There was some initial confusion about who owned the copyright to this file, but the copyright holder has now been identified as being Anthony 'Tiger' Timbs, who, at the time, owned the ship and made the postcard.

I will try to contact the copyright holder for this postcard, but since I'm told that it may be difficult to get hold of him, it may take some time. Can you give any advice on how to proceed and how to prevent the image from being deleted in the mean time? Refundpolitics (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Over at WT:OP we are reviewing indefblocked IP address. There are about twelve which mention OTRS. It would be appreciated if those with OTRS access could review these tickets. If you are satisfied with the continued block please remove the IP addresses from the list. If the IP should be unblocked please do it yourself (and remove from the list) or ask an admin. The list is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies/IP indefblock review 2014/Miscellaneous (search for OTRS in the page). Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• The proposal to lift the block on these accounts has been declined. No further action necessary at this time. If in the future, an editor wishes to edit from these IP addresses, they can follow the current process to request unblocking. Cindy(talk) 13:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Do you mean to say that you have reviewed them or that you have not reviewed them? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

66.90.104.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is just a normal blocked proxy where restrictions were lifted to allow users editing while not logged in. I'm not familiar with the policy on handling proxy servers, so I don't know if that's par for the course, but I don't see any current justification as to why that IP is more interesting than any other blocked proxy.

I have verified that all other blocks currently listed at that page that included the word "ticket" or "otrs" and referenced a ticket number appear to have been made by system administrators of the relevant networks. I have not verified a strict WHOIS match for each, as in some cases that is not technically feasible (if they have a static IP from a commercial provider, for example). LFaraone 17:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That sounds superb. I will take a closer look at the proxy. Confirmation of the WHOIS would be a nice touch :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this ticket cover both individual images within File:Jschaulblackbrownbears.jpg? Also, does it perchance cover any other images of Jordan Schaul which are tagged OTRS pending? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Those images are actually not released under any license, and thus inappropriate for use on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ticket 2013113010009112 which is placed on File:Folk Singers from Yaroslavl.jpg, what does the ticket release? The image is marked as non-free, but then why would there be a OTRS ticket? Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears the same ticket is listed on File:Yuri Lotman. Portrait. 1980.jpg and most of the images uploaded by User:МЛР. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright holder used the standard consent form. "I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License". Someguy1221 (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And this was for the photos, not the copyright of the actual 3D works? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct - just the photos. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

See below. NtheP (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I please get some information regarding the licensing of images involved in this ticket please? Werieth (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Any in particular - there's at least 19 images listed. Most text is in Russian (my Google translate seems to be not happy today), some in English, I did observe the standard phrase - "I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There are two licenses that need to be clarified, since these are 2D photos of a 3D work there are two different copyrights at work (which the person contacting OTRS has both.) There is the underlying copyright of the work and then that of the photo, both of them need to be released in order for the current usages on wikipedia to be valid. The main question is about exactly what was released and under what terms. Werieth (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well as the person submitting the ticket is the heir of the artist and now the copyright holder on the photos, it's not unreasonable to assume that they are also the copyright holder of the objects portrayed in the images without them having to file separate permission for each. NtheP (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

However we need to ensure that a correct release was made, as this isnt a simple case, clarity is important. Werieth (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The tag for ticket 2013121810019589 on File:Titan T-51 - airshow1.jpg says there is not sufficient evidence of permission but the edit summary removing the CSD#F11 tag says "OTRS Permission received ticket:2013121810019589". Is there or is there not evidence of permission? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

ТимофейЛееСуда - The ticket is missing required information, and there has been no response to our request for that information (last email from OTRS was on 19 December 2013). Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any information in ticket 2013110410018278 aside from the evidence email listed on File:Representative Kinesiology Images.jpg? My concern is one of the two photographers listed on the photos is not sure that the photo is his (per that source email) but I wanted to see if there was any more information. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC) :Not yet, one of the photographers has sent a CC3 consent statement but we're still waiting on permission from the other photographer. NtheP (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Strike that, I hadn't been able to open the pdf file until now but as Sven says it does look now like both photographers has sent consents in. NtheP (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This one is rather a mess, but I'm pretty sure that between the PDF and the OTRS ticket, we have recieved permission from all of the authors. The license on that image, however, is wrong. One party agreed to CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL, the other agreed only to CC-BY-SA 3.0, and the license on the image itself is CC-BY-SA 1.0. I've made the change to the license, and will clean the rest of it up shortly. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any information on the license of File:Off Road Studios.jpg in ticket 2013120910012941? If not, I will convert the file to conform to the criteria of WP:NFCC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, does the same ticket release File:Off Road Studios (PK).jpg? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

ТимофейЛееСуда - The ticket is missing required information, and therefore neither of those images can be considered under a free license. We have asked the sender for the information, but have not heard back from them (last outbound OTRS email was 15 December 2013). Sven Manguard Wha? 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything in ticket 2013031410007491 about File:HVK Pic for Infobox.jpg and its license? The image is not used, but I wanted to check before nominating for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

ТимофейЛееСуда - There is a WP:CONSENT form there, but had I been the person handling the ticket, there's no way I would have accepted it. The person claiming to be the copyright holder didn't give a complete name, is using an email account from a free service, and gave no indication as to how this photo was theirs to release. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sven Manguard, In that case I would think the image could be nominated for deletion for lack of "evidence" of permission. Would you agree? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not personally nominate it for deletion on those grounds, I am simply expressing surprise that the ticket was accepted as is. There is a valid OTRS ticket there, according to the requirements, but not one I would be comfortable approving myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So, who makes that decision? If there is enough evidence it should be tagged with {{OTRS permission}} not {{OTRS recieved}}, otherwise, with a lack of permission it should be deleted as CSD#F11, yes? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The person that approved the ticket would have been the person that should have made the change. The person that handled the ticket said that they made the change in a reply email, so the most likely probability is that that person simply forgot. I'll make the change. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• The file seems to be out of scope (article deleted at AfC), so I have nominated the file for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything in ticket 2006081410000886 about the release of File:Moore plaque.jpg under a free license? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There's only a text file supposedly from the copyright holder agreeing to the uploading of the image. More evidence was requested but doesn't appear to have been supplied so the ticket was closed. NtheP (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So it would be appropriate to nominate this for deletion as no evidence? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes and as the uploader hasn't edited for 2 years, it's unlikely to be opposed. NtheP (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've listed it for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The file File:Herwald Ramsbotham, 1st Viscount Soulbury.jpg has two tickets listed: ticket 2013012410005334 and ticket 2013053110007731. Do either of these tickets actually release the file under any license? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

ТимофейЛееСуда Another weird one, and another one where it was released under 3.0 and tagged with 1.0 (I fear this might be a widespread issue), but it's all fixed now. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've see a few that are probably mistagged. I'll keep bringing my questions here until one day, I gain enough knowledge to become a member of the OTRS. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There are two different images in the history of File:Lisap.JPG, does the OTRS ticket (2013112210015041) cover both of them? January (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket is very clear that it covers the newest image, it does not mention the older image at all. GB fan 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The email covers "File:Lisap.JPG". Considering that the email was sent on 2013/11/22 (the first eight digits of the ticket number are the date it was first sent in), I take it to mean that it covers the most recent version, which was uploaded 2013/06/19. The most recent one is also the only one on her webpage. I would not say that the OTRS ticket is good for the older image. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please check ticket 2013022010009729 to see what license File:DamienEstreich.jpg was released under? I would like to put a more updated/appropriate license than PD-because. Thanks -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not released under any license. Copyright holder simply stated it is OK for us to use, which is insufficient for Wikipedia to use it at all, and most certainly insufficient to label it as public domain. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it seemed a little odd with an OTRS tag and the PD-because. Normally the tickets are much more specific than that. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And I have just zapped the file. De728631 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner (2nd nomination) says that the subject has contacted the "Wikipedia Foundation" to request deletion. Has any such request been received through OTRS? January (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, VRTS ticket # 2014010410007565 , although the issue appears moot, now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In this edit's summary, Theo1954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) claimed that he sent an email to Wikipedia regarding this article. Did you receive any such message that needs attention BLP-wise? De728631 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There are two tickets. One is unanswered and the other has a reply recommending to use the talk page, as it's essentially a content dispute. They are from September and November of 2103. In any case, there is no such thing as justification for removal of sourced information by stating that they wrote to OTRS. They should use the talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I told them, too. De728631 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If I may add a small point, perhaps obvious. If someone writes to OTRS requesting an edit, and the request is persuasive, the agent will almost certainly act on it. (If not persuasive, the agent is likely to encourage further discussion at the talk page.) I cannot imagine a situation where an agent would agree that the rationale is persuasive, then tell the person writing to make the edit and cite the OTRS email as evidence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I emailed Dickinson College Archives about the image File:James Andrew McCauley1.png to find some more specific and concrete information on the artist and publication date. It is obviously in the public domain as according to them the image was created and published in 1882. Since they do not list this information on the website (the source link) would this be relevant to be in an OTRS ticket? (I'm obviously unsure of what is in it and what isn't). and if so, would my forwarding the email suffice? Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:ТимофейЛееСуда It would not hurt to have that letter on file in case anyone challenges the copyright status. Forwarding should be sufficient. Please provide a link to the image in your text.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The information has been forwarded. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Bean3.jpg is tagged with OTRS permission under ticket 2009070610055053 yet the image is tagged with non-free licenses. Can I please get some clarification? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like when the ticket was verified the OTRS agent added the creative commons license but forgot to remove the fair use rationale. I have updated the image description page to properly reflect its licensing. Mike V • Talk 08:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mike V! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, File:Jfh125.gif has permission pasted in, but I assume that's not good enough - can you confirm and perhaps nominate for deletion? Deadstar (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The permission pasted in does not work, as we don't have any proof that the license holder was the one who agreed to release it under these terms. I also did a search through OTRS and couldn't find any tickets related to this file. However, I believe that this was all done in good faith, just not under the proper process. Since the image is in use in an article, instead of requesting deletion it might be better to contact the owner of the image and ask for the permission to be released via OTRS. Mike V • Talk 17:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, there are two different images uploaded to File:Vratsa.jpg using the same OTRS ticket number, can you please confirm which image is covered by the ticket so I can split the media if required? Thanks Cube00 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This request was not answered before it was archived, please see Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard/Archive_3#Ticket_2006013010000528

Judging from the wording on the initial contact, the media allowed under that ticket is whatever mediathe uploader tagged himself, since that's the advice that was given to him. There are no specific images mentioned in the ticket. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting information on OTRS licence for the above mentioned image. Image claims that the info was sent over 60 days ago and I'm reviewing the AFC submission that is using the image. Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I see two attempts at permission, neither of which were adequate, but I do not see that either agent responded to the persons attempting to provide permission. Further, I am not sure either agent is aware of the other related ticket. I've merged the two tickets and emailed them both.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, File:Levier.JPG has two files in the revisions, can you please confirm if both are covered by the ticket above so they can split to separate files? Thank you. Cube00 (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain I follow what has happened. Let me see if I can contact the agent who handled this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Cube00, the agent who handled this (in 2008) is a former agent. I have reached out to him, but not sure how long it will take for a response. My best guess is that he will not recall. If that happens, I will try following up with the uploader. Please ping me if you do not hear anything in a few days.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I got a response from the original agent, who wasn't able to resolve this. I have written to the copyright holder.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No response yet from the original copyright holder.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued updates and effort you're putting into following this up. Cube00 (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you get any mails concerning this previously deleted file? It was attributed to Gajendra Lohorung and can apparently be found on Facebook. The uploader has asked me to restore it so they can adjust the licence, but of course I'd rather wait for the proof of permission. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any emails concerning the image or from the author. Mike V • Talk 19:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for looking it up. De728631 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there willingness for OTRS to handle verification of corporate/entity usernames? Some other large Wikipedias do allow corporate/entity usernames with verification, so it is not unprecedented or impossible. With all the heartburn lately regarding FTC regulations, disclosure and conflicts of interest, it seems backward that we are softblocking usernames on sight who are disclosing their affiliation up front, something that we definitely want to encourage. Our old policy served us well for many years, but we face vastly different challenges now as one of the top ranked sites on the Internet.

