From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
OTRS Noticeboard
Welcome to the OTRS noticeboard

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

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

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 7 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

OTRS Noticeboard
Main OTRS-related pages

Shortcut: COM:ON

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

OTRS & Wikidata[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global Young Academy[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving processes to avoid this[edit]

Hi all

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

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

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

We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not answered, above, some arising from that discussion):

  1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
  2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public?
  3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided?
  4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or reworded for clarity)?
  5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
  6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
  7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
  8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
  9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
  10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?

Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions are confidential. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


As I'm sure many of you are aware, non-OTRS members of the Commons community have recently expressed concern around the processing of OTRS tickets, especially relating to photosubmission tickets. These discussions have been spread across many fora, but a significant portion took place at <>.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Medija Centar[edit]

BokicaK claims on my talk page File:Srbijanka Turajlić.jpg is covered by ticket:2012011710005331. The same could possibly apply to other files for which I raised a lack of permission and which are currently at DR [2]. If such would be the case, a custom license tag might be appropriate. I am puzzled by the fact the above ticket is already used on other files where it was not added by an OTRS agent [3] and which do not clarify the name of the photographer. Please note the following:

  1. The source given for File:Srbijanka Turajlić.jpg was [4] and the credited author, Medija Centar.
  2. The English page of Medija Centar [5] says "all rights reserved".
  3. On the various DR raised on May 14 to challenge the speedies, BokicaK makes reference to a permission published on the Serbian Wikipedia, which may or may not be the same as the above ticket.

Thanks, — Racconish💬 08:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Medija Centar gave us permission to use their content under Creative Commons. Requirements of CC (editing, redistribution) were always in email we used to send asking someone. I sent email asking them, they agreed. For Stevan Kragujević, it was not me who asked his daughter. I only pointed that such permission exist -- Bojan  Talk  09:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The page you refer to on the Serbian project has no OTRS ticket number, nor evidence it has been reviewed by an OTRS agent. It names 3 files : image001.jpg, image002.jpg, and Medija centar Beograd.jpg, and I cannot reconciliate these names with those of the files named hereabove. As far as I can see, it does not state any Commons compatible license. — Racconish💬 10:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Ask user @Dungodung:. He had/has access to OTRS at that time. -- Bojan  Talk  11:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please refer back to this conversation. --Filip (§) 21:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Unlike Pogledi (photos from World War Two), Medija Centar is creator of images from their website. Stevan Kragujevic is also author of images released under Creative Commons by his daughter.-- Bojan  Talk  14:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please advise what is missing here, if anything. --Krd 09:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Email exchange verification[edit]

Hello! @Ytoyoda: said I need to go through a special process related to verifying an email exchange in order to validate the license of this image: File:Old_Town_舊城區,_CeLe_策勒,_XinJiang_新疆,_China_中國_19605097148_a9e344a702_k.jpg This is my first time uploading something someone sent me for use on the wikis. Let me know what I should do. Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Honestly, the simplest thing would be to ask the Flickr user to change the license to one that allows commercial use and modifications. If they’re okay with their image being on Wikipedia, they should be okay with the license, and it takes just a few clicks to change the license. OTRS verification is the more complicated process, in my opinion. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. But I already asked Wong to change the license on the pictures a week or so ago. If you read the conversation we had, you will understand how this happened. I'm also interested to see how this process will work (or whether or not it will work). I don't want to keep bothering Wong with things that might be too hard to do or to too hard to explain/understand. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
At first, Wong wanted to upload the pictures to Wikimedia Commons himself. After the eight day waiting period, he still couldn't upload pictures. I asked him to change the copyright several times and told him what to change it to, but Wong didn't get it. In the end, the user asked me to upload them and I said I'd try to do it. The user sent me an email with four pictures, and this was the one I thought was most appropriate among the four pictures to serve as the main picture for Qira County, a county in Xinjiang with 150 thousand people- about the same population as Guam- that has no other pictures on Wikimedia Commons. I don't want to keep bothering Wong, and I'd like to try to go through this verification process (even if the process fails and the picture has to be removed). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: A permission "for Wikipedia" is not a good wording for a permission. If Wong send an email with a permission we need to be able to verify that it is him sending the mail. I do not think it is possible to send a mail from flickr to a normal email address. So I agree that it is much simpler to change the license on flickr. --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree it would be simpler to do it that way in theory, but what I'm trying to say is that 1) I already tried that route and 2) I don't want to keep bothering Wong because I hope to ask for more pictures in the future and if I bother the user too much, they may not want to work with me. I have a collection of several weeks of back and forth including attempts to get the user to change the license on flickr and I also have confirmation after the image was posted on Wikipedia that what I did met with the person's approval. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Honesty, I think the easiest thing to do would be to create a very specific request for permission that checks every box on Wikimedia Commons I would need to ask from Wong that would lead to a response that would either absolutely permit or absolutely disallow the usage of this image. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Please see COM:CONSENT. If anything is still missing, please advise. --Krd 09:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


