Commons talk:OTRS

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

To request permissions verification or to inquire about an OTRS ticket number listed on an image, please see Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard This talk page should be about the Commons:OTRS page itself.

Archives April 2007 - present

Contents 1 Auto expire otrs pending 2 A picture of Roman Jakobson 3 Template:OTRS wait 4 re: Commons:Email templates 5 One autorisation for several photos. 6 Upload first, or get permission by mail first? 7 OTRS taking over a week?

[edit] Auto expire otrs pending

Currently when {{otrs pending}} is placed on an image, a volunteer has to manually search the database for the ticket. Most of the time, the ticket is not found, due to the email having never been sent. I propose we auto expire these after 7 days, eliminating the need for searches. We should also include instruction where the uploader should also place the ticket number on the talk page of the image once the email has been sent. Currently, I use alot of time to search the database. I am unaware of what it takes other volunteers to do the search, but since we use the same interface, I can safely assume it is time consuming for them as well. Thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Though in general a good idea, what do the OTRS volunteers say to that. Is there a backlog of permission emails that have arrived but are not processed, and, if yes, how long (in days) is the backlog? --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We definitely can't keep up but 7 days is not nearly enough time. I would propose that 30 days after an image is tagged with {{OTRS pending}} we contact the uploader (via bot) and ask them to either send the email if they haven't or the image will be deleted. Then, 15 days later (45 days after upload) the image is deleted if we have still not received the permission. I've already talked to Multichill who would be able to run the bot. The reason I'm proposing 30 days is because Permissions queues on OTRS are often backlogged. (btw, I am an OTRS volunteer) - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Leave it as it is. These kinds of things should not be subject to bots. Evrik (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing the bots will do is notify the uploader that we did not receive the permission. It will also tell them where they can go to ask further questions ( a noticeboard of some sorts ) and will tell them that the image will be deleted (manually) if we don't receive the permission. Sure, we could do it ourselves, but this would be tedious. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Evrik, it takes too much time and effort. Rjd, I can go with your timelines 30/45. Currently there is a backlog. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for it, although I find the first 30 day period a bit long. As it is just a reminder for the uploader, I think two weeks is more than enough (if they forgot to send the email, why wait a month before giving them the heads up?) But I'm not a member of the OTRS team, so I'm fine with the proposed period if OTRS members think it's best. –Tryphon^☂ 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, a couple of weeks would be plenty. However, many tickets come to OTRS for permissions and we don't really have enough volunteers to handle them in a timely fashion. So sometimes, tickets sit for weeks/month(s) without being handled. Starting with a 30-day period will just give us a good opportunity to make sure that we can handle the new tickets in time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation; you're right. And if the time period needs some fine tuning, it can be adjusted later on, when everyone has had a chance to see how it goes. –Tryphon^☂ 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If OTRS is waiting to receive the permission, then yes. But if were waiting on the volunteers to get to it, then a month is too short. Uploaders should not be penalized for our lack of help. Rocket000(talk) 20:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, we should be instructing uploaders to go ahead and reference the ticket into the image talk page. This would be of tremendous help. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole reason 30 days is proposed is so that the OTRS volunteers have time to do it. That should be plenty of time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it encourages them to get them done. I guess let's try it out. Rocket000(talk) 21:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I Agree with Rjd0060's proposal: bot alert after 30 days and deletion after 45. I do think the first warning should be less than the 30 days suggested, but I'll bow to the person who's actually dealing with the OTRS queue. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

{{Noticket}} can be modified for a warning. When I removed an {{otrs pending}} I usually {{noticket}} the talk page of the uploader. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the 30/45 as well, please include the {{OTRS received}} tagged images as well though. The current backlog on pending tickets on Commons is about three months and I'm willing to help on sorting out the lot so we can get it down to 45 in the first place. Ciell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I really think (as I explained it in another discussion about the same subject) that notifying only the uploader (and not an admin) can be counterI-productive in some rare cases, the most serious ones. If I'm knowingly uploading copyvios and tagging them with {{OTRS pending}}, then I can use the notification to know when I have to change the date in the template. That way, the image always remains in a less-than-30-days category and never gets deleted (although I've sent nothing to OTRS). If I remember well, the previous proto-consensus about this subject was: if older than 2 months, check the existence of a ticket and then delete if necessary. At this time, the backlog was lighter than it is now, though (only a handful of pictures were beyond the limit). Right now I guess it wouldn't be reasonable for admins to ask a batch checking for dozens of images. Isn't it the case that when a ticket becomes valid, an OTRS volunteer updates the template on the image page? If this is correct, I would stick to plain deletion of the images older than a limit fixed by OTRS volunteers (depending on their backlog), plus eventually a notification to the uploader (but not only the notification). --Eusebius (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think we have the problem of people doing this. If people wanted to get around it, they could just add any random ticket number to the page. So I don't really think we should be concerned with this possibility. Also, I regularly check for pages containing {{OTRS pending}} with no ticket number or ticket link (as you can see from my recent contributions). I fix these as usually they are just mistakes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm for just deleting images that have been pending for X number of days. (I'm fairly sure that) Every OTRS volunteer is an admin and can undelete an image if it turns out to be necessary. If we haven't gotten to the ticket within 30 days then there is a reason why. Yes, there are sometimes tickets sitting there for 40+ days, but thats the tail-end. 95% are dealt with within a few days to a week. -J.smith (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're guessing wrong there, not every volunteer is an admin here as well ;-) and this week even, three images were finally confirmed, after pending for 3 months, therefore I would prefer a "last chance": things can go wrong on our end as well sometimes. Last month I found a permission mail in the spam queue, not the first place to go looking with a length over a 1000 mails. Ciell (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough... quit being lazy and become an admin already. :P J.smith (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this depends heavily on the language the emails are written in; what you suggest may apply to perm-en/perm-com(-en), however, it does not apply to, say, perm-de/perm-com-de. As to the original question, I think 7 days is too short: The benefit of deleting files earlier is that it helps to avoid legal claims but deleting them after only 7 days—in my opinion—doesn't outweigh the disadvantage that a fast deletion confuses and annoys uploaders. On dewiki, for instance, images lacking essential information/permission get deleted after 14 days. I think we should go with something between two and four weeks. —Pill (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The original proposal was 7 days. That was quickly changed and now everybody has been talking about notifying the uploader after 30 days, and deleting after 45 days (if permission still isn't received). - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem I see with the 30/45 plan... we now need to keep track of two temporary tags. The bot will need to make two runs. If we just delete after X number of days the process is much simpler. J.smith (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't want to delete the image without giving the uploader a chance to respond. And as I said above, the images will be deleted manually (all OTRS pending tagged images are automatically categorized by date). Only the uploader notification will be done via bot. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

