Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard

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: 1 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

OTRS Noticeboard
Main OTRS-related pages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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.

File:Hassan Rouhani.jpg[edit]

Hi, as the volunteer who worked in 2013 on [1] this ticket is no longer an OTRS agent, could someone please check whether the correspondence contains the author-information and then correct the author-entry, as surely BotMultichillT is not the author of File:Hassan Rouhani.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Several files were deleted in 2017 because there were some doubts about the identity of the photographer. One agent wrote: "To be honest, how can Mojtaba Salimi be the author of both File:Hassan Rouhani 2.jpg and File:Hassan Rouhani in Nofel Loshato.jpg, the latter belonging to almost 40 years ago!". Does it help? --Ganímedes (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2010110810006332[edit]

Hi, is it possible to see the copyright owner for ticket:2010110810006332 (paintings by Erik Tryggelin)? Ambrosiani (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright holder is the "daughter of the painter Bianca Wallin, who died in 2006". Not mention of Erik Tryggelin in the ticket... --Ganímedes (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
(edited) thank you – it seems the uploading user thought the OTRS ticket was valid for Tryggelin as well. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David_Wallin,_Erik_Tryggelin_med_Bianca,_1912.jpg. Tryggelin died in 1962 so his paintings are still under copyright. Adding deletion templates. Ambrosiani (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Ambrosiani: files involved in the ticket are:
Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am the heir to the art of Bianca Wallin (1909-2006) and to her father's art, David Wallin (1876-1957). I am the daughter of the artist Bianca Wallin, who died in 2006. When I inherited Bianca Wallin's art I also inherited some paintings by Erik Tryggelin (1878-1962) at the same time and which belonged to her and were included in the legacy. I know that Erik Tryggelin died in 1962 so his paintings are still under copyright. The art of Erik Tryggelin that I inherited were just two pictures:

  • File:Erik_Tryggelin,_Paris,_April_25,_1912.jpg, an oil painting, and
  • File:Erik_Tryggelin,_Humlegårdsgatan,_Stockholm,_10_7_1918.jpg, a pencil drawing.

Is it possible to include just these two work of art, that I have inherited, in the same Permission OTRS Number 2010110810006332 intended for Bianca Wallin and David Wallin? Kindest regards Bysmon

Regarding David Wallin's oil painting I have now corrected the license for the picture

  • File:David_Wallin,_Erik_Tryggelin_med_Bianca,_1912.jpg to the correct OTRS permission, with the OTRS Number 2010110810006332. So now I have deleted deletion templates. Kindest regards Bysmon
Hi, Bysmon. The fact that you've inherited the paintings doesn't mean you've inherited them copyrights. I've thought there's some kind of misunderstood here. Are you the inherited of the copyrights of Tryggelin or just inherited of his work? --Ganímedes (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
And you shouldn't delete the templates IMHO. Always we can restore the files after verify the correct copyrights. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Mujegpalya Ice Rink.jpg[edit]

I just noticed that an OTRS tag was added to this image, my own photo, when it was merged with another file. I don't know that I've ever used OTRS so this is a little puzzling to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's written in hu, so we need an agent that can read that language...--Ganímedes (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Themightyquill, Ganímedes: It is a permission for a site, so maybe that site was marked as the source of the file. I am not sure because I cannot see this edit history, but the mentioned ticket has clearly nothing to do with the file. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Bencemac: You're right, and both sites are not longer available... --Ganímedes (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I checked it again (I speak Hungarian) and I still think that it was added by accident. Just in case, I ping Grin and Regasterios who can see the mentioned edit history and read the ticket. Please confirm. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I remove the OTRS template. @Bencemac: az a helyzet, hogy a forrásoldal a Commonsról szedte le a fotót. A többit nem kommentálom. --Regasterios (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The original was uploaded to huwp by user:Tambo from the website http://www.budapestcity.org/04-keruletek/14/Varosliget/index-hu.htm then he moved the file from huwp to commons by the same name. It's been deleted from hu due to commons and deleted from commons due to duplicate. The OTRS template properly permitted redistribution all budapestcity.org images but mentioned that "some" "articles" has different authors and there "permission shall be requested individually". So there was no accident, apart from that the uploader has a history of misattributed and mislicensed imagery being deleted (apart from huge amount of proper uploads). --grin ✎ 11:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: @Bencemac: @Regasterios: forgot to ping you all. ;-) --grin ✎ 11:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Grin: Was permission requested individually for this image? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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 [2], 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: https://w.wiki/DQr)). The Bangladesh Young academy https://nyabangladesh.org/ (to take one example out of 50) is one of the first contributors. Sooner or later, all 50+ national young academies will be submitting pictures. The plan is to then engage our senior academies and senior academy networks to do likewise, as well as the framework organizations through which they are organized (InterAcademy Partnership, ALLEA, African Academy of Sciences, Royal Academy...). So we are very much interested in setting up a process by which this is streamlined. Apologies for the many individuals who do not send in photos with the correct specifications, we want to support wikimedia as much as possible, help us to do this. PPEscientist (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Evaluation[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving processes to avoid 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. --Fæ (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.

