. You are welcome to join the conversation by emailing permissions-commons wikimedia.org with "[Ticket#: 2020061810005949]" in the subject and with a carbon copy to the email address of the author/artist, and subsequently replying to all.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. Email sent as instructed. --Phogieone (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Phogieone: Received. Pinging @Nat as locking Agent.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Jeff, would it be possible to restore the image while this is being discussed? I'd rather not go through the whole process of uploading again as I feel I have provided all that was asked for already. --Phogieone (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Phogieone. The OTRS agent will request the undeletion when he verifies permission. Don't worry. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Polly_Morgan,_cinematographer.jpgEdit

Hello, regarding File:Polly Morgan, cinematographer.jpg, can someone please let me know what was missing in the OTRS process? I had an email exchange with the cinematographer in which she provided that file. I provided her the OTRS release generator but am not sure if she followed through. Did she or not? Did an OTRS agent not take any final steps to finalize this? Erik (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: We asked for a release from the photographer in Ticket:2020032510008438 in March, but never heard back. The above advice applies.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Can you clarify what the "asking" was? Did you email her or what? Would like to know what to say exactly when I email her following up about this. Erik (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Erik: The photographer should email us directly, if possible using the consent and adding Re: Ticket:2020032510008438 in the subject line of the email. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I emailed her with your instructions. Erik (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Erik, Ganímedes: The proper syntax in the subject line should include "[Ticket#: 2020032510008438]" without quotes. I believe the square brackets and "#" are important.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2020061510007363Edit

File:Dervla Murphy Iran 1963 A.jpg ‎and File:Dervla Murphy Iran 1963 B.jpg ‎were both recently deleted. I was under the impression (incorrectly it seems) that you were satisfied that Murphy owned the copyright to those images, but that they did not own the copyright to the other one File:Dervla Murphy and dogs.jpg -- U003F? 08:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Giving this a nudge. As I said, I thought that we'd decided that Murphy owned the copyright to the photos of herself, taken on her own camera, via the 1963 Copyright Act (Ireland), but the fact that both were deleted suggests no decision had been made. -- U003F? 19:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I also note that File:Dervla Murphy and bike.jpg was deleted under the same sweep. -- U003F? 07:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

[Ticket#2020062210007993]Edit

Once upon a time (actually about six weeks ago) an author and feminist (with biographies in german, finnish and two more wikipedias) jogged and happened to see a poster posted on an information board about the male priviledge to go topless without fears, that women and trans people suffer, if they do the same. She took (standing on public grounds and covered by FoP in Germany) a picture of the poster and posted it to a social media software that is popular in Germany. The post was reposted and liked and commented on some thousend times. I.e. by men feeling unjustly accused and discriminated against. The story even made it to national printed press.

I went on a foto safari and took a number of pictures of the public parc, where the poster had been posted, but was sadly unable to locate the poster itself. As the time I could dedicate to this project was limited, I choose plan B and asked the photographer, if she was willing to donate her photo to wikipedia. She instantly replied and sent me her photo (made with a iphone). I told her about the licensing requirements of Commons and lined out three possible ways to fulfill this requirements: Post the image herself to Commons, sent the phote with email to the OTRS team or post it to a foto site like flickr and flag it as either cc-4 or cc-0. As she was unwilling to create an account at Wikimedia or to interact with OTRS, she created a flickr account and made the file available under cc-0. I used the flickr import feature of the upload wizard (that inserted information about the flickr import into the upload commoent) and the flickr review bot added a review notice in the file description (with an edit comment vwerifying the cc-0 license). After that the photographer deleted the no longer needed flickr account. To addtionally verify the identity of the author of the social media post with the uploader of the identical image to flickr, i disclosed the conversation between me and the author to OTRS just to make sure, that the image will not be deleted in later time as a possible copyright violation ([Ticket#2020062210007993], sorry it is all in german, I didnot expect any problems occuring with the ticket). After some time a german speaking OTRS agent claimed the ticket, but raised doubt on the validity of the upload commnent generated by the upload wizard and the review by the review bot. He marked the file for deletion because of missing permission and asked me to contact the author to have her send permission to OTRS (the very thing he knew, that she wandted to avoid by using flickr and the flickr review process of commons). Within two hours I clarified in a mail to OTRS, what had already been said in my original mail to OTRS: this was not about permission (the permission had been documented already) but to verify identity. I was under the impression that the deadline for deletions is seven days so I panicked after two days without any any more action by the agent who had claimed the ticket and as I found out was now taking a break from wikipedia (no edit and no logged actions for two days at that time) therefore I sent wikimail to another (german speaking) OTRS agent and asked him to look into the ticket as to avoid a deletion of the file. He did not answer by wikimail, OTRS or to my email address, but posted a message to my talk page on the german wikipedia, that I only found by chance as I do not do much on german wikipedia and have turned of most notification to not deluge my commons notification emails even more. He told me to assume good faith and take no more action ("ohne Diskussionsbedarf"). By now i have assumed thirty days of good faith and the file has been deleted yesterday for missing permission.