Can someone please check if this ticket is applicable for all files from, and if it is OTRS template should be added to files uploaded from this website by User:Elserbio00. See also Category:Images by Medija centar Beograd. Same goes also for File:Filip-David-Udruzenje-Crnogoraca-Kosova-04.jpg --Smooth O (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This ticket is written in sr. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we should create a template (similar to {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}} and other templates) explaining that the permission is valid for all files from (if someone can confirm that - my guess based on typing one line into Google Translate is that it does). --MGA73 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Brest, Dungodung: We have a permission in sr. Can any of you access it and check it? --MGA73 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    Technically, this release from 2012 does cover all media from that site --Filip (§) 05:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Письмо о авторских правах. Кому адресовать?[edit]

Здравствуйте! Какой текст письма и кто адресат?


     PlastininWlad — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlastininWlad (talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

About Moz anri 02.jpg[edit]

Regarding Moz anri 02.jpg, the operator has obtained permission. However, when I try to upload to the wiki I can't, but how can I allow the upload and avoid the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kier~jawiki (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's File:Moz anri 02.jpg. File it's watermarked with "Ulike" and has no EXIF. The copyright holder (usually the photographer) must send this permission directly to OTRS, since we don't accept forwarded messages. Possible we'll request the original, unmodified file for verification. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Thomas_of_Cana.jpg OTRS Violation suspected[edit]

The following image is available in commons with id=2019012210001349|user=Ganímedes. Its not easy to establish that the Editor of the book Book created the painting. As the following images are available from 2016. Further this image look like a photo of a printed image (not painted) Further, Claim of artist is suspicious as image is existing in the internet with copyright protections Picture on Uploaders/OTRS Book Picture available from Intenet

This shows that, OTRS provider got thr picture from unknown source (Though internet or printed publications) and used the same in his book and a photo uploaded to wikimedia with OTRS to make it credible, and further claim as the author of image. This image is not an amateur drawn image as uploader/OTRS provider doesn't seems to be a painter/artist

- Qowa (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I think your doubts are reliable, Qowa. I'm re-processing the ticket. Thanks a lot. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

OTRS ticket #2020012110005817[edit]

According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Mahringer - 20030227.jpg this ticket requested the take down of this image and the original image. But the nominator isn't an OTRS volunteer - can someone please confirm that this OTRS ticket requests deletion? Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  • ticket:2020012110005817 is not in the queues "permissions", "photosubmissions", "Commons", "info-en", or "info-sv" (the ones I have access to). Requesting OTRS admin assistance at accessing this ticket, or another user who has access to the queue where this ticket is in. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it should be in something-de. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


Hello, I recently uploaded a vector version of the file File:Kentlogo.png at File:Kentlogo.svg. The PNG has an OTRS ticket on it (Ticket #2010081110016901) since the city released the logo into the public domain since it cannot be copyrighted. What is the policy on that? Is it safe to assume the vector version, which came directly from the city, is also public domain since it's the same basic design? --JonRidinger (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

If the png is PD I see no reason why the svg should be if the uploader made the svg and did not just copy it from someone else. --MGA73 (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@JonRidinger: I made a comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kentlogo.svg --MGA73 (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

OTRS ticket ticket:2016030410008521[edit]

Could an agent please thoroughly check whether File:Bundesratsfoto 2020.jpg, which is sourced to (expressedly restricing to non-commercial use), is really covered by the above mentioned OTRS ticket. The image hadn't been uploaded under this ticket, but was said by others (User_talk:Túrelio#File:Bundesratsfoto_2020.jpg) to fall under the associated permission. Note: 8 years ago there had been controversy ([6]) about whether the "Swiss Government Portrait" permission is really a blanket approval for all images from that source. --Túrelio (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The ticket applies to only, which is not the source of the mentioned image. --Krd 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
There are two other tickets mentioned in Template:Swiss Government Portrait. That would be the right template to apply to these images. The tickets are #2007080810014523 and #2008022410010827 --PaterMcFly (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket:2020061510004624[edit]

How I now the status of my images? Wiki82esh (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki82esh: The agent dealing with this ticket has not yet verified the last information received. Please be patient; they are all volunteers working in their own time. Ww2censor (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Files with multiple Permissions[edit]

What should we do with files with multiple permissions, like files using {{Jose Fernando Real}} template. i think the status is much more clear if we only use one permission link and either merge tickets or provide "See also" notices at those tickets. --Jarekt (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

United Nations[edit]

This map is excerpted from #37 Executive Summary

It was submitted by Government of Vietnam to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

Can someone help with applying the appropriate license?

thumb|Vietnam 200 nautical mile EEZ and requested continental shelf wedge

Thanks --JWB (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@JWB:This noticeboard only deals with OTRS-related issues, and we didn't received any related OTRS tickets. Should you have problems on licensing, please contact COM:HD or COM:VPC, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

File: Corrado Ocone.jpg[edit]

Biglietto OTRS 2020061610004579. So che è stata rilasciata e inviata autorizzazione dal detentore dei diritti Chiedo il ripristino della foto Corrado Ocone.jpg nella pagine Wikipedia del filosofo Corrado Ocone. Grazie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stematar (talk • contribs) 11:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Vietnamese permission[edit]

Hi! Could anyone have a look at this photo? File:Lieutenant colonel Dam Thi Loan.jpg. I added a link to a permission based on th file from --MGA73 (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73:✓ DoneI have inspected Ticket:2011041410001293, and made relevant edits on the file and the Vietnamese Wikipedia file page. The file was inspected by one of our volunteers, and the copyright status was verified. Is there any more problems that I should aware?廣九直通車 (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: Thank you! No all is good then! I just wondered because there was no permission tag on Commons and the licenses were not the same on and Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Fixed by 廣九直通車. --MGA73 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please double check Bollywood Hungama OTRS ticket[edit]

Hi there, I just got slapped with a copyvio notice for cropping an image that was labeled as in the Creative Commons, and which bore a legit-looking OTRS notice that suggests the permission is appropriate.

The main image in question: File:Ashish Chanchlani at the special screening of Men in Black International.jpg
The image I extracted: File:Ashish Chanchlani at the special screening of Men in Black International (cropped).jpg
The OTRS ticket link:

If someone could please double-check this, and clarify for me what the specific permission is, I would appreciate that. I mean, it really would be helpful to know what Bollywood Hungama said specifically, and have that information in that OTRS template on the files' pages, like: "According to documentation received on DDMMYYYY, Bollwood Hungama has given Wikipedia authorisation to use images from its website" or whatever the case may be. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging Curb Safe Charmer, since they are likely to benefit from the result of this query. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: I saw the OTRS ticket link a few moments after I had tagged the image as a possible copyright violation. When I did so I undid the change, removing the tag. I forgot to remove the notice that would have appeared on your talk page. Sorry for that.
My understanding is that the OTRS ticket would give permission for the use of a single image. If it were to say that they gave permission to use any image on their site, I don't see how that would be administered. If they wanted that to the be case then Bollywood Hungama should remove its copyright notice from its site and replace it with a CC0 licence statement. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The custom license template, such as this one, Template:BollywoodHungama, are specially created when a copyright holder allows many of their images to be uploaded using the same license and OTRS ticket number without the need for tons of OTRS tickets taking up a lot of OTRS agent's time. The template pretty clearly states the details of what types of images are allowed or not. Ww2censor (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member[edit]

Please check File:После вручения боевых наград Родины, Ханой, январь 1966.jpg - @Iluvatar, NoFrost, Dogad75:. Thank you. --VLu (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --VLu (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OTRS Permission for files[edit]

Hi everybody, well I need your OTRS permission check for my files - File:Student during Coronavirus in Mexico.jpg and File:Student during Coronavirus in Mexico (2).jpg hope you can help me as quick as possible, thank you so much for your time. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the files is mentioned in this deletion nomination has this Ticket:2020070110000081 number. An OTRS agent will deal with it when they get to it, so please remember that the OTRS agents are all volunteers there is no deadline for ticket completion. Ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If files are finally deleted, they will be undeleted when an OTRS verify the authorship. So, don't worry, there's no hurry. I'll verify anyway. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I've answered the ticket, TheBellaTwins1445. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I have sent them to the same e-mail. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Please continue in the ticket, not here. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
But how? I dont have an OTRS account? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Answer the email you've received. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

en:File:Nityanand Swami.jpg[edit]

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


Hi! Could someone check OTRS:2007071310015176. Fair use? --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh seems it was released as GFDL per (perhaps it would be a good idea to add a note to the permission with this link?) --MGA73 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)