@J.Smith: in my idea, we only need use one tag: for instance our ordinary {{OTRSpending}}, but with the adjustment that a date will appear in the template, like it does with no license, no source, etc.: the bot only does one run after 30 days, with advising the user to take action. I support Rjd0060's idea (see above above) in this. Ciell (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is already the case, date is added in the template by a bot and then files are sorted by day in Category:OTRS pending. --Eusebius (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean making it visible in the template? Ciell (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ciell, by what process do we deal with enforcement then? I think I'm missing something. :) We could model this a little bit after the PROD tag on Wikipedia, I guess? --J.smith (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A picture of Roman Jakobson

Roman Jakobson I am searching for a picture of the Russian linguist Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) for the Norwegian (nynorsk) Wikipedia. There is no freely avalailable picture at Wikipedia Commons, but the Russian Уикипедия and the Hebrew וויקיפדיה use the same picture:

File:Jakobson RO.jpg

Cf: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Якобсон,_Роман_Осипович http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/רומאן_יאקובסון

The Russian source is http://www.isfp.co.uk/russian_thinkers/roman_jakobson.html and the Hebrew source is http://www.phillwebb.net/History/TwentiethCentury/Continental/(Post)Structuralisms/Structuralism/Jakobson/Jakobson.htm

Can anyone help me find out the copyright of this picture? Regard--Rolf Theil (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:OTRS wait

There is a deletion request for Template:OTRS wait. I believe it must bveb discussed here first, so I copy it from Commons:Deletion requests/Template:OTRS wait:

This template is effectively saying "I've uploaded this image without permission, but I've asked for permission so don't delete it". Permission should be secured before uploading the image, not after. The template is, in any case, unused. If deleted, the connected category Category:OTRS wait should be deleted too. --Stifle (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sv1xv (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn't created by the OTRS folks; it's OTRS in name only. It's basically saying "I'm uploading this even though I don't have permission, but I might possibly get permission sometime in the future, and if not then hopefully nobody will notice". Stifle (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] re: Commons:Email templates

The page Commons:Email templates seems quite redundant or sorely unfinished:

• It contains a copy of the recommended author's reply (which is not good: content forking).
• It has no templates at all, only a link to wikipedia's list of examples of permission requests.

Whoever has a knack in these issues, please fix it. Altenmann (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] One autorisation for several photos.

Hi everybody, I would like to know if I can take one permission for several photos, for be concret I put this picture: File:Melopheelo_en_concert1.jpg, and I got the permission for take every picture made for performance. I would know I can add them without send an autorisation every time. Thanks, -Nmd (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Upload first, or get permission by mail first?

A colleague of mine has been so kind as to supply me with a photo I'd like to upload. I think I understand most of the OTRS procedure, but one thing puzzles me. The email template says "To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ]."

This seems to suggest that I should upload the photo first (and add "OTRS pending") in order to add the link to the photo in the mail which I would like to receive from Christiaan in order to forward to the permission-checkers.

On the other hand, this page says:

"When you receive a reply, please check that the permit authorized by the copyright is appropriate to the Commons. If so, upload the image to Commons and add "OTRS pending"."

This would suggest that I should get the email containing the permission first, and upload later.

Could anyone please advise me? Best regards, MartinD (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, we should receive the permission before the file is uploaded. In the facts, it is rarely the case, and it is easier for everybody if one can refer to a file already uploaded on Commons. So, in my opinion, if you are certain that your colleague will provide his consent to a free license release, you can upload the file with {{OTRS pending}} and then have the e-mail sent right away with a reference to the newly uploaded picture. I hope I have answered your question. --Eusebius (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I think I'll upload the file first, and add the link in the text of the mail I'll ask him to return to me. I can vouch for his willingness to provide his consent. When he went to Ireland on holidays,I specifically asked him to try to make some photos showing the housing crisis there, for use in the article on the credit crisis on the Dutch Wikipedia. I've explained the issue of releasing a photo under a free licence, plus the OTRS-business. He said we'd be happy to take a few snaps as long as I took care of the paperwork.;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I had asked the same question about a month ago. I think this is a common source of confusion for a lot of people and the current instructions don't really make it clear. mahanga (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS taking over a week?

I've uploaded several OTRS images recently, and none of them have been processed yet. File:Hemozoin structure.png was first, is there some kind of problem with the system or have I messed this up in some way? TimVickers (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OTRS (permissions-commons) seems to be having a serious backlog. Multichill (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently over a month, I'm afraid. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, as long as I haven't screwed it up in some way I'm happy to wait. TimVickers (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)