Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
OrphanBot removed the image File:1974 mugshot of Steven Toushin.jpg from the Steven Toushin wiki page. I suspect that too many days had passed from the time I posted the photo and still no permissions email was received. Should I follow up and make sure that the email was sent? Or, can an admin take a look at the OTRS system? Advice is appreciated!! De Bergerac (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am the one who handled the ticket. For review, the ticket number is 2009031010061401. The matter has not been closed yet, as I am waiting on a reply. That said, it seems unlikely that a mugshot would be owned by the subject of the mugshot, as opposed to the police enforcement agency who took the picture. Some jurisdictions may release mugshots into the public domain, which is another issue completely. So there appears (to me) to be more issues related to this image besides waiting on permission. Hope this helps. -Andrew c (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you've been in contact with the subject, perhaps you could ask him to donate another image to which he does clearly own the copyright.-Andrew c (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew c! Thank you for your reply. The issue of whether Steven Toushin owns the copyright for his mugshot occurred to me as well. Originally, I found the image on his website and then I called his office to see if I could post the image on Wikipedia. It is my understanding that Toushin had his record expunged and that the government turned over their file for him, which included the mugshot. Do you have any thoughts on who would own the copyright? I'll see if I can do some research and I'll check with you. Thank you! De Bergerac (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm... that's interesting. I really don't know the answer to that question. I'll do some research as well. If anyone knows or finds out further information, I'd sure like to know!-Andrew c (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew c! Thank you for your reply. The issue of whether Steven Toushin owns the copyright for his mugshot occurred to me as well. Originally, I found the image on his website and then I called his office to see if I could post the image on Wikipedia. It is my understanding that Toushin had his record expunged and that the government turned over their file for him, which included the mugshot. Do you have any thoughts on who would own the copyright? I'll see if I can do some research and I'll check with you. Thank you! De Bergerac (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedWhat is wrong with this pic?--Sanandros (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently it was a copyright violation from militaryphotos.net. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
en:File:B&W theater.png
OrphanBot tagged for removal the image File:B&W theater.png from the Bijou Theater (Chicago) wiki page. I think that a permissions email was sent, but maybe I need to follow-up with the copyright owner. Can an admin take a look at the OTRS system? Advice is appreciated!! De Bergerac (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is similar to above. We received an e-mail, replied to it as not all information was in order, and we are waiting for a reply. -Andrew c (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response, Andrew. I contacted the office to ask that they respond to your reply emails. They didn't seem to know that you had responded to their original email. Can you re-send your email? I would like to close the loop because I think the images add a lot to the Wiki pages. Thank you!! De Bergerac (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedOK, looks like I'm inaugurating the place :-) I hope someone's watching!
I'd like someone to check for permission regarding this image, following this undeletion request, where the uploader says he sent permission to OTRS (on 2009-03-11). Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've searched the OTRS system for a ticket and found nothing. If the uploader can email me with the email address he used to send the permission to OTRS then I can search that way (and it is more accurate). Otherwise, we don't have it and there was no indication that he sent the permission on the image description page (he did not add {{OTRS pending}} to the page). - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick answer. I've contacted User:Seanscully and asked him for his email address; we'll see. –Tryphon☂ 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just closed the undeletion request as not done, because the uploader seems unresponsive (it's been a week since I last contacted him). Thanks again for your help. –Tryphon☂ 19:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedCan someone please check if we have received permission for this file? The uploader requested undeletion and claims to have sent an email to OTRS already. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 05:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Searching for the file name and then just the term "mobi" I have been unable to locate the ticket, but perhaps the e-mail didn't reference the file name? -Andrew c (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for checking. I asked the uploader to send the email again, mentioning the exact filename and without the attached image. Can you check again in a few days? –Tryphon☂ 09:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The file is in fact under a different filename now, File:Cover mobi 03.jpg, with an OTRS ticket. So I guess everything is in order now. –Tryphon☂ 15:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Has a request been answered?
Some time ago (around 10 February, I think) I asked an OTRS voluenteer to request a permission for me from Arkady Babchenko (babchenkoa@mail.ru) and Osinform.ru (osinform@mail.ru). Could someone please check if they have answered? Offliner (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The last answer to the first address you mentioned came from OTRS on February 24th. The receiver didn't reply anymore: I'm sorry I can't help you any further, I don't speak Russian. Ciell (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedThis file, which was first mistakenly attributed to NASA, is now apparently released under cc-by-sa. Could someone check the system for an email entitled Re: Mark Shuttleworth/ISS "Just hanging around" picture and restore the file if appropriate? Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 19:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think I closed/saw a ticket on this earlier, it was unclear IIRC. Checking now. MBisanz talk 02:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, we are taking about OTRS:2009040410000218. Could another OTRSer review for me? MBisanz talk 02:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Which part of the PGP signed message "CC-BY-SA, it belongs to me! Mark" is unclear when read in connection is the proceeding request message? (Also bounced to OTRS, also with the same Subject line). —Sladen (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was confused because there was not a link to the commons file. I've now put 2 and 2 together and tagged up everything. Thanks for being patient. MBisanz talk 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Which part of the PGP signed message "CC-BY-SA, it belongs to me! Mark" is unclear when read in connection is the proceeding request message? (Also bounced to OTRS, also with the same Subject line). —Sladen (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, we are taking about OTRS:2009040410000218. Could another OTRSer review for me? MBisanz talk 02:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Admin.ch
ResolvedCould someone tell me if I could upload this pic to Commons using the admin.ch template?--Sanandros (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this noticeboard is for questions to OTRS permissions verification. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedHello,
This file includes {{Cc-by-3.0-IndiaFM}} which contains the following warning : "all images from IndiaFM must be verified, individually or in small batches, by OTRS"
Presently this file has a 2008 OTRS ticket, although it was uploaded on 4 april 2009.
Shouldn't a new 2009 ticket be issued for this particular file ?
Please tell if everything is all right. Teofilo (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The 2008 ticket is an authoriztion for a number of images originating from the website in question, but it does not include the image on which it currently appears. There is either another ticket authorizing this image, or we still need one. Xymmax (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. The current ticket isn't sufficient and no other tickets concerning File:Shriya_saran.jpg are present in OTRS - in any queue at all. MarkW (Mwpnl) (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps if we bothered to ask a permission again, they would say yes again, but it is a bit stupid to disturb people for only one file, especially if it is unused. So my view for the time being is that it is better to delete the file. Teofilo (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
As a consequence of Commons:Deletion requests/Images of user:YukataNinja, the blog owner who is photographer of item #2 has uploaded a new large file version : File:Seattle Sounders FC_First Game ECS Overhead.jpg.