In conclusion: I will inform the photographer about the deletion and as has now been confirmed by an OTRS agent, and a buerocrat and an admin, that upload wizard comments and review bot messages do not constitute a valid permission for a file on commons start DRs for affected files as my time allows. I will also rest the case of the male topless priviledge supremacy and go on with my uploads from the Hamburg dyke march (that I would alreads have done, if I had not taken the time to write this story) and maybe some more categorizations of intersectionality images on commons. --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want from us in this story.... another extra opinion? I've reviewed the ticket and the image, and I do agree that if she indeed does not want to send us an email in OTRS, there is no way for OTRS-agents to verify the permission. Only a screenshot from a DM conversation is insufficient for OTRS.
If you would like to discuss the validation of reviews by bot from uploads that come in through Flickr, I'd like to refer you to the Village Pump. It is not up to OTRS to decide whether or not validation through a bot in this case would have been enough.
Images can be restored on Commons if undeletion is in order. Ciell (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: On second thought: because it seems no one was questioning the permission for the image, nor the review done by the Flickrreviewbot was questioned as far as I can see, you could simple ask for undeletion on these grounds. Is it my correct interpretation that you triggered the OTRS-procedure by accident? Because the image was deleted because of insufficient OTRS-validation, no other reasons are mentioned. Ciell (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
C.Suthorn: An OTRS agent always can request the undeletion of the file when it's needed; there's no need to get worried about it. Now, if she doesn't want to email to OTRS, perhaps she can agree to sign the permission template and you send it in her name as PDF or jpg? Could this be a solution for her? Usually work for us...--Ganímedes (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell In fact I did question the permission for the image as well as the review done by the Flickrreviewbot. The picture had been existing on Flickr only for one or two days, hence it was impossible to counter check it. A bot is not infallible, so at least for a couple of days it should be possible to countercheck its results. – The poster of which the photo was taken was itself a hoax. There was and there is no official request from any institution of the city of Hamburg that men should cover their upper body in the park. The whole action looked very much like an attempt to abuse Wikipedia for a hoax. If you have access to OTRS, read the conversation in the ticket, and read also Alfred Neumann's comment in the ticket. --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  Info I did not get this "Alfred Neumann's comment" in my email. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Mussklprozz, I did not read into his comment that this was a hoax. Can you tell me where you questioned the review done by Flickrbot? I don't see a DR linked to the deleted image, or a deletion request on the file-page describing your doubts. Not that you have to - it's just for cases like these nice to communicate out in the open where possible. Ciell (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  Info I did not get this "Alfred Neumann's comment" in my email. It was also never said, that this poster was made by the city of Hamburg. It does not matter, who created the poster (actually so called Ad-Busters). The photo is not a hoax. The file description contains a link to the twitter thread (in which it is discussed, that the poster is the work of ad-busters). The cited DM in the ticket disucsses the very fact, that the poster is a form of Ad-Busting. The media coverage in national press can be found with any internet search engine (startpage, ecosia, bing). So can the information about Ad-Busters in Germany (and Ad-Busting is a notable subject for Wikipedia and this image is the only image of Ad-Busting on Comnmons I am aware of). --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  Info I did not get this "Alfred Neumann's comment" in my email. (checked my mailbox just now) --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that things are mixing up a bit now: Some of the information I gave is available to OTRS agents only. I questioned the review done by Flickrbot in my email to the uploader. To make it short: the whole story looks highly suspect as a case of Flickr washing. --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Convenience links: File:Hamburg, Am Wall, Grünanlagen, Juni 2020 nach Covid-19-Lockerungen, Oberkörperfreiprivileg, 01.jpg and Ticket:2020062210007993.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The copyright issue is of course independent of the contents of the image, but the story of being "unwilling to interact with OTRS" but willing to create a Flickr account instead - that vanishes after a few days - sounds not very credible to me. But anyway: This is not an OTRS issue, but rather a matter of an undeletion request. If there is an admin willig to undelete the image, then it will be undeleted, that's it. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: Yes, I agree with Reinhard here. There is nothing that OTRS can do for you: even if we could solve the permission-question, there would be a complaint about flickr washing, that is not up to OTRS to handle. I'd like to direct you to the links and procedure in my first commons @10:58, 2 August 2020. Ciell (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I answered to the OTRS agent within 2 hours, I did not get an anser for 30 days, than the file was deleted even so it has an flickr review by the bot in the file description, I get knowledge about a "comment" but still no anser in my email from OTRS system and I still do not have this comment. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The agent made a private comment and should not be mentioned here. That was a mistake I think. The easiest thing to solve this problem is that the artist sign the permission and send it to OTRS, directly or in a pdf or jpg file as I said before IMHO. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: an OTRS-agent replied to the email address from which the screenshot of the DM was send to us on 23-06-2020 09:39, giving directions for the extra information we need. We did not received the essential information for us to verify, therefore the image was deleted because of lack of permissions. Ciell (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The agent replied to my address and I did sent an answer at 11:25 - less than two hours later. I still have no answer to this mail in my email. I still have no knowledge about this "private comment" ("That was a mistake I think." <- probably that comment was a mistake). --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi C.Suthorn, the OTRS software enables agents to exchange thoughts on tickets: a line of thoughts for giving a certain reply for instance, or questions that need answering, or to refer to the image or discussions that are happening online. These notes are not public, and you will not be notified of them. There is no need in assuming bad faith here in the sense of "that was a mistake".
Yes, you replied to the 23-06-2020 09:39 email, but your reply did in no way answer any of the questions that were asked in our mail. We (OTRS) cannot verify anything on the base of a screenshot of a DM, and a Flickr account that existed for 2 days. Ciell (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Serbian agentEdit