I would like to invite comment here from both OTRS volunteers and other editors, so I will create two subsections. This is not meant to discourage conversation, and anyone should feel free to reply to comments in either section, but try to only start new threads in the proper section. This is most definitely not a vote either, as it would not be appropriate to impose workload on those unwilling to accept it, so no need for bolded position summaries.

Notifications to: WT:COI, WT:U. At this point I don't think we need wider community input, as this conversation is only regarding whether this is possible from an OTRS standpoint, not to actually change the username policy, yet. Gigs (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Impact on copyright policy - Because accounts are "one per person" for copyright-attribution purposes, allowing corporate-name accounts would require a very fundamental change in the copyright policy. The question that can be asked of OTRS and later debated as a username policy change is if we can verify and allow accounts like "Companyname-President-Unnamed1" or "Companyname-unnamed-employee1" with the strict understanding that the account will never be used by any other individual, that it is the individual, not the company, that is responsible for all edits and who has the copyright on all contributed content (other than legitimately-posted non-free content). In the alternative, we could change the copyright policy to allow edits by corporate entities. Does the Wikimedia Foundation have any relevant guidance on editing where the edits are credited to and copyrighted by the company that controls the account? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We already have a corporate copyright problem here with our current policies. An employee editing "on the clock" in the United States does not own his work output, and has no right to relicense it under an open source license, without specific authorization to do so from an officer or authorized person in the corporation. Running corps through OTRS would allow us to get such a release signed. So I see this as fixing a copyright problem that currently exists, rather than creating a new one. Gigs (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would support usernames which mention an organisation, although it would be preferable if we made clear (more in guidance docs than in the name itself) that accounts should only be used by an individual. The transparency would be valuable. I don't think verification of a connection to the organisation should be mandatory - after all, lots of editors choose a real person's name for their account, and we don't verify those, and it seems like a great deal of formal effort for minimal benefit - but I have no objection to verification on a case-by-case basis if there is some genuine need for it. That could be handled through OTRS, but OTRS is not the only solution. bobrayner (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We do currently send people with recognizable real names through OTRS. See the copyright issue discussed above as well. Gigs (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• The current en:WP user name policy is a dinosaur that needs to go, fast. Transparency is key. OTRS are already handling user verification for the German Wikipedia, for example. Andreas JN466 20:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The page deleted per this ticket is at deletion review. It had been speedily deleted per A7. In reviewing history, i saw the OTRS request deletion and protected it. Another user has brought the article (the last version named the real name) to DRV. Dlohcierekim , 01:15, 13 December 2013‎ (UTC)

I've sent it to AFD - one reference does not notability make.--ukexpat (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any further update to ticket 2014021310010676 regarding a more sufficient confirmation of permission for File:Winnett House Kevin Daly Architects.jpg? Thanks in advance, -- TLSuda (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There haven't been any updates yet. As it stands, there is insufficient permission for the image. Mike V • Talk 05:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Can some take a look at the queue. Their is a email about this article, and a number of images. Can someone provide an update? Werieth (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the file's description and the talkpage, an email confirming permission was sent on February 26, 2014. Has that email shown up? -- TLSuda (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just processed it. Nthep (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the image description page, a permissions email was forwarded about the image File:JamieSmith-2009.jpg. The description was changed sometime around February 25th. Is there any information on this image? -- TLSuda (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also would someone mind checking File:Js-Pakistan.jpg. Same uploader, same time-frame, both images used in same article. May be the same email. -- TLSuda (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

ticket:2014022410003109 in permissions-en but an agent that has full access to that queue will have to request a proper release. Both images are included in the ticket. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone check the following images/tickets for updates? These were nominated many months ago, and if there isn't updates, we need to handle them soon. Thanks in advance:

1. File:WVU Football Helmets.png: ticket 2013082710002819
2. File:David Zwirner portrait.jpg: maybe ticket 2012060710010415
3. File:Snakeshead Fritillaries at Clattinger Farm 130411, Ryan Tabor WWT.jpg: ticket 2013082310009267
4. File:Michael H. Cohen photograph.jpg: no ticket number.

Thanks again, -- TLSuda (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Checks out fine.
2. Permission is ok, but the image was released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. (It is ticket # 2012060710010415)
3. Permission is ok, but the image was released under the Creative Commons Atribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation licenses.
4. The ticket is # 2014022610017716, I've made the necessary updates.

Mike V • Talk 06:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to ask that can this image be used on wikipedia or its sister projects under copyright conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khushank94 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This ticket relates to File:Rahul Gandhi.jpg which is freely licenced under the GFDL and a Creative Commons licence so yes it can be freely used as long as any attribution is respected; on Wikipeda or other projects the link to the file is sufficient attribution. Nthep (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

File description claims that this is a picture of "Cruiser Mk I" when it is clearly a "Medium Mk III" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medium_Mk_III_tank_IWM_KID_4625.jpg) --77.101.97.138 (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an OTRS issue, please take it up on the file talk page commons:File talk:The British Army in the United Kingdom 1939-45 H5040.jpg and/or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Nthep (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I just checked the page for a photo I recently uploaded, which is located at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Guitarist_Jim_Ferguson_at_Bargetto_Winery_June_2011.jpg

I noticed that a tag had been added saying that the email you received was not sufficient, and it said you were waiting for another email from Diane Haggerty (that's me -- "Joanne McAllister" is just my nom de plume). I don't understand what more you require, since both Jim Ferguson and I each sent separate emails to you, and used the template (sample letter) provided by Wikipedia for giving permission to use photos. So I don't know what more you need from us. As I said before, I was the photographer and Jim was the subject, and we both give our permissions for this photo to be used, as we both stated in each of our separate emails to you.

Please let me know what more you need, and I/we will send it to you.

Thanks very much! Joanne McAllister (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

All resolved now, tying the two tickets together took some time. Nthep (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your help and quick response. Joanne McAllister (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The image File:Andy Cook 2013.png was tagged as being sent permission on February 27th. Has anyone seen this come through? -- TLSuda (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, is there anything on File:Logo of Infosim GmbH & Co. KG.jpg from the 27th or 28th? -- TLSuda (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nil for either. Both now deleted under CSD#F11 - can be reinstated if tickets do ever show up. Nthep (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nthep! -- TLSuda (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Facebook Cigarettes poster by 2wenty.png has OTRS permission, and it's apparently good enough that User:Fæ tagged it for transfer to Commons. Unfortunately, the Commons image (same name) is missing some parameters in it permissions template. Could someone please transfer all necessary data to the Commons image, and then tag the local image with {{db-f8}}? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that was just a rouge tag that accidentally showed up. That template is the same as the permission template, its just missing the OTRS ID (which is correctly list in the above template). I could be wrong, but I went ahead and cleaned it up anyways. -- TLSuda (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any update to ticket 2013102810000047 in relation to File:Teknicks logo.jpg? -- TLSuda (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, is there any update to ticket 2013100410013113 in relation to File:Dan Bilzerian photo by Damir Karamujic.jpg? -- TLSuda (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: the logo, why not just adjust it under fair use like any other logo? Sometimes people don't know what to do when they upload images and they end up releasing their copyrighted logos to the public domain by mistake... I've deleted a few of those from Commons. Just tag it as fair use and list the company's website as the source. We can then notify the user and close the ticket. No? The other one seems to be OK but it still needs final verification from the rights owner by the agent that's handling it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any WP:OTRS emails for permission relating to File:Alexander Calder and George Stanley Gordon 1973.jpg? Uploader tagged it as permissions pending on February 24. -- TLSuda (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's ticket:2014022410016319. Release is OK, just needs someone to process it. I would but I can't take ownership of tickets in the Commons queues. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (also known as OTRS[1]) had an extremely busy year answering emails from Wikimedia users, readers and other interested people. We have once again prepared a statistical report of administrator activity and ticket volume for the year 2013.

I invite you all to review this report on Meta[2]. If you have any questions at all feel free to leave them on the talk page. If you wish to review the first report, published last year with data from 2012, you may also view that on Meta[3].

1 - m:OTRS
2 - m:OTRS/Reports/2013
3 - m:OTRS/Reports/2012

For the OTRS administrators, Rjd0060 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Tulipknife (talk · contribs) has uploaded several logos and tagged them OTRS pending. Can someone please provide more information? Werieth (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

They're coming through in dribs and drabs. I've dealt with the ones tickets have been lodged for. Nthep (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nthep: Can you also verify permission for commons:File:Texas Premier Soccer League logo.png? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As it's been deleted and I'm not a Commons admin I can't see the image to confirm if it's the same one but as the local version is verified it can be copied over to Commons and replace the redlink that way. Nthep (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please could you check if ticket 2011052210009509 covers this file? January (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@January: As far as I can tell, only the cover File:Living in Hell Cover.jpg, was specifically released in that ticket. It looks to me like the newer cover came out well after the OTRS ticket correspondence ended. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC regarding allowing role accounts Gigs (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone check the que for an e-mail regarding this file, the uploader has promised before that an e-mail was to be forthcoming and has also uploaded it to commons. LGA _talk^edits 05:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have found the ticket and tagged the file with it. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that and restoring the commons one as well, I think the local copy can just be deleted. LGA _talk^edits 07:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please continue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. De728631 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm getting to the point where I hesitate to look up medical information on Wikipedia because nearly all the articles are too technical and seem geared to medical professionals and students rather than the average Wikipedia user. Is this the kind of thing that can be reviewed and changed by some kind of Wikipedia board or science group? Thank you very much. Rissa, copy editor 01:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrond desk for this query - try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Nthep (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently Sarah Fasha contains six images that were uploaded in the past two months, all with OTRS notices. Four images say that Sarah Fasha herself is the author, one image says DAVID J LEVIN is the author and one image says Mervat Ebrahim. One image in particular, File:Sarah_Fasha_pic.jpg, is the same as [1] with Kerry James Photography removed from the picture. I am questioning all of the images and I would appreciate if the OTRS for these images can be verified. Aspects (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a ticket (2014032210006501) where the uploader has attempted to provide permission, but more information is needed. Therefore there is currently not enough information for permission. The last reply was from 30 March 2014, and it seems to take him about a week to reply. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone check the status of this image - it's delaying the Template:Did you know nominations/I am a Ukrainian. If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I searched the OTRS database and found no communications regarding that file. I even did a broad search using the words Ukrainian and Український and found no permissions related emails. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have some more information that might help the search (I tried file name, web address, "I am a Ukrainian", iamaukrainianmovie.com, the email address listed on the FB link) please let me know. You can email me if it needs to stay private. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've found a ticket from what I believe to be the same email address, but it is for another image. Sorry, TLSuda (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I want to upload this particular image and I don't know how to do it to be frank. I asked the gallery owner to upload the image to Flickr where I'm more familiar with its system, but she said at the moment the gallery has no Flickr account, but she's willing to release the image under suitable license for its usage here and email me the image with its highest resolution. I've heard about the OTRS system, but I don't know how to apply it here. Hope someone can help. If I'm not in the right section, I'll be more than glad if someone can point it out. Thank you. SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 10:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The gallery owner, or a representative can follow the directions at WP:CONSENT sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org releasing the file under a free license. If you have already uploaded the file, have them include a link to the file. If not, attach the image. Once an OTRS volunteer reads the email and verifies the permission (needs to come from an official email) the image can be uploaded with verified permission. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Should I encounter any problems (I hope not!) I will come back. Thank you! SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 09:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

An incomplete OTRS tag was placed on the deceased User:Cindamuse's talk page for the images File:Saddle Ridge Hoard large rusted can.jpg, File:Saddle Ridge Hoard small rusted can on blue.jpeg, and File:Saddle Ridge Hoard three small cans.jpeg. Could someone who has any idea how that system works please check this out and see if we can salvage our dearly departed fellow editor's image contributions? Much thanks in advance - VanIsaac_WS^cont 08:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this thread from WP:AN, thread "OTRS issue", where it was incorrectly placed. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have taken ticket:2014022710018124 for these and will double check the details shortly.