Should I still ask for a confirmation E-mail ? (perhaps a simple E-mail stating "yes I am that blog's owner and I am the person making the upload on WMCommons" would do ?
On the other hand I don't want to bother the person with writing an E-mail if it is not really needed. Teofilo (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Or can an E-mail confirm anything, if the E-mail address is not clearly connected with the blog ? Should I forget about the confirmation E-mail then, and insist on requiring the blog owner to add an image credit to himself and a Creative Commons notice on his blog page ? Teofilo (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- The current license from the owner looks fine to me. YukataNinja seems to be working well with you to resolve the issues, I don't see it as a stretch to AGF all around. I don't think we need the email. Xymmax (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- If another user (not me), who has no knowledge of this long talk with Yukataninja, finds this picture and finds also the blog, he might wonder if this "user:Mattkab" is the real blog owner, or a file thief who took the file from the blog without knowledge from the blog owner ? For this purpose, I suggested adding one more item on Commons:Upload for blog owners who also upload their files on Wikimedia Commons : Proposal on Village pump. Teofilo (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Expected delay for OTRS approval ?
ResolvedBackground: I uploaded two photos on 2009-04-12 and I sent two permission-request emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 2009-04-13. I received one (not two) non-committal "thank you" email on 2009-04-14 [Ticket#2009041410002457]. However, as of today 2009-04-19, the photos are still "OTRS pending" without further communication.
QUESTION: What is the expected turnaround time (delay) for OTRS permission confirmations? (I ask, because in February 2009 one of my photos received OTRS approval within one day.)
Who can I contact to be sure these items aren't forgotten? Thank you for investigating/replying. From RCraig09 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS people are a bit odd in formatting replies, and their messages often have text both above and below the quoted part. Check the end of the email, I believe you've missed it. --Para (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- D'oh! You are right, Para. The volunteer's reply email had material at the beginning but also at the very end. I will pursue more detailed specific permission from the copyright owner. Thanks to Para. From RCraig09 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedAccording to this DR, permission has been sent for File:Leonid Ivashov.jpg and File:Dieudonne2.jpg. Can someone please check if everything is alright so that this DR can be closed? –Tryphon☂ 09:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- We received an e-mail. A volunteer responded and it appears we are waiting for more information. -Andrew c (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I fowarded a new e-mail from the rights owner on April, 8th. Any news? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Im also curious ;) --Martin H. (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I fowarded a new e-mail from the rights owner on April, 8th. Any news? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The two images now have the ticket, so the deletion request is resolved, but: What is covered by the ticket? All uploads so far or all images from http://www.axisforpeace.net/rubrique13.html? Thanks. --Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks Jastrow for the answer in the deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedCould someone check Ticket:2009021110009907? The problem is that this image had no OTRS ticket at en-WP for 1.5 years until an IP added a reference to Ticket:2007081110009907 on 2009-02-11, just before the transwiki to here. I wonder if either of these ticket numbers are valid. The uploader here at the Commons has a history of copyvios. Lupo 09:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- From a brief glance through this, the first ticket, 2009021110009907, is not a valid ticket. The second is a couple years old and relates to a number of Vivian Hsu images (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vivian portrait.jpg). That said, there is no evidence that Vivi 188.jpg was part of that request. I would say that both the en.wiki Vivi 188.jpg, and the commons Vivian Hsu.jpg should be ultimately deleted (or at least tagged for speedy deletion after 7 days for lacking a proper permission). Your suspicions regarding an anonymous editor adding an old OTRS ticket to an image 1.5 years after the fact seem to be merited. -Andrew c (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok then, I've gone ahead and tagged those two images. Let's see if a new permission is forthcoming or not.-Andrew c (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
NASA photo complaint answered
ResolvedSomebody tagged an image that I made by cropping a public domain image from NASA as not having a copyright permission. I have written to the relevant NASA official and have an e-mail stating that they do not claim copyright of the image. Now what do I do? Patrick Edwin Moran (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see that the file we are talking about is File:NASA Hydrogen spectrum.jpg. Can you supply a source for the image (where did you get the original?)? That should be all that is needed. Add the {{Information}} template to the page with those details and you should not need to forward us a copy of the permission, since it is PD. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I just added a copy of NASAs letter to the file summary. The source is a little complicated. I guess I can try to change everything again. Patrick Edwin Moran (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- What you did is fine, although as long as the source is there you don't even need to copy the email there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I just added a copy of NASAs letter to the file summary. The source is a little complicated. I guess I can try to change everything again. Patrick Edwin Moran (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedThis file was marked with a unknown copyright status by User:Túrelio, but this image as a copy (witch is also hiperlinked from the information template) with otrs confirmation on english wikipedia here. After contacting Túrelio, he marked this image with otrs pending and advised me to come here and ask a OTRS volunteer to add the OTRS ticket from :en to this image. Thank you in advance. Tm (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Robert Browning's letter to Elizabeth Barrett dated 10 September 1846
ResolvedCategories : Robert Browning, Elizabeth Barrett Browning I forwarded a copy of the permission by Wellesby College Library to publish this document on Wikipedia Commons. Would someone kindly tell me if it is OK? Thanks. Robert Ferrieux (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- If it is from 1846, you do not need permission. It is in the public domain because of its age and you can mark it with {{PD-old}} or a more specific tag (see that template's page for a list). --Yarnalgo (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
pending
ResolvedHi colleagues,
could someone look for the permission email for File:Felgenbruch 1645.jpg (was send a week ago) and then add the ticket. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please be patient. This is a German language ticket, and that queue is quite backlogged. We need more OTRS volunteers in general, but non-English speakers are definitely needed (German, Spanish, French are the big one, but any language skill is beneficial). Sorry it is taking so long, just hang in there.-Andrew c (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Defensie.nl images
The following images are all marked with OTRS permission but, per Commons:Bad sources#Netherlands Ministry of Defence, the source does not allow commercial reuse. I was curious what the OTRS permission asserts?