Hi. Ticket:2020073110003209 it's written in the Serbian language. Some help it's appreciated. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2020022010007011Edit

An OTRS email for File:Innocent Umezulike.jpeg (ticket 2020022010007011) was sent in February and approved (according to the person who provided the file), but the file was recently deleted. Could you kindly verify whether the email was received? Davykamanzitalk · contribs 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Eheeemmm.... I've got the impression this ticket is not finished. The agent made a question long time ago and never got an answer. @Nat:? --Ganímedes (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ganímedes, Nat: Apparently the copyright holder responded in March with more info on when the picture was taken and who owns but received no further correspondence. Davykamanzitalk · contribs 18:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The initial OTRS email was sent on 20 February. Davykamanzitalk · contribs 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The last email of the ticket it's from the OTRS agent on 02/21 at 18:57. There is no further activity in that ticket. Perhaps the CR holder send the info in a different email and so get a new ticket number? --Ganímedes (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find anything using the world-famous OTRS search system. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I took a gander, and it does not appear that there was a response to the query nor was there another email sent by the sender. The permission has not yet been accepted. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nat, AntiCompositeNumber, Ganímedes: Another permission email's just been sent by the copyright holder (admin@umezulikefoundation.org). Kindly confirm. Davykamanzitalk · contribs 14:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This has been received but not yet processed as ticket:2020080410006578 ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
We've received the statement (again), but previous question remain unanswered. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Is there any info in particular that needs to be provided? As far as I'm aware the statement was to provide permission for the file to be used on Wikimedia. Davykamanzitalk · contribs 15:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
That discussion it's taking place in the ticket, and I'm not comfortable with the idea of spreed it outside OTRS. Sorry. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Davykamanzi: I had it undeleted via COM:UDR#File:Innocent Umezulike.jpeg and added it to Wikidata and English Wikipedia. Please have your correspondents carbon copy you on email messages via OTRS to keep you in the loop.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for letting me know. Davykamanzitalk · contribs 11:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Félix Huerta y Huerta (1901) cuadro.pngEdit

Hola:

El dueño de este cuadro (Arsenio Lope Huerta, bisnieto del personaje retratado Félix Huerta y Huerta) dio su permiso el 21 de abril de 2020 por correo-electrónico remitido a permissions-es@wikimedia.org (en el apartado "permiso" del archivo de cuadro puse el número del OTRS tickets) para que se pueda publicar en Wikimedia Commons. Desde entonces no ha habido una resolución por parte de OTRS, y el fichero ha sido borrado el 29 de julio de 2020 por User:JuTa.