 Done --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am a new editor on here and I am struggling immensely with image uploading, licensing etc. I have now encountered an issue with File:IggyAzaleaLiveNYC.jpg - the image is from Flickr and the permission on Flickr states CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic and that the image may be used as long as the owner is given credit. Despite all of this I was asked to go through an OTRS process for the image and so I went through the trouble of asking the owner for permission DESPITE permission already give on the image's Flickr page AND I managed to convince the owner to send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org giving permission for the image. And after all of this, the image is now tagged as being Partial OTRS and says the e-mail was not sufficient? Why is this? What on earth do I have to do now? I must be misunderstanding some concept because I thought in such cases such files should go through a FLICKR REVIEW process? I have encountered many images on Wiki that have the same license that have not been deleted yet they were Flickr reviewed. Why if I upload an image with the same license is there always issues and speedy deletion? The same with File:IggyAzaleaNasTour.jpg - the Flickr page gives permission to use the image yet it's now up for speedy deletion. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong and frankly it is becoming extremely frustrating and tiring. I was actually considering in future that I speak to a volunteer or admin and ask them to upload the images for me, is this possible? —CoolMarc 14:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 isn't acceptable on it's own as it doesn't allow commercial re-use due to the NC bit. The email from Laura isn't specific enough and implies that the licence is only for use on Wikipedia, that's why File:IggyAzaleaLiveNYC.jpg is tagged as it is. File:IggyAzaleaLiveNasTour.jpg is again a Flickr CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 licence, what is needed here are CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licences. Nthep (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I have e-mailed Laura asking her for more specific permission. —CoolMarc 15:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a model wording at WP:CONSENT. Nthep (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Aldercraft (talk · contribs) has uploaded a lot of images of dedicated photographs, which were subsequently nominated for moving to Commons. On some of the images, it has an OTRS ticket mentioned: wikimedia OTRS ticket:2014051610000391 on File:Christian_Ferras_1965_touring_Southern_Africa.png for instance.

The photographs came from a large range of artists and photographers, and the uploader would not own the copyright to these images. I believe they were uploaded in good faith, and are a fascinating collection of dedicated photographs, but I am not sure the copyright situation is correctly represented on the page. Thanks Deadstar (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The OTRS permission comes from Hans Adler's son and does claim to release the images. (@Ankry: pinging you for your ticket). However, I believe you are correct. These images are all scans/photographs of photos that have been autographed/dedicated to Hans Adler and look to generally be publicity photos. I believe the uploader/alleged copyright holder is confused about copyright and who "owns" the image. In this case each photo is probably owned by either the photographer or the company that produced the work and not Hans Adler. It might be wise to nominate the whole lot for deletion, but I would wait to see what Ankry says. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The file mentioned above was never logged at OTRS - the only files on that ticket are:...

• File:Vegh quartet, 1958 on Southern Africa tour.jpg
• File:Quintetto Chigiano 1957 on tour through Southern Africa.jpg which I assume should be File:Quintetto Chigian 1957 on tour through Southern Africa.jpg
• File:Loewenguth quartet 1955.jpg
• File:I-musici 1956 on first of two acclaimed Southern Africa tours.jpg

I've removed the text on File:Christian_Ferras_1965_touring_Southern_Africa.png  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda, you might be right, indeed. Looking at the license I assumed Hans Adler was the photographer, that might not be the truth. Ankry (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I reopend the ticked and asked the uploader for more information. If you are right, and these are not photos made by Hans Adler, but by some publishing companies, then the 1950-ties pictures are probably PD in South Africa, but because of URAA they are not PD in US. Ankry (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: I've created an overview of user's uploads in my sandbox in order to see if a free license can apply. Feel free to add/comment etc. Deadstar (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, my article has been granted OTRS see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mark_Sheldon_Ross Great if you could assist with releasing its content! Thanks EdouardGris (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Although your article's content has permission verified through OTRS for its use, that does not mean that the article will automatically be used on Wikipedia. You have to take the article through the WP:AFC process. If you need assistance in that process, you should reach out to the helpdesk for that board (WP:WPAFC/HD). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TLSuda for that tip. EdouardGris (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As founder of SFF, I initially submitted & continually update the information, including "History" of the festival, found on the Wikipedia site. Periodically the information is modified by others (?) with incomplete or inadequate knowledge of the founding & early years of the festival. I continue to correct these submissions, but this is irritating & time consuming. Is there anyway to prevent this from happening or at least have any changes submitted pass thru &/or be approved by me. Thank you for your response & time. John D. Welch, MD, SFF Founder (1999). Email: SRQDOC@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfounder (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This has an OTRS permission tag, but it has also been tagged with {{wrong license}}. Is there something wrong with the file? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks legit. I've removed the wrong license template. Mike V • Talk 23:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Could someone look at ticket:2014052310015111 (permissions-en)? I'm not really sure how to respond, as they are asking general (and badly worded) questions I don't really have the expertise to answer. Thanks, —Microchip08 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Microchip08:  Done --Mdann52talk to me! 07:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   I saw that you included the text of an email on the description, but email permission must be sent through WP:CONSENT. In this case, the permission would not be approved because the original copyright holder did not release the image under a specific free license. They get to choose, not us. We need a letter of permission from the original copyright holder (photographer) stating they release their image under (whatever license they choose) for us to be able to use it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

       There is a similar situation with File:Sepik River initiations 1975.JPG, we need the written permission that you have for "free of copyright." The same is true forFile:Rakaposhi 4.jpg, File:Rakaposhi 3.jpg, File:Cape York Peninsula Map.jpg. We also need to know who the original author of File:Flo Ziegfeld & Sandow c. 1893.jpg so we can truly know if the photo is in the public domain or not. Also, "free of copyright" doesn't truly have a legal meaning, as everything has, or has had a copyright, unless it is specifically released into the public domain. I've gone through all of your uploads, and cleaned up a bunch of material and licenses. Most of the photos that were over 100 years old were incorrectly licensed. Everything else is good, as far as I can tell. I know this is upsetting to have your work dissected like this, especially so late in the game, but this is part of the process we have to go through to ensure all media we are hosting is free. Somehow your files have slipped through the cracks for many years. With patience we will get through this, and I'm happy to help see this through fruition. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the above two files were marked with a do-not-move-to-commons as there is a lack of clarity about the permission. They since got a "no permission" tag. The uploader left a note on the talk page of both files (note below), indicating that permission was sent in 2005. Can someone check the archives? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

== There is no justification for labeling this file File:Qashqai women weaving carpet.jpg as "possibly unfree." ==

I got a letter clearly giving permission to publish this photo of Qashqai patterns from the photographer, M. Kiani, which I sent to Wikipedia in 2005. I am sorry I no longer have a copy of it as this took place 9 years ago - but Wikipedia's editors at the time were happy with his letter. It must be on Wikipedia's records somewhere.

He had published this and other beautiful photos in his book: Kiani, M. 1999. Departing for the Anemone: Art in Gashgai Tribe. Kian nashr Publications, Shiraz. ISBN 964-91200-0-9.(This beautiful book has hundreds of photos, both black and white and colored, illustrating daily life of the Qashqai people, their rugs and weaving. The text is in Persian but the color photos also have English captions). He was very eager for them to be used on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason to label this file as "possibly unfree." I request that this unfair accusation be put to rest once and for all by Wikipedia's editors. John Hill (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I will, therefore, move the following box from the main page of this file until this matter is properly settled. {{do not move to commons|reason=OTRS needs permission to use this image from photographer. [[User:Deadstar|Deadstar]] ([[User talk:Deadstar|talk]]) 13:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)}}

Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Deadstar: I've found the recent ticket (this week) from the uploader explaining the same situation as above. There is nothing else in the OTRS database relevant to these images. We still need permission as none was ever received through that process. I don't know if the uploader used a different process or what, but there is no email in our database about it. We will still need permission for the files to be used/kept. The uploader may have to reach out to the original copyright holder again to see if we can get a new release. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that TLSuda - nothing much more we can do. Deadstar (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, I see nowhere where the uploader was contacted and told to submit permission, and I see on his talk page archives where he was asked later about M. Kiani, and the uploader didn't remember who that was. I also don't see any evidence that anything was ever discussed on wiki about these images that would show that an editor from back then approved the permission. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: The permissions OTRS queue started in September 2005; older permissions might be stored in the info-en queue. I think, somebody with full access to the info-en queue should be asked to look for their evidence. However if theese are permissions just "for use in wikipedia" they might be just useless. Ankry (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ankry: I have full access to the en-info queue. I searched all of my queues and found nothing. No trace of an email from anyone was ever logged into that system. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am the person who uploaded those files all those years ago. I can't remember now who or where in the Wikipedia world the original letter of authorisation was sent. However, I have just rediscovered the email address (on an old backup CD) of one of the men who worked with Mr. M. Kiani on his beautiful book and got him to write a letter allowing publication of the photos to be used in Wikipedia. I will now write to see if I can still contact him and whether he may be able to get another letter of authorisation for you. Whatever happens, I will let you know what happens. Let's hope they are still contactable. Best wishes to you all, Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I just had a thought - perhaps the letter of authorisation from Mr. M. Kiami is attached to one of the several other photos of his that I uploaded at about the same time which are still on the page? These included:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qashqai_people#mediaviewer/File:Qashqai_women_spinning.jpg ;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qashqai_people#mediaviewer/File:Qashqai_caravan_halt.jpg ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qashqai_people#mediaviewer/File:Inside_Qashqai_tent.jpg ;

As I remember it, Mr. M. Kiami wrote one letter, and later sent another one giving permission to use all the photos I uploaded to this page.