- File:Hr.Ms. De Zeven Provinciën (pantserschip).jpg
- File:Hr. Ms. De Ruyter (1936) 1.jpg
- File:Hr.Ms. De Zeven Provinciën (C802).jpg
- File:Hr. Ms. Tromp 1936.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Thanks. Wknight94 talk 22:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is an email from the Ministry of Defense confirming they are PD. BJTalk 09:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then I assume their 2009 e-mail stating non-commercial-use-only supercedes the 2007 PD e-mail. Wknight94 talk 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, they are on Commons:Bad sources because you added them their. The problem is different, but in short: Per law NL Gov works are PD, exempt the Gov places a copyright notice. The website has a copyright notice. Besides from this copyright notice the ministery allows non-commercial use of ALL site content - thats what the request was about. That does not affect older individual permission at all. I have no knowledge of the wording of the emails, but that information was given through individual discussion and the deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Correct, I put them on bad sources because of Commons:Deletion requests/Incorrect PD Netherlands (government works) (which I linked in the second word of bad sources - no bad intent there). Nine images were deleted because of that. I was just trying to understand the conflicting permissions - and relaying that the latest word is that they don't allow commercial use. Wknight94 talk 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is strange, someone changed the source after the upload. There is an e-mail (#2008082710009484) from www.marine.nl that states that when an image is hosted on www.marine.nl AND
www.defentie.nl (?? It was I think, I cannot seem to open the file atm), the images where free.Can an other Dutch OTRS-er try and look into this mail? Open the tif, it's a fax. Ciell (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)- Strike that last bit: hosted on www.marine.nl and handeld by the NIMH, then it's attribution. Ciell (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I discussed the situation with MarkW on IRC yesterday, there are at least three different tickets from different people, that tell us different things. We decided to send a final e-mail from OTRS, to clarify the situation in general. Please be patient: due to the celebration of Liberation Day in the Netherlands (a national holiday), a reaction to the mail can take a few days longer. Ciell (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. If you get good news, go ahead and undo my Commons:Bad sources addition, and let me know because I have a few deletions I would need to undo. Wknight94 talk 15:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I discussed the situation with MarkW on IRC yesterday, there are at least three different tickets from different people, that tell us different things. We decided to send a final e-mail from OTRS, to clarify the situation in general. Please be patient: due to the celebration of Liberation Day in the Netherlands (a national holiday), a reaction to the mail can take a few days longer. Ciell (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Strike that last bit: hosted on www.marine.nl and handeld by the NIMH, then it's attribution. Ciell (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is strange, someone changed the source after the upload. There is an e-mail (#2008082710009484) from www.marine.nl that states that when an image is hosted on www.marine.nl AND
- Correct, I put them on bad sources because of Commons:Deletion requests/Incorrect PD Netherlands (government works) (which I linked in the second word of bad sources - no bad intent there). Nine images were deleted because of that. I was just trying to understand the conflicting permissions - and relaying that the latest word is that they don't allow commercial use. Wknight94 talk 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, they are on Commons:Bad sources because you added them their. The problem is different, but in short: Per law NL Gov works are PD, exempt the Gov places a copyright notice. The website has a copyright notice. Besides from this copyright notice the ministery allows non-commercial use of ALL site content - thats what the request was about. That does not affect older individual permission at all. I have no knowledge of the wording of the emails, but that information was given through individual discussion and the deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then I assume their 2009 e-mail stating non-commercial-use-only supercedes the 2007 PD e-mail. Wknight94 talk 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
OTRS permission
ResolvedIs just leaving a note on this discussion page enough to use a photo. I would like to use Nicholas David's photo of the Nigerian site of Sukur, if I have a wikipedia account is this enough?
- You are referring to File:Sukur2.jpg? Have you read the license tag for that image? As long as you follow the terms of the license, you are free to use the image. You do not need special permission. Furthermore, we cannot offer legal advice. It is your responsibility, if you intend to reuse content from Wikimedia sites, to determine how the licenses of the content that we host apply to your intended uses.-Andrew c (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Kerry_logo.jpg and lots of others
There are some logos pending deletion, and the uploader asked my assistance. Since I know little about old motor logos I went into the category and found lots of pictures with otrs tickets, like File:Kerry_logo.jpg with ticket #2007071710013063 which looks okay. But the image description informs me that the "owner" gave permission, and the owner given is (or rather are, since there's 2) some motor fan website, which do not seem to me like either the manufacturer, its successor or the graphic artist itself. Someone please check who gave the permission and on what grounds? If the websites, then it's clearly acceptable to upload a logo of a company which went out of business without a successor... [Which in turn feels bogus to me.] Thank you. --grin ✎ 12:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- This requires a dutch speaking OTRS agent. BJTalk 20:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, the ticket seems to have released the photos but not the logo itself. BJTalk 20:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ermm.... what now? I'm not deletionist, but this case seems a pretty good one for them. All of the logos "premitted" by these sites seems to be infringing. Which is all of the motorbike logos as far as I see. I'm not sure though, the topic is not known for me. Move over to Admins noticeboard? :) --grin ✎ 09:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- The "YAM"-permissionticket gives permission to use images from http://www.yesterdays.nl and http://www.motorarchive.com. There where over 400 images uploaded and I thought that all logo's where deleted, before they where transferred to Commons by siebrand. The image on Commons is the original version from nl:-pedia.
- This user uploaded a lot of images of old motorbike-logo's in general to nl-pedia, claiming PD "because the brand doesn't excist anymore". The local ones are now almost all deleted: I'm afraid that the same thing has to happen here. Ciell (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- (I reply here to keep 'em together.) Were there any discussion about these brands with discontinued companies behind them? (I guess most [EU?] countries share the copyright law that if the author cannot be established then the protection time is counting from the publishing date.) --grin ✎ 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ermm.... what now? I'm not deletionist, but this case seems a pretty good one for them. All of the logos "premitted" by these sites seems to be infringing. Which is all of the motorbike logos as far as I see. I'm not sure though, the topic is not known for me. Move over to Admins noticeboard? :) --grin ✎ 09:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
2008091610055176
Hi, this ticket is used on 15 images from many authors:
- Revista Proceso
- Gustavo Guevara
- agencia fotográfica Siempre!