Por favor, ruego que sea atendida la autorización del dueño del cuadro, ya que esta obra es de 1901, y la firma que aparece, "B. Buj", no ha permitido identificar al pintor. El personaje (Félix Huerta y Huerta) tiene gran relevancia, porque fue 4 veces alcalde de Alcalá de Henares e inició una saga familiar de gran relevancia política y económica en dicha ciudad. Un cordial saludo:Raimundo Pastor (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello:

The owner of this painting (Arsenio Lope Huerta, great-grandson of the portrayed character Félix Huerta y Huerta) gave his permission on April 21, 2020 by email sent to permissions-es @ wikimedia.org (in the "permission" section of the chart file I put the number of the OTRS tickets) so that it can be published on Wikimedia Commons. Since then there has been no resolution by OTRS, and the file has been deleted on July 29, 2020 by User: JuTa.

Please, I beg that the authorization of the owner of the painting be attended, since this work is from 1901, and the signature that appears, "B. Buj", has not allowed the painter to be identified. The character (Félix Huerta y Huerta) has great relevance, because he was mayor of Alcalá de Henares 4 times and began a family saga of great political and economic relevance in that city. A cordial greeting:
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Raimundo Pastor: Hola y bienvenido. Encontré Ticket:2020031510005432 después de una excavación innecesaria. Envió un correo electrónico a dos personas solicitando permiso para esta foto de una pintura, una el 15 de marzo de 2020 23:10:13 +0000 (UTC) y otra el 18 de marzo de 2020 23:23:23 +0000 (UTC). ¿Cómo pueden ambos ser titulares exclusivos de derechos de autor? Pinging @Ganymede como agente.
Hi, and welcome. I found Ticket:2020031510005432 after some unnecessary digging. You emailed two people requesting permission for this photo of a painting, one 15 Mar 2020 23:10:13 +0000 (UTC) and another 18 Mar 2020 23:23:23 +0000 (UTC). How can both be exclusive copyright holders? Pinging @Ganymede as Agent.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Raimundo Pastor: Como te dije en su momento, tu nos enviaste la copia de tu comunicación con la persona (cosa innecesaria desde mi punto de vista) pero la poseedora de los derechos de autor (heredera del pintor, imagino) nunca envió el permiso o nunca lo recibimos. Te comuniqué esto el 21/4/2020. Y nada ha cambiado desde entonces. Saludos. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hola,

1.- Se desconoce quien es el autor y, por lo tanto, desconozco su fecha de fallecimiento y quien son sus herderos (si los tiene). En el cuadro aparece la firma "B. Buj.". He buscado un nombre que encaje con esas iniciales en libros de biografías de pintores y por Internet, y no he localizado un artista de finales del siglo XIX o principios del siglo XX (el cuadro es de 1901) que cuadre con esas iniciales. El dueño del cuadro desconoce quien es autor.

2.- El dueño del cuadro es Arsenio Lope Huerta (bisnieto de la persona que aparece en el cuadro, Félix Huerta y Huerta). Sólo he mantenido correspondencia con esta persona. La primera vez en marzo, y parece que su respuesta no se localizó o no llegó; por eso le volví a pedir la autorización en abril, y me envió una copia del mensaje con la autorización según el modelo de Wikimedia Commons el 21/04/2020 a las 13:04 horas. Si es preciso puedo reenviar este mensaje a quien me indiques. Por lo que estoy seguro que Arsenio Lope Huerta ha dado su autorización para que este cuadro se publique en Wikimedia Commons. Un cordial saludo: Raimundo Pastor (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Los permisos reenviados no son válidos para nosotros. Por otra parte, se necesita permiso del pintor o de sus herederos. Si el autor es desconocido, es necesario esperar una X cantidad de años para que esté en dominio público, que depende en general del país, pero por norma no es inferior a 100 años. ¿De qué país es la obra? PD: Estar en posesión del cuadro o ser heredero del sujeto del mismo no tiene implicancias sobre el derecho del autor de la obra. Saludos. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User need helpEdit