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Bohumír Rakušan / RTN[edit]

  • Rejdák na FL

  • Rejdák Psychotronika

  • Imuregen - historie 1 (novy majitele)

  • Imuregen - historie 2 (novy majitele)

  • Clanek Svobodne Slovo 1990

  • Dolezel zatlouka puvodni tym - A

  • Dolezel clanek pokracovani

  • Rejdak priznava roli puvodnim clenum tymu

  • Imuregen po revoluci?

  • BR (první řada uprostřed)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bohum%C3%ADr_Raku%C5%A1an — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdenbe (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC). auth... Zdenbe (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I was warned about the content and got a recommendation to ask for help with my file uploads here. I can't find any information now.. who told me and where told me to do that..., sorry. This is the situation: we have private-owned materials (owned by our company, I am responsible person) and we would like to publish these documents, based on the contract in between us and heir of the archive. This document is not a public doc and this is (OTRS) the way how we can solve this problem, isn't it?? Zdenbe (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

An Appeals and Mediation Board: a proposal[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

(If this proposal belongs at the Commons Village Pump, please let me know so that i repost it there.)
Wikimedia Commons with its mission: free access to free media! (FATFM), is of course a great success involving many people. It is coming of age, so we perhaps should evaluate the organisation here and there. Of course, statistically mishaps are bound to happen. How can we improve Commons?

In recent months i clashed with two OTRS-members and also somewhat with a moderator (who deleted an important image out of ignorance, and kept it deleted, so others had to resolve this), who apparently all of them did not support the mission FATFM. I'll focus now on the hassle with the two OTRS-members. My uploads of photographs with author permission for a large GLAM were repeatedly deleted for many weeks, there was gross abuse of power (remember "power always corrupts"), bullying, desinformation, intimidation, stonewalling, refusal of communication, own invention of new illegal (or extralegal) and impractial rules, and ignorance of copyright laws and jurisprudence. (I confess I have entered the fray to try to defend my photo donor and my GLAM with justified remarks i think, which were resented by an OTRS-member when WMNL kindly tried to mediate.) After three months of mismanagement, fortunately a more sensible OTRS-member stepped in and saved the donation at issue.

However, to fulfill our great mission in good faith and with joy, conflict and hassle should be unnecessary, or at least properly handled. In part, the problems were caused by electronic communication, which is not suitable to manage conflicts. The fact that Wikimedia (WMF) invites GLAMs to donate free media, legally entails that GLAMs have certain rights when they want to upload donations.

In Dutch law and jurisprudence judges decide cases using criteria like good faith, accountability, due diligence, verisimilitude and availability of options to appeal. Wikimedia Commons and OTRS procedures are lacking on the last point. We can mend that.

So i propose that an authorative Appeals and Mediation Board (AMB) be instituted (on Wikimedia Commons where it belongs),

  1. consisting of an
    1. odd number of
    2. knowledgeable, wise and fair(ly independent) Wikimedians (odd number so that voting always leads to a decision)
    1. to mediate when problems arise and
    2. to resolve conflicts by making authorative, well-argued decisions.
  3. The board reserves the right to NOT accept certain requests for mediation and/or conflict resolution, but should then provide reasons for doing so.