- periódico EL UNIVERSAL / BernaMarCamp
- File:Carmen Romano (12).jpg is a video extract
- Even the Jimmy Carter Library joined this ticket File:Carmen Romano (16).png
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
I see some dispute in the version histories, finaly Abigor added a license and the ticket, but i dont know, if he has OTRS access - at this time he didnt had a bable on his userpage and was not listed in the meta list of volunteers. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are 16 Carmen_Romano images that are covered by that ticket which was confirmed by an OTRS volunteer. Seems to be in order.-Andrew c (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- The missing one is File:Carmen_Romano_(7).gif which was in category PD US Government where I found and improved it. However with no. 6 it seems impossible to me that the "caretaker", I would not speak of copyright holder in case of the Carter Library and a public domain image, released this image under FAL/GFDL, they would release the image as public domain as they know the copyright status. Can we exclude any misinterpretion by the permission provider between "owner of an image" and "owner of copyrights"? --Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- The ticket is in Spanish, so perhaps we could get a Spanish speaker OTRS to get the details. This very well may be a case where a non-copyright holder slipped some images by.-Andrew c (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- They are family pictures provided as a gift of the direct descendants of Carmen Romano Nölck, so it is not clear who is the real owner of copyrights. --V.Riullop (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Im unsure how to react accurately now. With this information the situation seems clear to me. The images are from various sources, the provider is not the holder of copyrights - its rather a family archive. My family is also storing images and articles about family members (regretably only in local, newspapers ;) ) but that does not make us the holder of any copyrights. I dont know the processes in OTRS, but I would annul the ticket or demand more informations from the forwarder. If this is however not possible, the images should be marked as "no source" and deleted after 7+ days. --Martin H. (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- They are family pictures provided as a gift of the direct descendants of Carmen Romano Nölck, so it is not clear who is the real owner of copyrights. --V.Riullop (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- The ticket is in Spanish, so perhaps we could get a Spanish speaker OTRS to get the details. This very well may be a case where a non-copyright holder slipped some images by.-Andrew c (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- The missing one is File:Carmen_Romano_(7).gif which was in category PD US Government where I found and improved it. However with no. 6 it seems impossible to me that the "caretaker", I would not speak of copyright holder in case of the Carter Library and a public domain image, released this image under FAL/GFDL, they would release the image as public domain as they know the copyright status. Can we exclude any misinterpretion by the permission provider between "owner of an image" and "owner of copyrights"? --Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Verification of an image
ResolvedI'd like to confirm we have permission to use this image File:Brassiere-white.jpg, which is a derivative work of this image File:Hannah Harper 2.jpg that should be covered under this ticket [1]. The reason I want this confirmation is because a user on enwiki doing a good article review questions that permission exists. Thanks! LinguistAtLarge (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've checked the ticket, Ticket:2007092210005041, and there is a proper release for the image titled File:Hannah Harper 2.jpg, under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or later. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the confirmation! LinguistAtLarge (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedJust wondering if I could get somebody to confirm the ticket that I sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, so in case it is not sufficient, I can easilly contact the person who took the photo and get further clarification. Thanks so much. Gage (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've located the ticket (2009050910025931) and will reply via email in a moment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, I got your email and have contacted the original creator of the image once more. I will now await a response and forward it to the OTRS email address once more. Gage (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. When you forward it to us, use the same subject line as the note I sent you, so that the other message gets attached to the one you already sent. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I forwarded the assertion of copyright email to the OTRS email. Sorry it doesn't have the exact same subject line, I didn't see your message until after I sent the email. I can resend it with the subject line that you requested if needed. Gage (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I've replied and tagged the image. We're all set here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I forwarded the assertion of copyright email to the OTRS email. Sorry it doesn't have the exact same subject line, I didn't see your message until after I sent the email. I can resend it with the subject line that you requested if needed. Gage (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. When you forward it to us, use the same subject line as the note I sent you, so that the other message gets attached to the one you already sent. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, I got your email and have contacted the original creator of the image once more. I will now await a response and forward it to the OTRS email address once more. Gage (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
fa:File:Chlhistory_1.png
ResolvedPlease ckeck this ticket Ticket:2009051010012201 in this page http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%BE%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87:Chlhistory_1.png
- I have not found this ticket number nor this image name. --V.Riullop (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- First off all, let me notice that the source for the image tracks back to your own wiki-page: that's a bit strange. The image is in the info-fa queue and was handled by User:Mardetanha. I'll ask him to take another look: do you have any specific questions about the ticket? Ciell (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I fix the ticket number , the books publisher released attached images under GFDL .publishers website --Mardetanha talk 18:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedCan someone check the OTRS of the file? For a source it has: "Has been on my computer for a while, forget original source". Hekerui (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS has already been verified. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 17:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Susan Boyle image
ResolvedA dispute has arisen over the question of whether the image currently illustrating Susan Boyle is an appropriate free image. Several editors say it is a derivative work and therefore non-free. After seeing the OTRS notice on the image page, I thought I should bring it up here. 216.14.252.123 04:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming the permission ticket relates to the painter, and not the copyright holder of the Youtube video on which it is based, I have put it up for deletion as an unauthorised derivative work. SBMGN (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket and release linked on the image page is valid. As for the possibility that this is a derivative work, that's irrelevant to OTRS and you should let the DR discussion play out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedPlease check ticket. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- The referenced ticket number (Ticket:2009032310037664) is in Italian so I cannot assist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Not OK The authorization in the ticket only refers to File:Conventocappuccinibivona.jpg. I delete the other file. --Eusebius (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Creating an account for viewing specific ticket number