I do hope this helps resolve the dispute. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any of these photos have been released. There are no emails in our OTRS system showing permission for any of these additional images, or the original two. I've now tagged these accordingly. Unless and until we get pure evidence of permission, we cannot host these images. @Deadstar: pinging just to keep you aware. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please could someone confirm that this ticket covers File:J Smooth and Xiomara.jpg? Green Giant (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, its actually at ticket:2007081410026321, I'm going to go update it now. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Status update please. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There's active progress being made and an email was sent out today to clarify who's the copyright owner. Mike V • Talk 22:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the very quick response . Mlpearc (open channel) 22:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the attribution is correct on this image, the source is given as the subject's website but the uploader is named as the author. Does the OTRS ticket (2014070810012899) clarify who the photographer/copyright holder is? January (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@January:  Fixed --Mdann52talk to me! 10:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I recently requested an image from a music company, and the director of the company has agreed to release the image for its usage in Wikipedia. I haven’t uploaded the image to Commons, since I’m stuck with a situation where I’m with limited Internet connectivity. I’m typing this through my phone. ==" Can someone check the status of the image? This one. She has send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the publicly available email on its website: leitin@crankymusic.com Thank you. SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 11:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Got my response from Wikimedia OTRS Notice Board. Thanks to backlog, the image could take weeks in order to be approved. :( SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 11:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Syfuel: As this is a request to upload a file, I have moved the image into the "photosubmissions" queue, so hopefully it should be dealt with quicker. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52:Oh God. I forgot to mention in my previous post that I’ve uploaded the image to Commons when I went to the cyber cafe earlier. Now I’m only waiting for its approval (which might take weeks per what Commons volunteer has responded to my post there) as the permission has already been submitted yesterday. :) SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 12:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Syfuel:  Done --Mdann52talk to me! 12:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Syfuel: Thank you so much. You’re a life saviour. <3 SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 12:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Please verify the OTRS Ticket no. 2014070910010871.CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 19:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that it was verified and accepted with this edit. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@De728631: The content I have revised, but there are still some major issues. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@De728631: No; that was an agknowledgement we had recieved the ticket. @Cutest Penguin: I'm just waiting for a few things to be cleared up. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The files below are listed at WP:PUF. The uploader referred to ticket 2014051610000391 on the description page, does this help clarify the authors/copyright status?

• File:Andre Navarra 1965 first of three acclaimed Southern Africa tours.png
• File:Festival Strings Lucerne on Southern Africa tour 1965.png
• File:Alfredo Campoli 1965 touring Southern Africa.png
• File:Michael Rabin 1966 touring Southern Africa.png
• File:Maurice Gendron 1961 touring Southern Africa.png

January (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@January: User:Ankry is the volunteer that has most recently handled the ticket. Uploads by this editor have been the subject of discussion for months. The uploader does not actually own the original copyrights. The uploader's father was given signed publicity photos. The best these could be used as would be under fair use but they would have to meet all of WP:NFCC. Some of the images do, but many do not. I hope that helps. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The uploader added a permission template for ticket 2014041110015886 [2], is this a valid permission? January (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@January: The ticket is in Russian, but it looks like it is valid. It was closed by User:Dogad75, it might be worth to double-check with them (probably in Commons rather than here). But it does look OK. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I just would like to confirm the receipt of an email for this non-free image. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: I found the ticket: ticket:2014072510016871 but I cannot verify the email address that it comes from. I've requested more information from the sender. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, the email address of the photographer who took this photo is datavisuals@gmail.com and this email appears on this page of his professional website: http://krystiandata.com/con/

You can see the actual photograph on the home page of his site http://krystiandata.com/

I do hope this is enough information for you to verify that the photographer has granted permission to use the image on a wikipedia page. Please let me know if you need any further information. Thank you

MarycjamesMarycjames (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanx all, Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. I came across this file amongst the Copy to Commons categories. However, in the source it says "For source see OTRS". I would rather not transfer without a source. Could somebody please advise on this? Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That ticket's permission hasn't been verified. We are still missing permission. I would not transfer whatever image(s) have that ticket. Might need to tag di-no-permission until we have permission. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, will do. Green Giant (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

ticket:2014070310017385 The license that this image was released under is needed. Thanks, —innotata 13:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It was licensed under CC-BY-SA. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(Added to the file description.) —innotata 05:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This was uploaded in 2009 with a statement "Permission received directly from subject and photographer via e-mail (forwarded to Wikimedia)", but has no OTRS ticket noted on the description page. Was this e-mail ever received? January (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It was received, just was never updated. I've added the ticket to the page. Mike V • Talk 20:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear volunteers, I note that there are a number of files with OTRS pending from more than two months ago. Would it be possible to check if any emails have arrived for any of them? I've listed below the ones that involve living people because I think this is the largest subset:

• File:Adrian Grenier shot by Steve Erle, March 2014.jpg  Done I searched and found this one, with a statement that the modification had been made. It clearly hadn't; it has now.
• File:Bhavya Gowda.jpg  Partly done An email was received in June, but it wasn't acceptable. A response was sent a day later, explaining the deficiency, but no further correspondence has occurred.
• File:Deluka Band Photo.jpg N I searched for Deluka, founds nothing. Tried again with Vel Records, but nothing
• File:Dick Olsson Podium DrupalCon 2014.jpg N Searched for subject, author and DrupalCon
• File:Dr Ibrahim B. Syed and Sajida B.Syed.png N Searched various versions of both names and email address in description
• File:Dr. Ajay Data- CEO DATA INFOCOM LIMITED along with Prime Minister of India, Shri Manmohan Singh at IBSA Business Summit in Brazil.jpg N Searched Ajay Data, the prime minister and website in description
• File:EltonJohnPianoKeycostume.jpeg  Partly done Found a release for a different image claimed as the same, no response to replies ticket:2014060110006133 & ticket:2014060110001031
• File:Glenn Cooper Profile Picture.jpg  Done Found it and added it.
• File:Jane Fleming at Women In Film-Entertainment Weekly pre-Emmy party.jpeg  Partly done Found a ticket, not enough information, no replies ticket:2014060310017136
• File:Jean Georges Perrin.jpg  Partly done Found a ticket (mine) not enough of a release, request for more info returned to sender ticket:2014061010019399
• File:Mani Hoffman, Heroes of Today, 2012.jpg N Unable to locate under "Mani Hoffman"
• File:Mariana Fernándes de Córdoba Modeling.jpg  Note: It's under ticket 2014022210013674. Two separate and necessary parts of the release were handled by two different agents, unknowingly. It appears that there is an image on commons that will need to be undeleted. (c:File:Marianna_Cordoba.jpg)
• File:Mike Pegg, British writer, strengths mentor and curator of The Positive Approach, 2014.png N under Mike Pegg and "Mike Pegg"
• File:Peggy Willis-Aarnio and Paul Aarnio.jpg  Partly done I found a ticket giving permission, but permission was not from the right person, so I've requested more information. ticket:2014060910002195
• File:Rita Tateel Headshot.jpg N Searched subject and description, no tickets
• File:Ron Forman interacting with the Penguin Exhibit.jpg N Search for subject, found lots of junk with his name in it, but no permission
• File:Roy Ngerng Yi Ling.jpg N Searched for subject, no tickets
• File:Sarah Fasha pic 1.jpg  Partly done Release was not from photographer, request for more info never responded ticket:2014032210006501
• File:Sarah Fasha pic.jpg  Partly done Same as above
• File:Shirin Darasha Dalai Lama.jpg  Partly done Was not released under a specific license, no response to request ticket:2014061310005764
• File:TCS Celeb Photogram.jpg  Done I checked a few of the images in the collage, some are free but at least one isn't. Deleted as copyvio.
• File:Val Hennessy, journalist, portrait by Phyllis Dupuy.jpg  Done found the ticket!

I'll be happy to start deletion requests for any files that don't have permission. Thank you for your hard work in advance. Green Giant (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Three addressed. - a caution - the search tool was revamped, and I'm not totally convinced I know how to use it properly, so I hope another agent will double check when I find nothing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I addressed a few more. Will come back if I have time. TLSuda (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Addressed three. Mike V • Talk 02:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I finished the rest of the list. @Green Giant: feel free to nominate as no-permission those that are partially or not done. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wheeee! Thank you one and all for the rapid response, it is much appreciated. :) Green Giant (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Its all about team work here in the OTRS. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear volunteers, here are some more files that have been pending for a while. Please confirm if any permissions have been received.

• File:Albion Turk Gucu Soccer Club Men's team 1988.jpg mentions ticket:2014050810003554. Y - no response to license enquiry
• File:Allison Hall Monroe College.jpeg mentions ticket:2014060410013101. Y
• File:Bruce Guetzloe on Corsair aircraft.jpg N nothing found at all from various searches
• File:Peggy Willis-Aarnio.jpg which I assume is related to File:Peggy Willis-Aarnio and Paul Aarnio.jpg mentioned above with ticket:2014060910002195? Y email recieved, but no release from copyright holder as yet (although poking email sent - hold off fow a few weeks).
• File:Typical match day at Cairnlea FC.jpg mentions ticket:2014050810003554. Y same as #1
• Talk:Mimosa, Tennessee has had an OTRS template since August 2006 but there is no ticket number. No idea on this one, nothing found but search has a bug for URL's... --Mdann52talk to me!
• Talk:System Administrator Appreciation Day appears to have had a ticket but it was removed by an IP in 2008. I've restored it but I would appreciate a quick eye being cast over it. Y fine fine fine.

Apologies for mistakes. Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Commented above. Feel free to delete any not in compliance, except where stated. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I've noticed a couple more files that have been pending for more than 90 days but the timer was reset so it is in the 60+ category:

• File:Royal Park Soccer Club Men's team 1970.jpg since 10 April 2014.
• File:Sean Carswell.jpg since 16 May 2014.
• File:Spencer Proffer.jpg since 19 May 2014.

Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant: top one is no permission, other two are fine and now tagged. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:OTRS permission has recently been enhanced to transclude {{error}}s in certain situations. The errors transcluded in the following need to be corrected.

• Dorothy Hamilton Brush
• Pskov State Polytechnic Institute
• Xerochore (at the bottom)

— Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done fixed those three. Nthep (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I frequently patrol for {{error}}s and the other day there were only two or three in Talk: space. Now there are over 1,130 so I assume that the vast majority of these are {{OTRS permission}} transclusions. Happy fixing (sorry, I don't have OTRS permissions) Wbm1058 (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll file a bot request for these later, and go through manually and correct the tags. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Before you do, let's make sure what is going on. I looked at the first entry, it was an incorrect addition of a tag to a Talk page, but the tag should have gone on the image, and it isn't there, so we should not simply process the removal of the incorrect tag, we need to add the tag to the image page.

In the case of the second entry, it does seem to be permission to use text (from 2007!) so it is in the right place, but it is the wrong tag. Is the bot going to be able to handle these types of things?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The third case is like the second, it is permission for Text, so it is in the right location, but it should be a ConfirmationOTRS not a PermissionOTRS tag. Let me know if you can get a bot to handle this, or if you want some help manually fixing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I am actually doing this manually; I just applied for a bot request due to the large number of edits involved (WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Mdann52 bot 6|BRFA]]. The setup I have involves AWB fixes the pages formatting, then I check the ticket for the licence, and replace the full URL with the ticket number (if applicable). --Mdann52talk to me! 05:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of using AWB to load the pages, but I figured I had to manually check the ticket. I've never written a bot, but didn't see how it would be easy to program for this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I am using a slightly enhanced version of the code I suspect you are using. I am using AWB as well, but I am also standardising the parimeters used by the template, as well as performing all sorts of other fixes to the pages. If you wish, I could send you the code to do this as well (although as I am seeking permission to do these all bit flagged, it may be better to put them all on one account!) --Mdann52talk to me! 14:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but don't see that it will save me much time. (As an aside, I just sent an email asking about the handling.) I'm looking at another one, and it looks messy. Unless I had the bad luck to stumble on a couple complicated ones, I don't see how these can be handled by bot. For example, in 2013010710005518, the person contacting us provided permission for an image. The OTRS agent appears to have interpreted it as permission for both image and text, used the image permission template on the talk page; because it is the wrong template, there is no spot for the text, but that's good, because I do not think it was permission for text. I'm searching to find the image, and not yet finding it. My point being, I think AWB might open the article a few seconds faster than manually, but it doesn't help me read the ticket, or research what to do about it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The good news is these are going a bit better now. The first few I looked at were messy, but after that, many are straightforward. Quite a few need the template changed , easy, and identification of the source text - not hard, but seems to require manual digging. I'm making a list of a few I cannot handle, at some time we ought to have a chat about how to handle them.