Hi! I contacted User:Bluyten about some of his uploads at User talk:Bluyten and he wrote back to me at User_talk:MGA73#Reply_to_your_permission_request_(Bram_Luyten_/_Denis-Chris_Luyten_De_Hauwere). Perhaps someone can have a look? I don't know if she have an email or she can write something on paper to scan and mail? --MGA73 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bluyten,
If you fill in and print the template on Commons:OTRS#Email_message_template_for_release_of_rights_to_a_file and have the widow sign the release, the niece can scan and send the document to OTRS. Most of the time this is a perfect alternative. Ciell (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I think the meaning was to ping User:Bluyten and not me :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Please advise the on COM:OTRS. Nothing more we could do. --Krd 13:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the belated reply Ciell and MGA73! I've read the template, but that looks like it will be necessary for each individual image. Is there a possibility to have such a statement for a whole collection of images? The other approach I see is that my aunt creates an account herself, and that I work within her account with her permission. I have paused my uploads, but still have tons of their material to go through. Thank you. --User:Bluyten
@Bluyten: If the images have not been previously published in any form (including blogs, social media, newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc.), then having her create an account is the easiest way. -- King of ♥ 17:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Release of huge archiveEdit

Hello, I have received permission from Professor John Emigh for the release of his audiovisual documentation of Odisha's culture (Odisha is a state in India), especially a traditional performing art called Prahallada Nataka on Commons under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Since he is not experienced with using Commons, I will have to handle the uploading and metadata part myself.

What is the best way to go about it?

  • To upload all the content in a single batch and then ask him to send the OTRS template with all details
  • There seems to be a way to authorise another account to release a creator's content. How to go about this process?

The second option seems to be an optimal method since the archive is huge and I doubt I can upload everything within the 7-day deletion deadline and get the OTRS mail work done. There's not much info on what process to follow to authorise another account (in this case, my account) to add the appropriate pre-stated license to the creator's works. This saves the hassle of sending multiple emails to the OTRS team. Any guidance, please?

-- Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi,
I don't think we have anything on the bigger releases on Commons, but in Dutch we recently wrote our 'best practices' in nl:Wikipedia:OTRS/Groot aantal afbeeldingen. If you would like, I could translate it to English here on Commons.
It basically follows your option 2: we ask the contact, mostly a WiR, to do 3-5 test uploads, and an original email from the copyrights holder (in this case, Professor John Emigh) with the contact in cc:. Then OTRS can verify the permission, the license, the scope of the permission and maybe help with the procedural aspects of Commons, e.g. categories, templates used (in which we can include the permission ticket since they are only to be added by OTRS-agents), etc.
Maybe other agents have different experiences? Ciell (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Karen Lorre and Angela Lauria 2018-12-13.jpgEdit

I uploaded the file File:Karen Lorre and Angela Lauria 2018-12-13.jpg on July 28. The photographer (not me) sent it as an attachment to permissions-en (and cc'd me), along with a free license statement (cc-by-sa-3.0). permissions-en replied that the image had to be uploaded to Commons before it could be reviewed. To speed things up (since the photographer didn't seem familiar with how to do that), I uploaded it for them, and I put the {{OTRS pending}} tag on it. I also advised permissions-en of the upload. If it's still waiting to be reviewed, that's fine, but if there's a problem that needs addressing (like the photographer needs to send another email), please let me know (and/or let them know). --Rob (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please let us know the ticket number received by the photographer. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Ticket#2020072810000325 --Rob (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Usually I'm involved with tickets in Dutch language, but this permission is fully clear, so I added the permission to the image. Thank you for reminding and for your effort and help. Please note in Dutch we have a website wikiportrait.nl, which makes it easy for persons to upload images. OTRS-volunteers will check the permission and upload the image in a highly automated process. If you want to read more: https://www.wikimedia.nl/blog-entry/5000-portrait-photo-s-of-famous-dutch-and-flemish-people-on-wikimedia-commons. Kind regards, Elly (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elly (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

OTRS and COI usersEdit

Hello! Genral question: if an art gallery uploads images to commons, as well as copyright permission via OTRS, then hides their promotional/COI editing on wiki, is it possible to connect these actions? Would an OTRS volunteer be able to confirm/deny a conectiuon, or is that against policy?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This is specifically related to this very confusing discussion in en.wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The gist of it is the user Art of Odessa on en-wiki who strongly promotes the work of Stepan Ryabchenko. In the linked commons category, they have uploaded all the images and most have OTRS copyright release approval. The uploader was previously blocked here on Commons for using two other usernames with Ryabchencko in them. The COI is pretty obvious. What I'd like to know is if the COI can be confirmed via someone looking at the OTRS tickets.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
OTRS does not generally have information that would connect two user accounts, unless someone literally sends us an email that says "I am user A and user B." In that case, information could be turned over to Stewards, a local ArbCom, local Checkusers, or local administrators with OTRS access as appropriate considering local policies, meta:ANPDP, and meta:CAFNI. The existence of such information would not be publicly disclosed unless necessary to prevent abuse or disruption to Wikimedia site. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)