Want to read a specific ticket number, how/where do i create an account to login and view the ticket? Thanks. (Wikimedia's OTRS (login required)) Henry Delforn (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Henry, you can give us the ticket number and we can check it out to the extent we can do this without disclosing anything confidential. There is no restricted read access to individual ticket numbers but everyone is free to submit an application as OTRS volunteer, see here. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. You said, "There is no restricted read access to individual ticket numbers", so how do i get access to read a ticket number? The login OTRS page is restricted access. I don't understand your response. I want to read the ticket myself, not have someone else look it up for me. Thank you for help. Henry Delforn (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot read the ticket yourself, only OTRS members have access. As AFBorchert said, you can apply for OTRS membership, but if it's for the sole purpose of seeing one ticket, I doubt it will succeed. I don't really understand your need of reading the ticket yourself; why can't an OTRS volunteer do it for you? Maybe you should explain the situation in greater detail, so that we can actually understand what you're trying to do. –Tryphon☂ 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's clear. Well, ok, to explain why I would want to read the ticket myself...i'm trying to understand (in a Wikipedia biography article which i am currently involved in editing) the motives of past editors and of the subject herself. The article's history is not sufficient to explain why currently there is an ip address borderline-vandalizing the article. This same ip address (dial-up) is also targeting other article edits of mine. But with respect to the biography, it appears that this ip address has confidential information as to what is being "vandalized". In other words, this ip address knows something known only to a OTRS ticket or is intimately connected to the subject herself. The latter has been confirmed not to be the case. Unless the ticket can be read exactly as it appears, it probably won't be much help to me, and i doubt if any confidential stuff is printable in this forum. Thanks for the explanation. Henry Delforn (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- We will not grant access to OTRS for the sole purpose of reading one ticket. OTRS is a confidential e-mail response system, restricted to trusted users that we expect to use OTRS on a fairly regular basis. And even within OTRS there are different “queues”, restricted to different volunteers. The contents of OTRS tickets are always confidential and will not be shared, unless implied by the content of the ticket. Unfortunately We can't help you with this. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 19:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway. Good to know.Henry Delforn (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- It seems entirely improbable that an OTRS ticket would allow a user to vandalize an article. There has to be some sort of misunderstanding. Perhaps you should tell us the ticket number and article in question for the sake of oversight in case there is some sort of abuse (possible, but also unlikely IMO). -Andrew c (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway. Good to know.Henry Delforn (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- We will not grant access to OTRS for the sole purpose of reading one ticket. OTRS is a confidential e-mail response system, restricted to trusted users that we expect to use OTRS on a fairly regular basis. And even within OTRS there are different “queues”, restricted to different volunteers. The contents of OTRS tickets are always confidential and will not be shared, unless implied by the content of the ticket. Unfortunately We can't help you with this. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 19:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's clear. Well, ok, to explain why I would want to read the ticket myself...i'm trying to understand (in a Wikipedia biography article which i am currently involved in editing) the motives of past editors and of the subject herself. The article's history is not sufficient to explain why currently there is an ip address borderline-vandalizing the article. This same ip address (dial-up) is also targeting other article edits of mine. But with respect to the biography, it appears that this ip address has confidential information as to what is being "vandalized". In other words, this ip address knows something known only to a OTRS ticket or is intimately connected to the subject herself. The latter has been confirmed not to be the case. Unless the ticket can be read exactly as it appears, it probably won't be much help to me, and i doubt if any confidential stuff is printable in this forum. Thanks for the explanation. Henry Delforn (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot read the ticket yourself, only OTRS members have access. As AFBorchert said, you can apply for OTRS membership, but if it's for the sole purpose of seeing one ticket, I doubt it will succeed. I don't really understand your need of reading the ticket yourself; why can't an OTRS volunteer do it for you? Maybe you should explain the situation in greater detail, so that we can actually understand what you're trying to do. –Tryphon☂ 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. You said, "There is no restricted read access to individual ticket numbers", so how do i get access to read a ticket number? The login OTRS page is restricted access. I don't understand your response. I want to read the ticket myself, not have someone else look it up for me. Thank you for help. Henry Delforn (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedPlease check as it is missing author info. feydey (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Verified and added author info. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedCould a German-speaking volunteer check the ticket 2008102110031974, linked to this picture? It has been answered to already, it probably only needs to be referenced properly. I can't tell whether it is ok or not by myself. --Eusebius (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- This image was unfortunately never released under a free license and, after having read the correspondence attached to this OTRS ticket, this is unlikely to change. Hence, its deletion was justified. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I got the answer through IRC and forgot to close the case here... Sorry for the inconvenience! --Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedPlease check. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 16:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing, Wknight94. This image and another one are indeed both linked to OTRS ticket 2009050810029813. However, this ticket has not been closed successfully so far. Hence, I have replaced {{PermissionOTRS}} by {{OTRS received}} in both cases to reflect currently the current state. The OTRS member who currently handles this ticket has been notified. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedPlease check and add OTRS-box to image description if successful. Thanks! --ƛƭƦѦɳҞԳԳ (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done: The referenced ticket was successfully closed and is indeed associated with this image. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedCan I have this image reviewed? The Upload was done by a different user much later than 10 other images with the ticket 887422. Regards, --Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- The original OTRS ticket isn't that clear, and I'm not sure I would have passed it with just that (but then again, I don't like dealing with flickr tickets). That said, it appears the original ticket deals with all of that flickr users Gwen Stefani pictures, so if the earlier uploads are valid, this later upload should likewise be valid under that ticket. I would have preferred it if the flickr user simply changed the license for those images they wished to donate. -Andrew c (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, i marked this as resolved - its a gwen s. image, so if the ticket is valid this one is covered in my eyes. --Martin H. (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Volunteer
ResolvedHi, I'd like to verify images using the otrs system, and would like a username and password. I'm mainly on wikipedia with the same username. Andrewrp (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Andrew, please file an application via the procedure at m:OTRS/volunteering. Best regards, m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 22:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedPlease check since it's been nominated for deletion. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 02:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done: I posted a comment in the DR. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Two-year-old rfd