I could report that I've taken care of about 400. That's true, but misleading. I got lucky. There is one template transcluded on about 370 talk pages, and when I fixed the template, I fixed all 370. Still a ways to go.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

448 left, Get 'em while they're hot!--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

347 left, Get 'em while they're hot!--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of errors in templates, would it be worth me slightly modifying the code I am using, and go through all the transclusions of {{ComfirmationOTRS}} and standardising the template parimiters used, to prevent future issues like this happening? --Mdann52talk to me! 15:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a simpler suggestion, but would want to get input from the OTRS admins to see if my suggestions is naive.

Why not modify {{OTRS permission}} to add a source= and a license= parameter? I presume there is some reason that this was not done Initially and someone decided they need two different templates, but what was that reason and does it still apply?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be significantly simpler and I would definitely support that. This would eliminate the need for two different templates, but would also allow a spot to put a source even for photos. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Cause licence pages should already have source, author and licence information on them? I don't oppose this, however 2 templates make it easier to see at a glance what the ticket supports - text or images. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The above Flickr file has OTRS permission but until today the license was missing from the filepage and the source only has a copyright symbol, ©. A non-OTRS user has added as CC BY-SA 4.0 and marked the file for transfer to Commons. Before it is moved, I'd appreciate someone just confirming that the license is correct. Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Microchip08 is an OTRS agent, and a look at the ticket reveals everything is all ok. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Doh! I forgot that there isn't an OTRS permission on Wikipedia. Hovering over the name suggested that they were only a rollbacker. Thanks for checking. Green Giant (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As pennance for this grevious error, I've transferred the image to Commons and put forward a proposal at the Village pump for the creation of a new user group similar to the one at Commons. Such editors are trusted with sensitive information and as far as I know admins aren't automatically OTRS members, although I might be wrong. Green Giant (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: as he was working on a similar proposal. Its needed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Theodosios Alexander ( | project page | history | links | watch | logs)
• Theodosios Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Permission is claimed to be granted in ticket 2013042310012831. I personally suspect that it is an improper grant and as such will be declining and effectively blanking the AFC version. I will be CSD nominating the mainspace one as it happesns to have a 67.5% match from the same source. I ask OTRS admins what is the grant listed in the ticket? Hasteur (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

ticket:2013042310012831 says they're releasing http://parks.slu.edu/faculty-staff/parks-faculty/theodosios-alexander/ to CC BY SA 3.0 and GFDL. It's from @slu.edu domain. fyi:OTRS admin != OTRS Agents.— Revi_complaint? 14:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me as well in the ticket User:Hasteur. The release is from the appropriate person from Saint Louis University and checks out. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm really, really unfamiliar with the ORTS process for uploading pictures, so I need someone to talk in small words and very slowly to me. (Sad thing is, I'm not entirely kidding.) Long story short, I'm editing the article for Wilderness Road (band) and I'd like to add some pictures to the article. The only ones I can find belong to Warren Leming, who is one of the bandmembers. He's given me permission to use any of the photos from this article, but I need some help in going through the process. I told him I'd pass his e-mail along in the hopes that someone more familiar with this process can help us as well, and you can contact him at coldchicagocogmail.com. I'd like to use this photo and this one. I was told that I could pick out any photo I liked, and these two were my favorites. I'd like to add them both into the article, if possible. In any case... help! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, unless Mr Lemming took some of these images himself, the fact that he owns physical copies of all of these photos does not automatically make him the copyright holder. Only the original photographers can decide to release these images under a free licence. I.e. before we go into details about the OTRS system we need permission from the photographers to upload their works at Wikipedia under a free commercial licence of their choice. De728631 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've asked him- I wasn't able to get on for Wikipedia related stuff until today, so I'll check to see if he has confirmed that he holds the rights to the photos. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how it hasn't been mentioned here yet, but there is an RFC about creating a useright for OTRS volunteers at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC‎. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This RFC passed, and the group has been created, there are some next steps to do--see the RfC end notes. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I see some users getting this flag, but where should agents request? — revi^☏ 15:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's been established yet. That said, I went ahead and gave you the flag. You can direct people to me if you like, I'd be happy to help. Tiptoety ^talk 16:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've granted it to a few people who are active doing OTRS things. As with Tiptoety, feel free to send people to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Same as the above two for me. If users need the userright, and cannot find someone to give it, it would probably be safe to request it at this board. Obviously many administrators who dabble in OTRS have this page watchlisted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We could always be pre-active - there's only about 40 names at https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_accounts giving an en user home page who are not admins (who can give themselves the flag!). We could just run through the list and set the flags. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Please remember that disclosing you are an OTRS respondent is not required. There are some respondents who prefer to not publicly disclose their affiliation with OTRS (privacy reasons mainly). The list you link to on-wiki is comprehensive and includes every agent with an active account. Please do not simply flag accounts on that list without explicit approval from the user, or first checking to see if they have publicly disclosed their OTRS membership. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 05:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. The only choices would then be wait until they ask or an e-mail shot. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Another consideration is that not all of them will be active doing OTRS on enwiki—some might focus their OTRS work on Commons, for example. But if we come across somebody doing OTRS stuff we should grant them the right, otherwise we'll have to wait for them to ask. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings - per this message on my talk page, could someone please take a look for permission on the above image? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 06:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Already done [3] -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think the volunteer left that message in the wrong section of my talk page and was actually referring to some other images. Kelly ^hi! 06:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS search resulted in ticket:2014101510019167. I'm busy in real life stuff / other wikis' stuff, so hopefully other agents watchlisting this page will process it. — revi_msg 08:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor Kelly: Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the file to Commons - thanks! Kelly ^hi! 07:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have access to the OTRS permissions queue and request the relevant user permission to allow myself to edit OTRS templates for file and article pages. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor I JethroBT: I think WP:AN might be a better place for this request. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anon126: Then the text at Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team#User_right should be changed, as it suggests this is the location to do so. I'll give AN a shot, thanks. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor I JethroBT:,  Done, added you to the relevant group. Nthep (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Per a message on my talkpage, could someone please check for permission on the above image? Kelly ^hi! 22:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

To editors Kelly and Rosekelleher:

 Additional information needed. Permission seems to have been granted; however, Mr. Hale was asked to clarify how he obtained the rights from Mr. Ginsberg, and that has not been done. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, FGS, fine, I'll pester the guy yet again, imply that we think he's a liar, and make him jump through another hoop in order to generously donate his property to the public sphere. Give me some time, please. Rosekelleher (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! Every time I add {{PermissionOTRS}} to a file, filter 635 activates a warning, "An automated edit filter has identified that you are trying to add or modify a OTRS permission template but do not have the OTRS members user right." May someone please add the user permission group. Thanks. ///EuroCarGT 03:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Extra info for the admin adding the right: Confirming he is a member. Not yet listed at meta:OTRS/Users, but he is listed on the internal OTRS wiki [4]. - Taketa (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Nthep (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not presently listed on the Meta Wiki volunteers page, but I have access to the permissions queue and would like to request this userright to be able to make edits to OTRS templates. Thanks James ^{(T • C)} • 8:41 AM • 21:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Nthep (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

On the page Manjusri Vasthu Vidya Sastra, the ConfirmationOTRS template is located in the References section, and is not displaying properly. The template documentation says that it should be added to the article's talk page. Could someone please move it there? Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Done by Taketa and me. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Margin1522, the ticket was added to this page by a non-OTRS volunteer, which is why it was in the article. It originally applied to Mihintale, but is also acceptable here. Thank for noticing and thanks for your cooperation Anon126. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi all! I request the permission to prevent possible filter jumps. I have access to permissions queue: otrswiki:List of accounts#Alan. Cheers, --Alan ^(talk) 03:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I confirm that he has access to OTRS permissions queue. — revi_msg 03:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Though the local right is very likely going to be superseded by a global right. Mike V • Talk 07:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As I sometimes handle OTRS image tickets for enwiki also, please set my OTRS members bit on to avoid Abuse Filter events. I have access to the permissions-* queues, see m:OTRS/Users and m:OTRS/Personnel#Ankry. I also have OTRS members bit set on commons Ankry (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Nthep (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is listed as unfree, but it is also listed as free with an OTRS ticket. Is this a free file or an unfree file? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Email address with @virtualpbx.com has sent a permission, and it looks valid. Feel free to modify template to free one and/or move to Commons. — revi_msg 18:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Commons. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this article has been indef semi-ed as an OTRS action for 4 years now. I asked the protecting admin, but he no longer has OTRS access. Considering how slow the article is, could I request a review of the protection, or reduction to just Pending Changes protection? Stickee (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I get Insufficient rights. But for those who has access to info-en (maybe -q?), ticket is ticket:2010020610020739 according to history. — revi_msg 02:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You could try WP:RFPP, according to the page history, the page hasn't been altered much since the protection. --///EuroCarGT 02:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I declined the RFPP request for now. Before the page can be unprotected, an OTRS member needs to confirm here that unprotection is okay. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

According to the original ticket, the reason for protection is persistent, anonymous vandalism. I am not familiar with the article enough to suggest a proper course of action, just making a note. (The ticket is in info-en::vandalism) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 07:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look at the ticket and I can't see a compelling reason to keep it at an indef semi so I've dropped it down to pending changes. If the vandalism doesn't start again it can probably be unprotected in a few months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Possibly unfree files/2014 November 16#Two files 3. What should be done here? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible case for OTRS re Wolfe. Dispute over POV, OR, copy/paste editing with apparent family member (or someone using a username to that effect) has resulted in the following message left at the top of the Wolfe page:

"Original page has been vandalized by a self-proclaimed editor. Page now contains incomplete information which bears little resemblance to subject. Family of Bernie Wolfe CM,OB demands that this page be removed or the original page restored."

I have no idea if this is really a member of Wolfe's family, but the resume style, copypaste, unsourced hagiography that I had to pare down to comply with BLP (recent death) and MOS was a nightmare (see this diff). Several times I requested the editor not to restore the unsatisfactory version; he/she refused to reply. I finally issued a warning re vandalism. I re-edited and the user now insisting the page be restored or removed actually assisted as the edit history shows. Everything seemed to be OK, until whoever this is decided he or she cannot abide by the current version. If he/she wants to cut off his/her nose to spite his/her face, so be it. I believe I have behaved appropriately and fairly with this editor (see here). Quis separabit? 13:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Ticket:2014111610010233 possibly relates to this, but I am unclear. I'll keep an eye out. If they want to email us, info-en-qwikimedia.org is probably best. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like meta's global OTRS-member userright is assigned to all OTRS agents who has access to permissions queue. (example: Special:CentralAuth/-revi) Should we remove local rights here and rely on meta's list? — Revi 04:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me; the global right alone is all that is needed, right? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I am unsure if the global rights works on local filters. — Revi 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a bug under review at the moment to allow global rights to be used on local filters. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That bug was already merged and quite some time ago.

You probably want to do this on Commons too. I got a notice this morning that my en.wiki rights have been removed (which is rather disconcerting: I wondered whether I'd done something naughty and/or just been too inactive). But I still have the local right on Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tom Morris: I am hestitant to do that on Commons for now, as Commons has real usage of the usergroup (they have autopatrol on that usergroup, while enwiki/global version does not have it). I think it should be discussed on Commons. — Revi 16:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, Revi. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

Just an FYI for those of you with permissions access.