On the Wikipedias we have similar Boards (Arbcoms), which work well.

How the appoint the members of such an AMB is of course open to discussion. Experienced Bureaucrats and Admins might be obvious candidates. Without an option to appeal decisions (or lack of them, stonewalling) the present OTRS procedures are not legally defensible. Thank you for considering this proposal. I think we should act now. Hansmuller (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Just curious, if you have so many problems with OTRS agents or procedures, have you tried to get in contact with OTRS agents or admins and discuss the issues? --Krd 13:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, this dispute went from here, to UDR, to AN, and back to UDR before it was resolved.
Having said that, there is already a mechanism for collective oversight in the form of the OTRS mailing list, but I can understand how this is less than satisfying to non-agents as it is non-public by necessity.
I'm also inherently skeptical of proposed solutions that mandate layers of pseudo-judicial bureaucracy, and especially ones that elevate the opinions of a small subset of users over that of the community, in a project that is at least supposed to be primarily community- and consensus-driven. Even if this was clearly the perfect solution, we would need the consensus of the community in order to cede any portion of the mandate of the community to some specialized decision-making body. For example, without that mandate, in any situation where the decision of this body was contradicted by community consensus, the opinion of this body would be merely advisory and non-binding. GMGtalk 14:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
One of the issues that Hansmuller raised was that of "invention of new illegal (or extralegal) and impractial rules". This is indeed worrying. He also said "the present OTRS procedures are not legally defensible". May I point out that WMF abides by the Law of the State of California and it is to that state's laws that we must look to decide what is and what is not legal. One precendent that is worth looking at is the case Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists. In that case,the judge hightlighted the difference between organisations that perform a public service and those that do not. In its early days, Wikipedia (and WMF) did not render a public service even though they might have aspired to do so. Now however they do render a public service, but the mentality (in the English Wikipedia at any rate) is still firmly embedded in the mindset that developed in the early days of Wikipedia.
Any procedure regarding appeal mechanisms should be set up so as to ensure that it complies with the law regarding organisations that actually render a public service, rather than those that merely aspire to do so. These laws include the concept of the right to "natural justice" (which is what I believe was User:Hansmuller main point). Martinvl (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Quote: "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." An an OTRS volunteer I disagree with anything above, not least because no actual issues have been described in the original posting. --Krd 08:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
We don't normally apply the standard of the law at all; we normally apply the much higher standard of free cultural works. Common in theory could host a great deal more works under fair use or non commercial use in a way that would comply with the law, but we do not because it does not comply with our mission. When we evaluate the copyright status of a work, we are not normally evaluating whether it is legal; we are evaluating whether it meets our definition of free. GMGtalk 14:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not going to fly, this is the wrong venue and building on one case rather than a case book is unwise.
However, there is an underlying issue with accountablity or good governance for OTRS and it may be worth observing here that:
  1. There is no published process for appeals.
  2. There is no governing body apart from OTRS administrators, and they are not subject to public accountability, nor as a body do OTRS administrators follow a published process for how they themselves should govern OTRS and volunteers given database access.
  3. "Natural justice" mentioned above requires there to be an appeals process and a "right" for those affected by decisions to examine evidence and have the opportunity to correct evidence or possible failures in the decision making process. This does not exist for OTRS.
Perhaps someone like Krd with their joint OTRS + Commons hats on, might consider and advise if there is a better public place to highlight governance and transparency improvements. Thanks
PS this is a tangent, but OTRS does not have agents. There are unpaid volunteers and there are WMF employees who have access. As both types of person have agreements or contracts in place that constrain their actions, it's a legally meaningful distinction. --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
OTRS volunteers use the terms "agent" and "customer" because those are the terms that the software uses. It's a lazy shorthand, but it's not going anywhere. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Except, you just correctly used "volunteers" rather than "agents". As for the software, the UI glossary ain't that hard to change. --Fæ (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, adding also that OTRS admins mostly just serve a clerking function, entirely or almost entirely confined to the processes of requesting and removing access. They only really serve an enforcement or oversight role in the rare case that an agent has their access removed for cause. But I think I've only seen that happen maybe twice? GMGtalk 15:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ, as you addressed me directly: I second your statement. For appeals in general, the story is short and easy. If it is a content dispute, i.e. if a permission ticket is valid or not, one can post here for additional opinions by other OTRS members. If there is any conduct or privacy issue, contact OTRS admins. --Krd 16:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think it is worth also discussing if OTRS is our most effective way of helping GLAMs to verify their 1000+ (or 2,8 million...) images. It is a big responsibility for "just a volunteer". Ciell (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Normally OTRS is working just fine. Just not in the rare cases that the GLAM contact is either not skilled enough and/or is rather abusive. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krd Dear Krd, please do not close this discussion, there is as yet no resolution at all! I have lost hundreds of hours of work due to... unnecessary deletions and hassle, caused by people who otherwise have been valuable for Wikimedia, just not at OTRS-nl. It can happen every day again, as there is no check to what i consider abuse - you agree? (For Dutch law etcetera, there is no difference between voluteers and paid people, OTRS simply represents WMF and the Wikimedia-movement and can be held responsible as they should.) I agree with Ciell, the task of managing GLAM contributions can be far too heavy lifting for OTRS volunteers. I want to thank all OTRS volunteers who support the mission and do a splendid job. And i want to apologize if my remarks on OTRS-members have been unjustified.