ResolvedCould a OTRS volunteer check whether the claim in rfd Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Theresia Riedmaier.jpg in regard to copyvio is correct. Thanks.--Túrelio (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer, I've just checked the ticket and closed this DR. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Danke. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
2009050410066389
ResolvedTicket #2009050410066389 is mentioned in the following:
Three are coming due at CAT:U because the license is not listed. Can someone confirm the ticket and what is covered and properly tag? Thank you. Wknight94 talk 15:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are two tickets associated with these four images (and more stuff not related to Commons). 2009050410066389 was the original ticket. Later, 2009050410065701 was opened specifically for these four images. As this ticket is not yet closed successfully, I have tagged the four images just with {{OTRS received}} linking it to the more specific ticket and notified its current owner. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
2009041610035409 (italian)
ResolvedTicket # 2009041610035409 is mentioned in the following images, but was obviously not inserted by the OTRS team:
- File:Udienza dal Papa Giovanni XXIII.jpg
- File:UdienzdalPapaGiovanniXXIII.jpg
- File:Paolo VI.jpg
- File:Dal papa. 28 aprile 1999.jpg
Can someone from the team confirm the ticket/images? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- The ticket is in Italian so I cannot help much. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- This successfully closed ticket covers some parts of the text of it:Placido Cortese. Images are not covered by this ticket but related to this case. We need a new OTRS ticket for this case and I think it would be best if some Italian speaking admin or OTRS member could help this user through this process. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedCan someone check on the status of this image? It has been tagged as OTRS pending for 2.5 months. - Gump Stump (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I found no related OTRS ticket and replaced {{OTRS pending}} by {{Npd}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have meanwhile deleted it as copyvio as it was copied from here. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
File:GuyKawasaki4 300.jpg states that a permission email was sent in 2006, but no OTRS ticket number was ever added. Can someone check? Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've added OTRS received tag with ticket # 2006042910013717, but it was not sufficient to confirm permission. --V.Riullop (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hey - thanks for checking the permission for GuyKawasaki. For future reference: In cases like that, (OTRS claimed, but no number) is it enough for me (random editor) to add an OTRS pending template for today's date (or uploading date(?)) and leave it like that? Or is it better to mention it here? Thanks, -- Deadstar (msg) 08:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It should be OK to put OTRS pending with today's date. There is a process under development which will put images that have been OTRS pending for too long into a deletion queue. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It should be OK to put OTRS pending with today's date. There is a process under development which will put images that have been OTRS pending for too long into a deletion queue. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hey - thanks for checking the permission for GuyKawasaki. For future reference: In cases like that, (OTRS claimed, but no number) is it enough for me (random editor) to add an OTRS pending template for today's date (or uploading date(?)) and leave it like that? Or is it better to mention it here? Thanks, -- Deadstar (msg) 08:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Guitar and bass.jpg lists "OTRS" as permission but the uploader included it him/herself and did not provide a ticket #. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 03:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've searched for the URL and the title of the image and found nothing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Permission Confirmation
Resolvedhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TomFletcherMcFlyJulyShootRadioActive.jpg
I'm new here, so I don't really know what I'm doing. Please tell me whether I'm doing right or wrong.
- Have you forwarded an email from the owner of that image saying that anyone has permission to use it for any purpose to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? Stifle (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Hot-copy-screen-shot.png
ResolvedI got this message on my user talk page: "File:Hot-copy-screen-shot.png which you uploaded has been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you....." http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wartelld&diff=0&oldid=17252871
I sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on December 15th. Below is the reply back from permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming the email and its contents.
I have now (6/7/09) re-sent the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Please don't delete this image. I have done everything possible I believe to comply with the rules. What else must I do?
Thank You Wiki Commons Volunteers!
Here is a copy of the original email I sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and the auto-reply I got back showing it was sent.
From Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> ... subject Re: [Ticket#2008121510021868] Fwd: permission to use hot copy screen shot in wikipedia ...
- I've removed the email contents. All we need is the ticket number. I've verified the ticket and it seems valid. I've corrected the tag on the image description page. You're all set now. The OTRS volunteer who handled your email failed to note the image description page which is why you received this notice. I apologize for the inconvenience and repeat that everything is okay now with this image. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedHow can I grant permission to this pictures, since it was me the one who took the pictures?
- If you take the photos yourself and own the copyright, do not add {{OTRS pending}} to the page. That is only for images that you do not own. I have fixed the image description pages and you're all set. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Permission for photo of Leonard Nathan
ResolvedColleen Nathan is Andrew Nathan's wife and Leonard Nathan's daughter-in-law. She would only be writing if Andrew Nathan (photographer and my brother) had said yes. Do you need something else?
<email removed by Rjd0060 (talk)>
- Please forward the permission to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: File:Ibu Soed Bobo.jpg may be deleted
The picture File:Ibu Soed Bobo.jpg was scanned and cropped by myself from an Indonesian magazine which was published when the magazine is still operational. The magazine is a translated version of the Netherlands magazine, however it is not owned by that Netherland company. Currently the magazine which holds the right of the picture have already closed down and have no contacts whatsoever to ask for permission. Therefore I assume that the nature of the picture is free for distribution, and the file itself is my own work, since it was cropped from the original picture. Apology for any mistakes because this is my pilot upload to wiki commons. Please let me know if there is anything still needed. Cheers. Ennio morricone (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the assumption you make is incorrect. If the rights to the picture were held by a company which closed down, those rights will have been transferred to someone — perhaps the shareholders of the company, perhaps its creditors, or the national government of the country where the company was incorporated. In most cases, they don't just die out.
- It is likely that this image will have to be deleted. You may be able to upload it to your local wiki as fair use. However, in future please don't claim to be the copyright holder of an image when you are not, and provide full details from the start of where you got it. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, now I understand. Thanks for the information. File should be deleted asap. Cheers.
file: Yaalon.jpg
ResolvedHi. I've just now sent the permission (copy) agains to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
the email notes the original file name - yaaalon_moshe_006_pamela.jpg
thanks, Cumulus (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like this has been received. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
What to do with Category:OTRS pending? Some are over five months old. I found a couple discussions on-Commons but no final conclusion. There was mention of an OTRS mailing list discussion. True? Was there a final conclusion there? Anything we can document here? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- AFAIK final result was: Delete after one or two months. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Administrators without OTRS acces will help you i think, but without any informations it seems, like noone have the heart to mark with {{subst:npd}}. So whats the state of OTRS backlog? --Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- There was some extensive discussion here but it just sort of stopped. There, I proposed that once images with the OTRS pending tag sit for 30 days, we have a bot contact the uploader. We then wait 15 days and if there is no response, we delete the file. This was pretty much agreed to in that discussion. Just to note, 30 and 45 days may seem like a long period of time however since there are often permissions backlogs, I feel that is best. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ec^2) Simply deleting these images without checking the OTRS system could end up in unjustified losses. I just took one of the oldest images of this backlog, File:Franz Pacher.jpg, for which a permission was available. This ticket was closed and for this reason not to be seen in one of the queues. I guess we need more OTRS volunteers not just for handling the queues but also for checking our backlog of {{OTRS pending}} cases. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Searching the system is not always reliable because the search function is not really that good. Of course, if we were to continue on with the plan agreed to in the discussion I linked above, the users would have 15 days to contact us after we notify them to let us know that they did in fact send the permission, and then we can look into it further. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- The plan to notify uploaders sounds good. Another helpful point could be to switch from {{OTRS pending}} to {{OTRS received}} which points back to the ticket whenever an OTRS ticket is encountered that references an image but cannot be closed successfully at the moment. This avoids the use of the search function which indeed takes quite long and is not really reliable as image names are not always accurately referenced in the tickets. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- How about OTRS people go through Category:OTRS pending and look for tickets. If the tickets are not found, simply change the {{OTRS Pending}} to {{Npd}} and alert the uploader - as is the norm for npd. Too impractical? It would automatically give uploaders the usual npd waiting time, with the least chance of accidentally deleting good images. Wknight94 talk 01:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's just not possible to accurately search for every ticket. There's no reason we cannot have a bot notify users, as I've proposed before and linked to above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for my extreme ignorance... how long does it take to search for a ticket? And not with 100% accuracy but the type of search that AFBorchert used above? The backlog appears to be about 200 per month. Could an average of 10 or so searches per day be done? Maybe 10 people do one per day? And I'm not asking to be a pain, I seriously don't know the answers... Wknight94 talk 02:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't a matter of getting people to do it. It's just two things, really - 1) the searches must be very precise in the wording and must match the exact text that the user sent us (which can of course be written in several different ways) and 2) each search can take upwards of 25 seconds or more. I'd venture to guess that at least 99% of the time that a file is pending for over 30 days, there isn't a ticket. Especially now as the backlogs have been significantly reduced since our last discussion. As an OTRS respondent and a commons admin, waiting 30 days is sufficient and no searches are needed. This is my opinion based on my experience. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for my extreme ignorance... how long does it take to search for a ticket? And not with 100% accuracy but the type of search that AFBorchert used above? The backlog appears to be about 200 per month. Could an average of 10 or so searches per day be done? Maybe 10 people do one per day? And I'm not asking to be a pain, I seriously don't know the answers... Wknight94 talk 02:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's just not possible to accurately search for every ticket. There's no reason we cannot have a bot notify users, as I've proposed before and linked to above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- How about OTRS people go through Category:OTRS pending and look for tickets. If the tickets are not found, simply change the {{OTRS Pending}} to {{Npd}} and alert the uploader - as is the norm for npd. Too impractical? It would automatically give uploaders the usual npd waiting time, with the least chance of accidentally deleting good images. Wknight94 talk 01:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The plan to notify uploaders sounds good. Another helpful point could be to switch from {{OTRS pending}} to {{OTRS received}} which points back to the ticket whenever an OTRS ticket is encountered that references an image but cannot be closed successfully at the moment. This avoids the use of the search function which indeed takes quite long and is not really reliable as image names are not always accurately referenced in the tickets. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Searching the system is not always reliable because the search function is not really that good. Of course, if we were to continue on with the plan agreed to in the discussion I linked above, the users would have 15 days to contact us after we notify them to let us know that they did in fact send the permission, and then we can look into it further. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ec^2) Simply deleting these images without checking the OTRS system could end up in unjustified losses. I just took one of the oldest images of this backlog, File:Franz Pacher.jpg, for which a permission was available. This ticket was closed and for this reason not to be seen in one of the queues. I guess we need more OTRS volunteers not just for handling the queues but also for checking our backlog of {{OTRS pending}} cases. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- There was some extensive discussion here but it just sort of stopped. There, I proposed that once images with the OTRS pending tag sit for 30 days, we have a bot contact the uploader. We then wait 15 days and if there is no response, we delete the file. This was pretty much agreed to in that discussion. Just to note, 30 and 45 days may seem like a long period of time however since there are often permissions backlogs, I feel that is best. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Administrators without OTRS acces will help you i think, but without any informations it seems, like noone have the heart to mark with {{subst:npd}}. So whats the state of OTRS backlog? --Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm OTRS and sometimes working on this backlog. I take a picture, make two or three searches, and if nothing is found (or an invalid ticket), which is 99% of the cases, I delete the file, as it should have been already. If I am to notify the uploader and keep track of the notification date before deleting (or tag with npd and ensure that nobody removes it saying that "there's otrs pending, stupid"), I'd just stop working on OTRS pending, because even like that, process is quite long and cumbersome, and it doesn't need to be more complex, but more simple. Based on my (limited) experience, speedily deleting at OTRS pending + 2 months would lead to very few false positives. --Eusebius (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with searching is that tickets in queue's an OTRS-er doesn't have access to, don't show up in the search result. There is a limit amount of people that have access to all queue's. Ciell (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, this is indeed an additional problem. Some of these permission emails are sent to the info queues without being moved into an appropriate permission queue. This was the case for two of the tickets I researched above which I could only read with the help of other OTRS members. And these cases, of course, do not show up when I use the search function. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is true, but unfortunately that does not provide a feasible protocol for dealing with this backlog. I'm still in favor of "speedy delete if the tag is older than 2 months and an authorization is needed" (because quite often the tag is applied by the uploader, who doesn't know what it is for), but since it has not been agreed upon so far, I keep searching in the OTRS database before. --Eusebius (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, this is indeed an additional problem. Some of these permission emails are sent to the info queues without being moved into an appropriate permission queue. This was the case for two of the tickets I researched above which I could only read with the help of other OTRS members. And these cases, of course, do not show up when I use the search function. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Just an outside comment: I am loosely following the discussion but the 30/45 days solution sounds reasonable and the image tagging could be left to bots. The first bot tags OTRS pending by date (as it currently does). Another bot should regularly check the dates and if the >30 days condition is met those images should get a no permission tag thus they'll be deleted 14 days later. If a valid ticket is found during or after the process then these images could be restored. --Denniss (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Also the bot could easily notify the uploader (add a note at his talk page). Sv1xv (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- So that the uploader can modify the date in the OTRS pending template, remove any problem tag (not watched by any admin, since added by a bot) and give his image another 2 months to live. This can continue forever. I have already pointed out that breach, in my usual paranoid fashion. --Eusebius (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I have to agree with Eusebius. I am a new admin and already see people gaming the system. They should get one OTRS pending cycle. After that, it gets deleted. Then they have to send the OTRS permission before re-uploading the image. That's my favorite option so far. Wknight94 talk 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I really think that's not something we should worry about. If people really want to get around permissions, there are plenty of other ways they can do it and nobody would ever know. Anyhow, I'm sure that the bot can also monitor these pages and make a list (for admin review) of pages that the tags were removed on. But really, I don't see this happening enough to notice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I have to agree with Eusebius. I am a new admin and already see people gaming the system. They should get one OTRS pending cycle. After that, it gets deleted. Then they have to send the OTRS permission before re-uploading the image. That's my favorite option so far. Wknight94 talk 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- So that the uploader can modify the date in the OTRS pending template, remove any problem tag (not watched by any admin, since added by a bot) and give his image another 2 months to live. This can continue forever. I have already pointed out that breach, in my usual paranoid fashion. --Eusebius (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay so what's the final answer? Should we start a poll or something? At Village Pump? Are polls verboten here? Wknight94 talk 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- What would we need a poll for? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- To determine a procedure to follow. There are several proposals, several opinions, and it would be great to have a unified protocol. It is at least the third time that the issue is brought to light, and so far it's never been conclusive. --Eusebius (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)To nail down exact procedure. I hear 30 days, I hear 45 days... I hear 2 months, I hear 3 months... I hear alerting uploaders, I hear marking with {{Npd}}... Wknight94 talk 16:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a community issue that should be open to polling. OTRS volunteers are really the only ones who know how the system works (on the inside) and thus have a better understanding of what is sufficient for this. This doesn't mean that non-OTRS members shouldn't comment here. A number have commented on this and the last discussion - the last discussion was agreed to but just never implemented because I lost track of the user who was supposed to run the bot. I did contact them yesterday though and they said they'd look into it today. See below for details. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Specific proposal
This is what was agreed to last discussion.
- User uploads file with {{OTRS pending}} tag
- 30 days pass and the file is still tagged with {{OTRS pending}} thus no ticket has been received/processed
- User contacted by bot and informed that we have not received the permission and it will soon be deleted if we do not hear back. User instructed to send email and/or leave a comment in a centralized place (here) if they have questions or concerns.
- 15 days pass since uploader notification. Still no permission received. File deleted.
Thoughts on this? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. If this works best for OTRS people, then it's fine by me. I pretty much support any procedure, so long as there is one. Wknight94 talk 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)- Support I don't know all parameters of the problem but as a user (not an OTRS volunteer) I believe this is a very reasonable procedure. Sv1xv (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I was under the impression that the proposed procedure was already enforced. I support this procedure, it’s clear, it saves time and it saves needless efforts. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 17:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The period of 30 days is too short as we have backlogs going back to February 2009. If the period gets extended to a period that matches our OTRS backlogs, I support the proposed procedure. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- We cannot change the procedure for the rare occasion that a ticket sits longer. This is now a rarity (tickets used to sit a lot longer than they do now). One or two tickets that is older than 30 days (or whatever the time limit is) will always exist. There is no reason we cannot simply restore the image if needed. And that is not a "backlog". There is one ticket from February. That is the only commons related permissions ticket from over 30 days ago (but like I said, there are others which are for the pt.wikipedia and the pt.wikiquote. There are also a couple follow-ups). - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nearly all queues are under this backlog (there are 1 commons-permissions ticket older than 30 days out of 80+ total tickets). So this seems like a good idea for all of the pags on commons that are +30 days old which don't have OTRS tickets. MBisanz talk 18:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support The proposed periods seem fine. There will always be one or two emails that have been received but not processed, but those will be in the minority. I find that even after an uploader has said an email has been sent it is still often not received, which makes me think that in many cases uploaders are misusing the system and trying to get us to keep images they know perfectly well are copyvios. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good idea. BJTalk 21:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support I was under the impression we had agreed on this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support good idea, with reasonable time limit. feydey (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support reasonable time frames, especially taken in account volunteers resources available to review. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ar son. Níl ach cúpla ticéad níos sine ná míosa sna scuainí permissions (seachas permissions-commons-de). (There are only a couple of tickets more than a month old in the permissions queues (except permissions-commons-de).) Stifle (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Seems sensible and could help to clear up old issues with Category:OTRS pending. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Implementation
Okay, so we have clear consensus above. What's next? There is a bot in progress/ready to go? Should there be a new tag for bot-notified images? Or just good ole {{Npd}}? Wknight94 talk 11:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've just left a note for User:Multichill who had said during the initial discussions that he could run this bot. As for tagging, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should create a new OTRS tag to replace {{OTRS pending}} with that says what is going on (i.e.: "We haven't received the permission and the file will be deleted on or after <date>")? - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently there is already a template we could use. Template:No OTRS permission since. Thoughts on this? I assume we could just replace {{OTRS pending}} with this tag when we notify the uploader (but of course we'll change the template to read "15 days" instead of what it currently says, 7). - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Wknight94 talk 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- A small detail regarding the template: If it is added automatically after 30 days, it should warn that "the image can be speedy deleted fifteen days after this template was added". Sv1xv (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Right - Rjd0060 said that above - in parentheses. Wknight94 talk 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- A small detail regarding the template: If it is added automatically after 30 days, it should warn that "the image can be speedy deleted fifteen days after this template was added". Sv1xv (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be nice (in addition to the use of this template, maybe), if the bot could add a message here, from time to time, with a list of now speedily deletable pictures (with a warning that it should be checked before deletion that a permission was actually necessary). It would be more efficient than simply putting more files in the "unknown status" backlog. --Eusebius (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I planned on categorizing them into dated categories, similar to Category:OTRS pending. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I plan on having the bot use this template to notify uploaders. Feel free to make any changes to it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Bot being worked on
I found somebody from en.wikipedia to write it and they're almost finished. See w:Wikipedia:Bot requests#OTRS pending bot for Commons. To review the procedure:
- User uploads a file with {{OTRS pending}}
- File sits for 30 days and no permission was received via OTRS
- Bot notifies uploader with {{Noticket}} and replaces {{OTRS pending}} tag with {{No OTRS permission since}} (after this tag is in place for 15 days, the file will automatically be placed into Category:No OTRS permission as they are ready for deletion.
Just making sure we're all on the same page and nobody has any issue with this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Looks OK. Who deletes the files? The bot or an OTRS volunteer? Sv1xv (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Any admin I assume. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The approval for the bot has been requested at Commons:Bots/Requests/HersfoldOTRSBot. Thanks to everybody who commented here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- As an update, the bot is fully running now. If any OTRS volunteer (or anyone else) notices any trouble with it, please let me know as soon as possible. Hersfold (talk/work) 03:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)