The global OTRS-members group has been created and populated with ALL agents with access to photosubmissions and/or permissions queues. This will help identify when permissions tags are being properly placed, etc as we previously discussed in the RFC.

As a result, if you held the OTRS-members right on en.wikipedia, it has been removed. You are now a member of the global group so the local group is being eliminated.

If you have any questions, feel free to reply or drop a note on OTRS wiki. We are still continuing to work out the kinks and finishing up some internal housekeeping on the issue but the process of monitoring for permissions templates being added by non-agents is up and running.

Thanks all for your continued hard work! Rjd0060 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the userright is now held at global, could someone please take a look at the edit notice that now automatically pops up to tell me that I don't have the userright when I add permissions templates here at en-wiki? Not a major issue, but kind of annoying. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably

There's a bug under review at the moment to allow global rights to be used on local filters. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

above, I think. Or you found some new bugs? I don't know about the filter much... ;p — Revi 13:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please check and see if in fact an email was sen. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 01:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To editor Mlpearc: Checking permissions-en, currently I do not see any emails related to the linked image. ///EuroCarGT 01:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please find a reliable source that Marianne Edwards passed away (or not passed away). According to some articles on the Internet she died in November 2013, but they aren't reliable enough ... There was only a fan named Bob Satterfield who published the information. --Clibenfoart (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That does not fit here: Editnotice says: This noticeboard is for discussion of issues relating to OTRS issues on the English Wikipedia.. Please find another place. Thanks, — Revi 14:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This was uploaded on 30 March 2008 with the comment "I forwarded a copy of the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org detailing the President of Ceredyne giving me permission to upload and use this photo." Is it possible to check whether any such e-mail was received, or is this too long ago? January (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Filename (Both with/without File:) gave No ticket data found.. — Revi 13:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@January:AFAIK, ticket only get deleted when ticket is moved to "junk", "junk-not spam", or OTRS admins thinks they should delete it. So, unless ticket went to these queue and/or deleted, we did not receiced any email containing that filename. — Revi 16:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This file has been overwritten. Which revision does the OTRS ticket refer to? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• To editor Stefan2: The painting. ///EuroCarGT 00:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I have adjusted the file information page to say so. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The uploader states on description page, "Permission given by Rebecca Wright. OTRS number requested at Permissions, via email." Has this e-mail been received at OTRS and does it confirm the licence? January (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If an e-mail has been received, please also confirm if it covers these files by the same uploader:

• File:Running Man Brothers press conference.jpg
• File:2014 Running Man Bros' US Tour, Dallas, Kim Jong Kook and Haha.jpg
• File:HaHa, Running Man Bros US Tour 2014 press conference, Dallas, December 14.jpg
• File:HaHa, Running Man Bros US Tour 2014, Dallas, December 14.jpg

January (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Files have been uploaded to Flickr originally. Because of this, I've asked them to follow the usual course of verifying the information. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

At one point, WP probably had an article on Larry Brinkin. For some unknown reason, that article has disappeared, including nearly all refences in WP to Larry Brinkin. I request that this article be brought back, at least so that users can study its history. Frysay (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It may be a better idea to check Frysay's Contributions especially on Terry Bean's talk page before doing that. Also, I checked and see no mention of that article, not here, and usually when an article is deleted, a message exists on the former article's page stating who deleted it and why. That page is just a red link at this time, also google shows no mention of this article. Just my .02 KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It does not mention anything about OTRS issue on English Wikipedia, so you should find somewhere else, like AN or REFUND. — Revi 18:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ruger-American-Rifle.jpg How did we get permission to use this file? It appears to be a slightly cropped version of http://www.ruger.com/products/americanRifle/images/6901.jpg. If we got permission from the company, I'd like to get additional images from their website (after getting permission, of course). If we did not, then it should probably be deleted. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You have our permission to use the images we post on our web site for Wikipedia under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License.

— ticket 2012121010010568

Seems good to go to Commons. — Revi 18:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please verify if this claim is valid, the user seems to be having trouble understanding what's needed, so if the email has been sent I'll place {{otrs-pending}} and remove the deletion tag. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 06:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Email received and I've left a note on the file page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ! :) Mlpearc (open channel) 06:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For source it says "Submitted to OTRS", there is a name (Robert Rosen) in the author & EXIF copyright field. There is no further information as to ticketnumber etc. Can someone check to see if there is permission for this file? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No ticket data found with query with filename (I tried "File:Tyne O'Connell.jpg" and "Tyne O'Connell.jpg") — Revi 16:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{subst:npd}} and notified the uploader. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Steven Paul Fisher (talk · contribs) has been creating a string of bios by copy-paste from the University of Denver Library's website. As an example, see R. Russell Porter. I am not sure how well he understands copyright issues, because on the article he gaily writes "This link is open access public domain and has no copyright restrictions", although the source is here, and the site's home page says "© 2015 University of Denver. All rights reserved." On the article talk page he says "The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Steven Fisher" without mentioning the U of Denver Library, and claims OTRS permission with ticket number 2015010610010681. Is this a valid copyright release? JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mike V: Mike V is the ticket owner, so he should know more details. (PS. Mike V: Don't ask customer to put OTRS template; You have to do that, and that's why the filter and OTRS-member global group exists.) — Revi 12:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I please explain that I was the original creator/writer of the entries and that I copied/pasted from my own creations. The "rights reserved" is a boilerplate statement and for the University Archives covers the live real material - NOT the finding aid material descriptions. Libraries and archives in general WANT their material used! The people atWikipedia I corresponded with earlier seemed to get this and gave me permissions. Now I am totally blocked. Help!

Steve Fisher24.9.139.246 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Steve

I am happy to add more material and sources to my entries but I am now blocked. How do I get unblocked?

If you own the copyright to the material and have given a valid release to OTRS, that's fine, but there is no point writing what you did on the article page, because it is actually not true. "Public domain" is a technical term in copyright law, and means more than "available in public". Wikipedia cannot accept anything as public domain unless it is explicitly stated to be so, certainly not on the basis of an assertion that a website copyright notice does not cover all of the content. If libraries "want their material to be used", they can label it PD or CC-BY-SA, but until they do we have to assume copyright - see Wikipedia:Copy-paste.

You were blocked by RHaworth to get you to slow down because you were creating unacceptable articles at too rapid a rate. For how to request unblock, see WP:Guide to appealing blocks. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Supplementary for Mike V about what this ticket covers: the same OTRS ticket number (2015010610010681) is cited on many of this user's articles, at least the first ten in the list. Is the permission a general one for anything from the University of Denver Library? JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

All of the text found through this university finding aid has been released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GDFL. He has affirmed that he is authorized to release the material under the licenses. All of the articles are covered under the same ticket. Mike V • Talk 19:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeking permission to use ticket 2014030610003909 for magazine publishing - editorial use only. Can someone help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Chun#mediaviewer/File:Shi_DeRu_and_Shi_DeYang.jpg

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matgallagher (talk • contribs) 07:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Matgallagher. I can confirm that the permission has been granted. You are free to use this image (even for commercial purposes), as long as you:

1. Give proper credit, which is something like this: Shi Deru (a.k.a. Shawn Xiangyang Liu) is the sole owner and copyright-holder of the authenticity of the picture taken at the Shaolin Temple front gate. Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
2. If you make any changes to the photo (not likely, but possible), make those changes free to use under the same terms

I am not a lawyer, so please contact a qualified professional if you have any further concerns.

Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. The author of a history book (a reliable source) has been in communication with User:PhuDoi1 via private email. In this exchange the author verified a fact that is otherwise unpublished - specifically confirming that this picture of a plane found on Commons is the same plane discussed at Kweilin Incident. Is it possible to use OTRS to record this email in order to have verification that the picture is the Kweilin? The book author is the same as the main source used in the Kweilin Incident article. -- GreenC 15:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to request a second opinion on the removal of the redirect Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema. Please see User talk:Ronhjones#Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema. There was also some related text removed from the Bessora article by multiple users associated with the same IP address which I do not agree with but did not wish to get into a revert war. It is my belief that the source provided for the link between the name association with the redirect and the subject of the article was reliable. There are also other sources supporting the link between the two names including African Writing and the publication The Year's Work in Modern Language Studies of the Modern Humanities Research Association. It appears to me that this information is already out but I claim no expertise on the subject of whether or not there is a privacy issue with that content appearing in Wikipedia. --Big_iron (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard, you want WP:ANI Mlpearc (open channel) 23:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment His issue is that there is a ton of stuff in OTRS - ticket 2014020710013925 refers to the French version and ticket 2015012810010693 to the English version. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I followed the suggestion at Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team#Disagreeing_with_a_team-related_edit. --Big_iron (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The following articles

• AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs
• Cove Energy plc
• Lovamahapaya
• Pskov State Polytechnic Institute
• Residential architecture in Poland
• Massimo Scolari
• Frank Shankwitz
• The Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Quebec
• Elisabeth Tonnard
• Xerochore
• Dorothy Hamilton Brush (see previous revision)

All have an OTRS tag on which places the article in Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed, but I think that category is intended for talk pages. Can somebody please check this and if appropriate move the tags to the talk pages (which I'm unable to do). DexDor (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also -

• E. R. Moon
• James A. Bushnell
• Pacific Christian Hospital
• Standing Commission of the Red Cross and Red Crescent

Are in Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission by date. DexDor (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@DexDor: It seems you are correct, Let me verify (I'm new :P ) and I'll correct these, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mlpearc (open channel) 00:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@DexDor: The templates code was changed a while back - we probably just missed these!! Mdann52 (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This has both an unfree copyright tag and a free one. Which one of them is the correct one? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Thanx for pointing this out, it was released by the apparent owner as per the ticket, I adjusted the file page. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Do OTRS volunteers automatically honor all requests for deletion discussions or are they supposed to use their judgment? Reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Hovind --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Often people who write to OTRS can't believe that an article cannot be simply removed. They think that Wikipedia is just a website run by a "company" that has some obligations towards them because they have an article here. An AFD is a simple way to convince them that's not the case, and if anything else it keeps them from continually asking for it. I tend to make a judgement call based on the suitability of the subject (notability or whatever) and try to convince them that it's a bad idea, it's unlikely that it will be deleted, explain how deletions work, etc. But most of the time they're not listening and they don't want to read policies, they just want the article deleted yesterday. So I give them an AFD. After that they usually just stop. For the price of a quick AFD, sometimes it's worth it. And sometimes the AFD is merited anyway, and ends up in a delete. It depends entirely on the subject. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your post NeilN, this was the first request I have received of this type. The standard email response to requests for deletion of articles about self (which I used), gives the options for the subject to point out exactly where the issues are in the article with a view to an editor making those changes, nominate the article for deletion, or request someone do it on their behalf. In this case they chose the third of those options. Personally I think its a good option because the AFD discussion clearly states all the reasons the article should remain and that many editors have a consensus view on that. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: See for example this and this, which both fall under the "alright, I'll do an AFD so you understand how Wikipedia works" category. Neither of them had any chance in hell of being closed as delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I don't like wasting other editors' time with obvious keeps but I can certainly understand your points. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A "procedural" nomination like this of an article the nominator knows will not be deleted is an abuse of the process and a waste of everyone's time, especially if there was a legal threat in the OTRS request. Giving in to pressure like that enables the threatener, and encourages them to "rally the troops" with SPAs, which is exactly what happened here. Let use a bit of common sense and understanding of human psychology, please. If there's a threat, either pass it on to WMF Legal, or respond to the complaining party that no action will be taken until the legal threat is totally withdrawn. The "solution" used in this case is no solution at all. BMK (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no unambiguous legal threat in the ticket, at least not particularly worse than what we see every other day. The threshold is much higher for OTRS than for Wikipedia, e.g., language such as "are hereby directed to preserve any and all evidence" or "prepared to pursue all available legal remedies", formal DMCA claims, etc. Credible threats are routinely forwarded to legal, and sometimes we do ask that the correspondent tone it down before we action it. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. The AFD in this case was appropriate in my view. Now they know how Wikipedia works. Sometimes that's what it takes. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There was no explicit legal threat in the request. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, because I'm not an admin, I have no way of verifying that, but I believe your description of the ticket. Nevertheless -- and this really is the important point -- I do not think the AfD was the appropriate response. An AfD of a solid article is never justified unless the nominator believes that it should be deleted. By acting as the OTRS-complainant's proxy, you nominated an article which you, personally, do not believe should be deleted. Tell the complainant to get an account and nominate it himself, guide them through the process, that's all fine, but don't abuse the process. BMK (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. The person writing to OTRS believes the article should be deleted, and they are asking us to nominate by proxy. Anyone is entitled to nominate any article for deletion. We're just helping them. That's why we make it clear in the rationale that the request comes from OTRS so our !vote as nominators does not count as it usually does. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

With respect, BMK - and I do see your point of view - if the subject created an account and nominated the article for deletion the outcome would have been exactly the same. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah...yeah.