  • Please, what solution do you and others suggest? We just can't continue this way, it makes no sense. I would want say a three-person Appeals and mediation committee/board...

There should be a way to mediate and appeal OTRS-decisions (or lack of them, stonewalling/obstruction/refusal to give permission for legal donations), even if this solution is informal or temporary. In the Dutch situation appeal and mediation is standard and just common sense. Because there is no way to solve problems on Commons, i now have to sort it out with WMNL because an OTRS-member resents the mediation attempt... I just want "free access to free media", that is our mission, isn't it? Thank you. Hansmuller (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sender requesting a copy of OTRS ticket[edit]

We (Wikimedia Sverige) were at a meeting with the National Archives of Sweden discussing an image upload they did in 2014. They were having difficulties tracking the decision making process which lead to the selection of the specific Creative Commons license. Since the whole upload is connected to OTRS-ticket 2014040410008915 I was wondering if a copy of it could be supplied either to us (Wikimedia Sverige) or to the National Archives (I can provide the contact details over e-mail).

Since I drafted the letter I'm pretty sure I know what it says (and that I'm mentioned by name in it). But since I wasn't CC:ed I cannot guarantee that nothing was changed. Likewise I'm pretty sure I know who sent it and that that person no longer works at the National Archives (hence simply replying to the e-mail will likely not work).

Kind regards, André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm...this is a complex one. I will ask for more input. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This disclosure would fall outside of normal OTRS processes. Under the Access to nonpublic personal data policy, approval from the Wikimedia Foundation is required, and I have started that process. No OTRS agent should disclose the requested non-public information unless approval from the WMF has been granted. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@André Costa (WMSE): We cannot provide a public copy of the ticket, but I can say that the permission authorised you (and your bot) to upload under CC-BY-SA 4.0 the files from National Archives about Coat of Arms drawn by Vladimir Sagerlund and that were provided to Wikimedia Sverige for the occasion. This also means that the permission doesn't extend to any other upload from the National Archives.
If you need help to draft a (new) permission for Commons and OTRS, you can contact me or any other OTRS volunteer. We will be glad to help. --Ruthven (msg) 09:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User need help[edit]

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

Hi Bluyten,
If you fill in and print the template on Commons:OTRS#Email_message_template_for_release_of_rights_to_a_file and have the widow sign the release, the niece can scan and send the document to OTRS. Most of the time this is a perfect alternative. Ciell (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I think the meaning was to ping User:Bluyten and not me :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for uploading an image for last White Giraffe in Earth[edit]

Dear Admins , Reference to news . We have no images for this specie which slaughtered by poachers. Omda4wady

File says "Image: © Hirola Conservation Program". We need permission from them releasing the file in a free, compatible license. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard&oldid=404932504"