Let me think on this some more, it just feels like we're being taken advantage of. BMK (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The real legal threat will come now that the AfD failed. I'm off to have dinner with my kids. Flat Out let's discuss it

As an FYI, there is currently a 136-day backlog for permissions-en. (I have gotten it down from 141 days.) If there are any users with OTRS access monitoring this board, help is certainly needed. If you are considering deleting an image tagged with OTRS pending, please consider the backlog length in doing so. --B (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify the above, the oldest ticket is 136 days old. This is really not an accurate way to gauge how large the backlogs really are nor help in estimating how long before tickets are processed. The total number of tickets in the permissions (English language) queue is 490 (at this moment). In the permissions-commons (English) queue there are currently 732 tickets. Some agents often work on the newest tickets first rather than the older ones. This is based on agent preference - though of course we encourage our volunteers to tackle the oldest tickets first. With that in mind, one reason tickets may age in a queue is that they are more complex than others.

Anyhow, the point remains the same - there are some heavy backlogs at the moment so keep that in mind when talking to users about their files if they lack permission or are deleted. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I always handled the newest tickets too. I think commons can wait a little.

+Prince Willy 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I try to look at both ends of the queue - if there is a very simple ticket where the permission is unquestionably from the copyright holder, requires no investigation to figure out what image they are talking about, and I can take care of it in five minutes, why make them wait four months? --B (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Because we're making others wait 6+ months. There needs to be a balance. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Some how, some way, we at the English Wikipedia need to ensure that there is a timely response to messages sent to permissions-en - not a four month delay. I have been running through the backlog and it's now down to 119 days / 378 tickets, but more help is needed. When someone uploads an image to Wikipedia, submits the email as the instructions say to do, and then they hear nothing for a long time, frustration sets in and we turn off contributors. Is it kosher to make a general request for new OTRS volunteers at WP:AN? --B (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

B, it's not quite as easy as making a post. But you're welcome to give it a shot. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Just wanted to let you know that following an internal discussion amongst the OTRS team, which was preceded by a discussion on Commons, we have went ahead and enabled auto-responses for English-language permissions tickets. As a result, you may notice an increase in users mentioning ticket numbers when attempting to get their files undeleted, an increase in AbuseFilter hits caused by non-OTRS members adding their own templates or other activity relating to this change.

If you have any questions feel free to drop a line here or contact an OTRS admin. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket was added by a user who is not a member of the global group 'OTRS-member'. Is the ticket valid? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, a ticket has been received, but has not yet been processed. As an FYI, this is likely because there are now auto-responses when you send an email to OTRS. The auto-response gives the requestor the ticket number, so someone who is well-meaning and doesn't know they are not supposed to might add a the template. As a matter of process, if someone adds a {{OTRS permission}} tag with a ticket number from the last few days, maybe just automatically changing it to {{OTRS received|id=20150nnnnnnnnnnnnn|notprocessed=1}} (rather than {{OTRS pending}}) is a useful endeavor? That serves (at least) two purposes: (1) it lets the user know that the ticket has not yet been reviewed and (2) if the email doesn't give us enough info to find the image, we're (eventually) going to process the {{OTRS received}} tag and will make the connection that way. (One of my plans for my bot is to list out the results from the edit filter into a table somewhere so that they can be individually reviewed and struck off once handled.) --B (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to propose that we move to monthly dated categories similar to what Commons has at Commons:Category:OTRS_pending and Commons:Category:OTRS received. I think individual daily categories are overkill, but monthly ones (with images sorted by date within the category) would let us more efficiently make sure that images where we don't receive permission don't hang around forever and that we are not duplicating effort in reviewing them. My suggestion is that a bot would do the following:

1. Create monthly categories named "OTRS pending as of April 2015", "OTRS pending as of May 2015", "OTRS received as of April 2015", "OTRS received as of May 2015", etc. The categories would have the same auto-csd thing where if they are empty after the month ends, they tag themselves for speedy deletion.
2. Find uses of {{OTRS pending}} and {{OTRS received}} that don't have a date and tag them with month/day/year parameters. Within the category, they would be sorted by date.
3. If an {{OTRS pending}} tag has been in place for more than MIN({{OTRS backlog}}, 30) days + a 7-day grace period (in case we're not great about keeping the backlog template up-to-date or to allow time for the email to be sent in case it wasn't sent right away when the tag was added), then tag the image with {{subst:npd}} and notify the uploader.
4. For {{OTRS received}} tags that stay in place for a while, I think having some sort of SOP here would be a good idea.
   • Alternative #1 - do the same thing we do for {{OTRS pending}} - if it's tagged with OTRS received for backlog + 7 days, then tag it with {{subst:npd}}
   • Alternative #2 - If it's tagged for backlog + 7 days, post a note to the tagger's talk page asking them to check the ticket and send another email to the requestor to follow up or, if they are confident that we will not receive one, ask that they tag the image with {{npd}}. This way, we're not going to delete the image without someone having a chance to look at the OTRS ticket and see if it's worth sending a follow-up email
   • Alternative #3 - Post a daily (or weekly?) summary here of images that should be followed up on.
5. Keep track of images that once had {{OTRS pending}} and post somewhere a list of images that lost their {{OTRS pending}}, but did not get an {{OTRS received}} or {{OTRS permission}}.
6. Post a daily (or weekly?) summary (probably here) of AbuseFilter hits for adding the OTRS tags by a non OTRS member, with exceptions for anyone who is an admin here or on Commons, or is a bot (possibly with a whitelist of other non-OTRS users who are sufficiently trusted that we believe they know what they are doing. Possibly also filter out reverts if the abuse filter doesn't do that already). This way, we can follow up on these in an orderly fashion and not duplicate effort.

Thoughts? --B (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Fine by me — prefer alternative 2 for OTRS received. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Some notes:

1. User:Ronhjones often tags files with {{subst:npd|{{NoOTRS30}}}}, and the bot would essentially replace his manual tagging. Maybe he has an opinion on what to do.
2. {{OTRS backlog}} currently reports 78 days and the template was last edited on 28 April. In my opinion, the bot should only tag files which were tagged with {{subst:OTRS pending}} more than 78 days before 28 April, even if it is after 28 April when the file is tagged by the bot. The {{OTRS backlog}} template may sometimes be outdated.
3. When a human tags a file with {{subst:npd}}, the file is checked by at least two users: the tagging user and the deleting admin. Other users possibly see the file but might not look at it. If a bot tags the file, then there is only one user (the deleting admin) who looks at the file. In my opinion, the bot should not use {{subst:npd}} but list the file at WP:PUF as this may increase the possibility that someone else might take a look at the file.
4. The bot should check that the file doesn't contain {{OTRS permission}}. If it contains both {{OTRS permission}} and one of the other templates, then OTRS members should be alerted as something is wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Stefan2:

1. Ronhjones notified.
2. Good point on #2. That was part of the reason I had in mind with the 7-day grace period. I could have it yell at me if the template hasn't been updated in some reasonable amount of time. Maybe yell at me if it hasn't been updated in 5 days and post on this noticeboard if it hasn't been updated in 10 days. (What I would like for us to do is get to the point where we're talking about the backlog in terms of < 1 week. It's ridiculous that you email us and it's three months before anything is done.)
3. I'm not sure what my opinion is on #3 and need to think it for a bit. My first thought is that chances are, the reason the {{OTRS pending}} template was put on there in the first place is that someone came along and tagged it with {{subst:npd}} and then the user replaced that with {{OTRS pending}}. So it is likely that two humans have already looked at it. Maybe I could only list it at PUF only if no non-bot user other than the original uploader has ever edited the page? Those are probably the ones that should be reviewed most closely. (Perhaps it's also worth listing if it's a PNG, since those tend to be logos and more likely should have just been tagged as fair use to begin with?) In any event, something that would probably be useful here - since the uploader would have already been sent {{subst:Di-no permission-notice}} once (that's why they added the {{OTRS pending}} template to begin with) - would be to give them a different message that isn't so boilerplate ... something that sounds more like it came from a human and less like a form letter. Instead of inundating them with links, we really just want to give them a simple message that if you're the copyright holder, please email permissions-en@wikimedia.org and if you're not the copyright holder but are in touch with that person, please ask him or her to email us. Otherwise, the image will be deleted. If you need help, please post a message on WP:MCQ.
4. Very good point. Something else I thought about was that if an image with OTRS permission is tagged with npd or another deletion tag, it's probably worth notifying this noticeboard so that someone can take a look at the ticket. I could create a daily report with any oddities like this that need to be reviewed. --B (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Here we go ... something like {{Di-no permission-notice-final}} is a little more directly on point. It sounds slightly less automated and doesn't inundate the user with 1000 links to click on and things to do. We have one straight and to the point request - send us an email and let us know you have done so. --B (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

About #3: It seems that many new users who upload files use an upload wizard where the user selects various options without understanding what the options mean. That is at least my impression of the bogus fair use rationales and copyright tags I have seen. Some users might use an option which inserts {{OTRS pending}} even if the user doesn't know what this mean, so it is better to offer the user a place to discuss the matter. I think that it would be easier to simply list all files at PUF instead of trying to identify exceptions as it just makes things more complex without any real benefit. It's not like there are hundreds of affected files per day, so it shouldn't be a problem to have a few extra PUF sections. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Let me know if I can help (within the boundaries of my rookieness) Mlpearc (open channel) 23:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• I'd love to see these categorized and managed this way. I do like the format B proposed at {{Di-no permission-notice-final}} - to the point but not officious. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Great idea, now can it be built into WP:Twinkle? At the moment all these are tagged/deleted under F11 - no evidence of permission can we modify Twinkle so that there is a second F11 choice e.g. "No permission confirmed via OTRS"? Nthep (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a very good point. I'm asking at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. --B (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• (Struggling with an ancient laptop, as PC is in bad way...) Sounds good to me, it should help the slow build up of non-approved images (I'm sure there must be people out there just using {{OTRS pending}} as a way of keeping up images); before PC died, I kept wading through all the >30 days category, but it does takes ages - the amount of people who send in a message and don't include the url makes searching OTRS a right pain. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine for me too; the Twinkle would be very helpfull.Willy Weazley 23:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't read much of the discussion here, and am neutral on the matter, and as such I'd be happy to nac close this discussion and make any needed adjustments to my helper script, templates, and run through with AWB and updating templates on tagged images as needed. Just let me know when it's ready to be closed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As an update on this for anyone interested:

1. I have created the templates {{OTRS received subcat starter}} and {{OTRS pending subcat starter}} to be used as the starters for the monthly categories.
2. I have modified {{OTRS pending}} and {{OTRS received}} to use the dated categories.
3. I have submitted at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/B-bot 3 a BRFA for a bot task to (1) auto-create the monthly categories and (2) add the dates to instances of {{OTRS pending}} and {{tl|OTRS received))
4. I have nearly finished coding a bot task that I will submit this weekend as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/B-bot 4 to add {{subst:npd}} to expired {{OTRS pending}} tags and notify their uploaders with {{subst:Di-no permission-notice-final}}.

Something that we really didn't make a decision on above is what process to use for expired {{OTRS received}} templates. Maybe we come up with both a template similar to {{subst:Di-no permission-notice-final}} that the bot can leave for the uploader AND a generic reply that can be sent through the OTRS system? ("Dear XYZ, I am writing to follow up on the message sent to you by ABC on Febtober 5. We have not received a reply and have marked this image for deletion one week from now. If you have any questions about the information we are requesting, please let me know. Please ensure that [Ticket#12345678901234567890] appears in the subject line of any reply so that your message will be automatically associated with this ticket.) --B (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

While I was testing the bot, I noticed that the 30 days old, etc, categories that I had previously created were not named consistently. I have re-organized all of the file-related {{OTRS received}} categories to be within Category:Wikipedia files with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS and named with that naming convention. Similarly, the non-file {{OTRS received}} categories are within Category:Wikipedia pages with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS and named consistently. @VernoWhitney: asked whether I planned to do the same thing for the {{OTRS pending}} categories, but I think that should be brought here first. These categories are all named Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission ("Items", rather than "Wikipedia files" or "Wikipedia pages"). There is at least some utility in having the separate categories since files can be pretty deleted without a lengthy review process if the timer expires, whereas the pages need to be closely examined to see whether the entire page is from the copyrighted source (in which case it needs to be deleted or stubbified) or whether only one section is copyrighted (in which case we can remove that section). Or maybe the template is there but the text was never even incorporated to begin with because it was spam that was immediately removed and we just need to remove the template. So for that reason, having the separate set of categories seems useful since there are two processes. The pages actually seem to go back five years in some cases (and really need to be dispensed with in some fashion), whereas the files only go back to earlier this year. Any thoughts on whether or not to organize {{OTRS pending}} categories in a similar fashion to how {{OTRS received}} categories are organized? --B (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody else is popping in, I'll say that I have a slight preference to combined so I can browse a single category for all really old tickets to go hunting for, but I certainly see the benefits to be gained from separating them, and my question was mostly just curiousity. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In regards to permission for File:Kathleen de la Peña McCook.jpg, I have forwarded an email Ms. McCook, owner of the image, granting me permission to share that file. James E. Scholz (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)James E. Scholz

@James E. Scholz: Thank you, I have found your message as ticket 2015060510014795 and replied to it. Please note that Wikipedia requires that content be published under a free content license, such as the "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0" license that all of our text contributions are published as. WP:CONSENT contains information about this and a form that we request be submitted by the copyright holder. --B (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Tagging as resolved - if you post a follow-up message that needs a reply, please remove this tag.

I have responded via email to "permissions-en" to the message found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wicked44 about image: File:Radclyffe (Len Barot), 2014.jpg (which I tagged with {{OTRS pending}} )

I do have persmission to use this original image, however I require advice on the type of proof Wikimedia requires from me. Thanks Wicked44

@Wicked44: Your message has been received as ticket 2015060510006268. I have replied to it via email. --B (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Tagging as resolved - if you post a follow-up message that needs a reply, please remove this tag.

Example: an article exists about company XYZ. Company XYZ posts their history section from their website into the history section of the article and submits a statement of permission, but that statement of permission is not sufficient. Meanwhile, there are five years worth of edits to the article before we finally get around to patrolling the relevant {{OTRS received}} tickets and doing something about it. Eventually, we remove the infringing section, possibly do a history purge, etc.

What should be done with the {{OTRS received}} tag on the talk page? Should we completely remove the tag? Is there some usefulness, perhaps, in creating a new template to document that there was once an OTRS ticket pertaining to permissions for this page? --B (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here is a scenario: Migration Letters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has an OTRS received template for ticket 2010010710018626. The copyright holder was unwilling to grant the appropriate permission for the text in the article and it was long ago purged from the article history. Is there any utility to retaining the OTRS number on the talk page or should we simply remove the template? --B (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I suggest adding a parameter "stale=yes" or "processed=yes" or something to the template to have these categorised differently. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I have created {{OTRS received old}} for this purpose. (In other words, all you have to do is add the word "old" to the template name. --B (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am letting you know that the owner of the file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roberto_Fortich_Mesa_in_2014.jpg sent on tuesday an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org in which he submits the statement of permission for the use of the file. His email account is (redacted for privacy). --Forich (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Forich: Thank you for letting us know. Another OTRS volunteer, User:VernoWhitney, has processed the message and has marked File:Roberto_Fortich_Mesa_in_2014.jpg as accepted. --B (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Tagging as resolved - if you post a follow-up message that needs a reply, please remove this tag.

Hey I'm not sure why my permission to use this photo is being questioned, I got it from the subject directly. Please do not delete it! I've sent another "permission" email.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesDennin#Deletion_pending_for_File:Mona_Bijoor.2C_March_2015.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.130.114 (talk • contribs)

You should have received an automated response with a ticket number. Can you provide that here? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's at Ticket:2015061210020014 but the information there isn't complete yet. An explanation of why the permission to use the photo is being questioned has already been communicated via email. If permission from the copyright holder cannot be confirmed before the image is deleted but that permission is later granted, then it can always be restored by any admin. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Judging from the response so far it's unlikely that the image can be kept. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Stephen Bourne, writer.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

thanks for email sent by B-bot, on 6 June 15. I had already sent an email on 17 Feb 15 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I hope this clarifies the matter. Linda Bourne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubhros (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that when Stephen Bourne himself is the subject of the photo he is most likely not the photographer. We need permission from the original photographer who took the photo, but not from Mr Bourne. Owning a physical copy of an image does not automatically make him the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• The original ticket number was Ticket:2015021610012112 and I have merged your new email into that one. It looks like there was an error in the system causing your original follow-up to not be processed. I am processing it now and you will get a reply shortly. --B (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Tagging as resolved - if you post a follow-up message that needs a reply, please remove this tag.

Permission sent for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_White,_photo_by_Owen_Richards.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynkyn de worde (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wynkyn de worde: When you uploaded this image, you said, "I am the owner of this image. I paid the photographer, Owen Richards, to create it for my company." Did your contract with Owen Richards include a transfer of copyright? --B (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I sent the OTRS email that same day the photo was posted. Dollface Canon (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I have re-sent it as well now. Dollface Canon (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that you sent in a permissions statement on 9 April. A response was sent on 22 April, requesting certain additional information. A note was added to the file on 28 April noting that no response had been received. One complication is that I disagree with the original handling so I will have to check with the agent to understand why the original permission wasn't accepted. While I am doing that can you look to see if you received a response on April 22?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I left a note with the agent what I think may be in Europe so we may not get a prompt reply.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ticket was closed. The file was moved to commons and sent to deletion. Willy Weazley 23:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I just got a post on this on my talk page. I mailed a PD release about this file months ago.I re-mailed it over a month ago. Can someone get on this please? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Pinging Sphilbrick, as he was the ticket handler for the request (ticket:2015020510013409). ///EuroCarGT 20:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The original release wasn’t quite adequate. I was asked for specific wording which would make it adequate; I even wrote out the exact wording which would suffice. The copyright holder merely needed to send it in or send it to Maury to forward to us. I just checked and I do not see any record that we received it. Oddly, there was a response to my email but it simply contained a copy of the image. If the copy holder sends in the permission statement I can undelete the image. If they don’t have the wording handy I can provide it again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: The most recent email in our system from you is 83 days old and relates to something else. I do not see any email from you in the last couple months, unless it came from a different email account.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have sent it again. I received the "thank you" automail. Looking in my mailbox, I see that this is actually the third time I have send this in, because I now have three identical automails in my received folder. Can someone please confirm you're actually getting these? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I found it, and processed it although it wasn’t easy. First, what you may have sent to three times, I only see one such email in our system. If you want to send dates and/or screenshots of the others I can try to track down whether we have problems receiving emails. However, when we respond to a permissions request with additional questions, the usual approach is for the individual to respond to the email. When that happens it shows up in the same ticket and sends an email to the agent handling it. Had that been done, I would have seen it fairly quickly. I did find it fairly quickly but only by luck as I happen to be glancing at this page. You sent it as a standalone email which did not include any of the prior history and did not include links to the images. I even wrote out the exact wording for the copyright holder to use and it wasn’t used which led to some delays.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at this from my perspective... you sent me an email with additional instructions. I forward that to the person in question. He fills it out and sends it back to me. We've already lost the original thread at the first forward. I could have left the original content in the message, but that would have exposed your email, resulted in a lengthy and confusing email to the content creator, and had no guarantee that it would come back to me intact. I feel your pain, but this is kinda like the weather - its going to be this way whether we like it or not. 20:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm a big fan of looking at problems to the eyes of others. It can be quite insightful. You've explained, convincingly, why it wasn't a simple reply to the original thread. However, my original instructions included links to the files so that if they follow the specific instructions, I would be able to click on the links and find the files. Instead, inexplicably, they removed the links. This meant I had to do a search, which didn't take long, but it took far longer than it should have.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make a simple upgrade to the autoreply that makes it more obvious how to handle future replies. Recall that in this case the ticket number was assigned to the autoreply, but not (IIRC) to follow-up messages. Maybe that's an easy fix, along with a more robust subject that will survive these sorts of actions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What qualifies as a statement of permission? It's a headshot that's easily available on the internet from LinkedIn and other social media sites. Would an email from the person be sufficient? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadLegs Media (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• @MadLegs Media: Simply being published on the internet does NOT make it acceptable to upload to Wikipedia. Please see WP:CONSENT for information about the kind of permission that we require. This form (or something similar) needs to be submitted by the copyright holder. If we are talking about a photograph, then the copyright holder is normally the photographer, unless the photo was a work product, in which case the copyright holder is the employer. If the person claiming to be the copyright holder is not the photographer, then we need to have an explanation of how the copyright was transferred (e.g. the copyright was transferred as part of the contract with the photographer). --B (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response regarding proof of permission of imagery. I have contacted the owner and asked him to submit the appropriate forms. Could you kindly extend the deadline past seven days to allow him time to respond? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadLegs Media (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• @MadLegs Media: I have bumped the deadline to two weeks ... but even if the deadline expires and the image is deleted, it is no big deal. Administrators can undelete a deleted image. So even if it's a long time before the statement of permission arrives, we can always recover the image once we get it. --B (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the reminder regarding the photo in the article on Brad Mattson. I have sent an email regarding the copyright to OTRS just now. Thanks. Slainte12 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This is ticket number 2015062410018853. You will receive a reply to your question shortly. --B (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved