This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

OTRS, I helped "Dogs 2C" upload photos of his Honda Ridgeline—at File:2017 Honda Ridgeline RTL-E bed with full-size spare-2.jpg and File:2017 Honda Ridgeline RTL-E Bed-with full-size spare.jpg—using previously acceptable processes to OTRS. What has changed or is no longer acceptable that leads you to having problems with these photos he wants to make available on Wikipedia? Please let me know what's wrong so I can help "Dogs 2C" fix whatever the problem appears to be; Wikipedia's processes are quite confusing to many who do not regularly contribute. -- McChizzle ( talk) 14:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I am an OTRS agent, but not experienced enough to make a definitive call here. I see no reason these images could not be accepted under a self made/public domain license I looked at the tickets and was going to accept them under those tickets, problem is those tickets list specific filenames, because of that fact I'm unwilling to do so. Maybe an OTRS Admin or more experienced agent can comment here. Thanx, - FlightTime ( open channel) 15:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"...list specific filenames...?" That has been something that OTRS agents have requested be included for years now, in order to make it easier for OTRS agents to find the image(s) and tie them to the release email. This is very strange and confusing. What's the next step? We should not just leave these images hanging out there unresolved. -- McChizzle ( talk) 16:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

​The only issue that I see is that the permission statement specifies File:2017 Honda Ridgeline RTL-E bed with full-size spare-2.jpg✓ and File:2017 Honda Ridgeline RTL-E bed with full-size spare-1.jpg✗ instead of File:2017 Honda Ridgeline RTL-E Bed-with full-size spare.jpg. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. The filename has been changed by an admin to File:2017 Honda Ridgeline RTL-E Bed-with full-size spare-1.jpg. Will you accept that? -- McChizzle ( talk) 21:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime ( open channel) 21:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! -- McChizzle ( talk) 21:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I submitted permission of this photo over a year ago, it was approved by a James G. Howes on the Wikimedia team. I have submitted permission again today the 22nd April 2019, and I hope that this time (given that permission have been obtained all rough) this won't be removed. Please confirm, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerinthesmoke ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Sohel1997 recently uploaded File:Kidnap Poster File.jpg with a tag that OTRS permission was pending. This is a movie film poster, so I'm finding it quite unlikely that they would release it under a free license. Sohel also has had multiple uploads deleted for claiming copyrighted images as "own work", so I'm strongly suspicious that the OTRS tag is more deception on their part. Yup, I know this can be uploaded as fair-use. I've pointed that out to Sohel multiple times but they don't get it or just don't care to get it. I will probably find the image and get it uploaded as fair use, but I don't want to be a crutch for Sohel in the future. So, would someone check if anything has been received for this? Thanks. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Ravensfire: This file name does not appear in any ticket. GMG ^talk 20:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@ GreenMeansGo:Thank you, appreciate the check. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I was annoyed with the OTRS ticket template behaviour, so I made another one: {{ OTRS ticket 2}} which requires only the ticket number to function (you can also supply both). -- qedk ( t 桜 c) 17:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Inside Slide Technology Hub.jpg has had an outstanding ticket since January 2019 indicating insufficient permission. Has there been any followup? -- Whpq ( talk) 02:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

​No, there hasn't been any follow-up. Accordingly, I've tagged it for deletion. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

OTRS volunteers,

I was the Wikipedia user that helped Jennie Logan submit her great picture of her Honda Ridgeline for use by the Wikipedia and thus the public. It was recently tags as being insufficient in some way. I would like to help Jennie, who has no idea what your process or rules are--quite frankly I'm confused as well despite being a long-time user. Can you please provide details so I can help clear up whatever is missing. -- McChizzle ( talk) 09:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@ McChizzle: ​ We can't go into details. I can say that statement itself is good; however, there is an issue verifying the identity of the sender. The agent handling the ticket replied with a couple of options to resolve the issue. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 17:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for contacting her with options. -- McChizzle ( talk) 19:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@ McChizzle: DonePlease have a look at File:2019 Honda Ridgeline RTL-E Offroad.jpg. 廣九直通車 ( talk) 04:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, thank you 廣九直通車! -- McChizzle ( talk) 12:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a new report similar to one I made a few years ago ( Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive 3#Errors requiring attention).

{{ OTRS received}} was recently updated to report certain {{ error}}s.

I made this parameter fix on Talk:Dewar Trophy; feel free to check my work.

Also, these talk pages transclude {{ OTRS received}} Error: No valid ticket number provided errors and need to be fixed:

• Talk:Daivadnya Brahmin
• Talk:Colloidal crystal
• Talk:Labvantage
• Talk:Magrunner: Dark Pulse
• Talk:The High School Journal

Thanks, wbm1058 ( talk) 21:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

How long is the backlog? Back on 4 January 2019, it was 27 days, i.e. 8 December 2018. But today it's 320 days, i.e. 5 September 2018. Even if absolutely nobody touches the backlog, it should get worse by only 1 day daily, so unless there were an error on 4 January, the backlog shouldn't be worse than 226 days. Nyttend ( talk) 23:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend, I don't know exactly how krdbot measures the backlog; that's a question best answered by Krd. I can tell you that the oldest ticket in permissions-en (measured since the creation date) that is not currently locked (being worked on) is 461 days old, but it has slightly newer responses. The oldest ticket that has not been handled is 321 days old. It was moved into permissions-en from another queue a few months ago. The oldest ticket that has not been handled and was created in permissions-en is 210 days old. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 00:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I recently got my oversight permission restored after having voluntarily given it up. I can't seem to log into OTRS, I should be subscribed to the en.oversight queue. I tried resetting my password and did not get a confirmation email, so I'm thinking I'm ot in the system at all? Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You may want to reach out to one of the OTRS admins on meta: m:OTRS. GMG ^talk 19:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone who generally helping out here read Hebrew? This file is licensed as non-free, but such images are pretty much never accepted per WP:FREER for living persons. The file is, however, sourced to Hebrew Wikipedia where it appears to have been licensed as {{ Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and OTRS verified. If that's really the case, then there's absolutely no reason this to be kept as non-free, and the licensed should be converted and the image ideally should be upload to Commons instead of locally to English Wikipedia. It seems unlikely that the either the original source or the copyright holder would be Hebrew Wikipedia, but rather would be the person who emailed OTRS. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't read Hebrew, but I used a machine translation of the non-private portions of the permission statement. The statement was forwarded, which we don't accept nowadays. The statement is not from the photographer, and the ticket doesn't cover how copyright was transferred to person who provided the statement. I wouldn't have accepted the permission in that ticket, but standards were more lax back in 2012. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this. Is there sort of an internal review process for OTRS tickets? This kind of thing has come up before with respect to another file ( Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive 5#Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 April 10#Non-free road signs used in list article, c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2018#OTRS ticket:2011011410009399, c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2017#File:YellowheadShield.jpg) where there was an OTRS ticket received but whether it is still sufficient given current policy wasn't clear. I'm not sure how that one was eventually sorted out since it involved discussion among OTRS members and the file was uploaded to Commons. This file, however, can't really be kept as non-free per WP:FREER; so, if the OTRS ticket's not acceptable, then the file would need to be deleted per WP:F7. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

There isn't a review process that I am aware of. If a discussion needs to be private, it can happen on OTRS wiki or the OTRS permissions mailing list. (Neither one is high traffic though.) Otherwise, I'd say OTRSN (then FFD/DR) is a good venue for reviewing permissions. Regarding the road signs ticket, I consider the permission invalid. None of the OTRS agents that have commented on the case have established otherwise. If this image were here or Commons, I'd make a deletion request. Unfortunately, the agent that handled the ticket no longer has OTRS access (since 2013), so we cannot ask them about it. @ Matanya, Geagea, Ijon, or דוג'רית: Would you be willing to review the permission in ticket:2012110910011473? —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

In Israel the law says: C:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list I-L#Israel: Ownership of copyright: In a work made pursuant to a commission, the first owner of the copyright therein, wholly or partially, is the author, unless otherwise agreed as between the commissioning party and the author, expressly or impliedly. The ticket is from 2012. I moved it to Commons: File:Yonatan Uziel.jpg. -- geagea ^Talk 09:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I have answered few tickets and found this one about a deleted draft: ticket:2018041710007126. A helping hand would be highly appreciated. Bencemac ( talk) 17:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

​ I've restored Draft:Alfred Cohen and responded to the ticket. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! Bencemac ( talk) 16:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Could any OTRS member export this file to Wikimedia Commons? The license is compatible with Commons. But I can't use the file importer to export the file to Wikimedia Commons because of the abuse filter. So I was wondering if any of you can help me with this. Thanks in advance. Masum Reza ^📞 14:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 14:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. Masum Reza ^📞 15:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

In a deletion discussion, Pray4america has been unclear about whether or not they got permission from Ms. Zhou to use the image in the article, and has stopped replying to me after I asked if they emailed OTRS. I suspect that they have not and uploaded File:Ellen Lee Zhou New Profile Pic.png under the false pretense that they would follow it up with clear proof that Ms. Zhou agreed to have an image she owns the copyright to licensed under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0. I would like this to be investigated. Psiĥedelisto ( talk) 08:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've had a look in the OTRS queues under Pray4America, Ellen Lee Zhou or just Zhou, and I've gone back 3 months. Nothing there. They'll need to produce the ticket number. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Pray4america ( talk) 15:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Ellen Lee Zhou can email to OTRS with all the requirements. Would you please stop being so obsessive on a very bad image for her? If your answer is YES, then Ellen Lee will email to OTRS with any format you request. And please do provide all your requirements below clearly so we can settle this soon. GD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user

@ Pray4america: Please have the copyright holder for the image email permissions-enwikimedia.org with a statement releasing the file under a free license. A sample statement is available at WP:CONSENT. In most cases, the copyright holder of an image is the photographer unless the copyright of the image has been transfered by law or contract. Wikipedia editors take copyright issues very seriously in order to protect copyright holders and to ensure that Wikipedia content will remain freely-licensed and available to all. For more information on this process, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, /info/en/?search=File:Mona_Bijoor_new_picture.jpg

I have released the rights of the image I uploaded by adding a tag on the image page. Please see the link above.

Omer Canon ( talk) 07:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Omer Canon. An email has been recieved about File:Mona Bijoor new picture.jpg, but it has not yet been processed by an OTRS agent. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 13:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Omer Canon. I have replied to the email via OTRS. The verification states that the subject is the creator of the work; however, this does not appear to be a selfie, and therefore created by someone else. In order to release the content under a free license then, we would need to verify that the intellectual property rights for the photo were transferred contractually to the subject. GMG ^talk 13:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

We've received ticket:2019111310001231 regarding File:Sharlene_San_Pedro_on_iWant_ASAP.jpeg and File:Sharlene_San_Pedro_on_iWant_ASAP_2.jpg. The photographer add a GDFL license, but refuse to remove the watermark and don't give permission to do modifications to the files. I'm not sure if something like this is valid. A little help or advice will be appreciated. -- Ganímedes ( talk) 10:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

GDFL still does allow to modify the file and remove the watermark, doesn't it? -- Krd 18:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's why my question. It seems not possible what she pretends... -- Ganímedes ( talk) 10:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Either the images are released under a truly free license without any restrictions or it's not a free license in the first place. Personally I go with the latter because the restrictions negates the GDFL license and makes it invalid. ww2censor ( talk) 14:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeating Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive_5#File:Richard_Ellis.jpg from 2017. Uploader claims OTRS permission, but cites ticket:2016112510013602 which seemingly only covers File:Richard Ellis-49 copy.jpg. Wikiacc ( ¶) 20:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, File:Richard Ellis.jpg should be tagged as no proof of permissions. The photographer might be different from the other file and no way to tell from here if copyright was given to the image subject (IMO). - FlightTime ( open channel) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Tag added. Thanks User:FlightTime. Wikiacc ( ¶) 21:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I have just emailed permissions-en@wikipedia.org a permission statement from George Rae for use of his photo (George Rae and Harry Blumenau.jpg) on the Wikipedia page George Rae (actor).

Permissions not sufficient. Reference VRTS ticket #  2019112510003162 - FlightTime ( open channel) 02:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering when this file will be restored? The copyright owner sent permission to the Wikipedia e-mail listed at the notice on 21.11.2019, the image was deleted from the website on 23.11.2019 and has yet to be restored. Thanks in advance. -- Samotny Wędrowiec ( talk) 22:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

An agent sent a reply to ticket:2019112110004623 at 09:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC). —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I can't add example of usage template OTRS talk because Abusefilter. The example is

{{<template name>|issue=Verifying the authority of User:Example|otrs=154872587}}

Can someone with rights add it there? Thanks, -- janbery ( talk) 09:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Janbery: I am confused. You have added it to the /doc subpage? -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@ TheSandDoctor: Abuse filter was chaged per IRC, thanks for help. -- janbery ( talk) 18:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Janbery: You're welcome! -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Would an OTRS volunteer mind taking a look at this file? There's an {{ OTRS received}} template added to it with a ticket number that says the file's license has been verified, but the file is licensed as non-free content which doesn't require OTRS verification. Maybe the file's licensing was verified, but was never converted to a free license. The template seems to have been added here back in 2009 by Panyd; so, perhaps it hasn't needed to be non-free ever since then. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

See this discussion. This user keeps blundering aroud trying to "help" a user I blocked, who is now unblocked not because of his help but in spite of it. He seems to think he has some higher authority because of his status as an OTRS agent, despite the obvious fact that he has extremely poor knowledge of policy, in particular policies unique to this project. Hoping cooler heads can talk some sense into him. Beeblebrox ( talk)

I never told that I have some higher authority here. If the user is verifying her identity by an OTRS ticket, so it should be stated on her user page to prevent trouble by conflicts of interest to users, who do know nothing about an identity verification. Doc Taxon ( talk) 20:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

So, perfect example, right there, of exactly what I'm talking about. Identity verification was not, at any point in this matter, even remotely relevant. What the actual issue was was clearly explained, twice, before Doc Taxon arrived and "helped" and at least two more times since then, and he still doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what any of this was about, but insists that he does and his actions are correct. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

relevance of user account identity verification is not the point here at all but my statement above. Doc Taxon ( talk) 21:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Doc Taxon: The problem here is that the OTRS ticket should never have been mentioned. It was completely irrelevant to the discussion. No one was questioning the identity of the editor, so whether they had identified themselves via OTRS or not was completely irrelevant. Rather, they were indicating the username selected by the user violated WP:U on the English Wikipedia.

Your comment that "This case can be closed." was incorrect and highlighted your lack of understanding of username policy here on enwiki as well as your lack of understanding of how articles are created on enwiki (especially the part about moving a German-language article over). Your claim that "relevance of user account identity verification is not the point here" is contradictory to your post where you posted a template that (in part) states that "The verification of the identity of this user account has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system."

Based on your comments here and elsewhere, it seems that your primary language is not English because you seem to be misunderstanding some very basic concepts mentioned by other editors, and you seem to be doing so repeatedly. I recommend simply admitting that you overstepped in waving the OTRS flag and leaving it at that. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There are several problems here, and I don't believe that lack of understanding of English is one of them, or if is then to a trivial extent compared to other problems.

• The editor clearly has a lack of knowledge of English Wikipedia's policies and practices, but that would not be a significant problem if they would listen when people with more experience explain those policies; instead the editor arrogantly waves aside other editors' attempts to help, with a patronising "you can all stand aside, because I am here, and I know better than you" attitude. I have seen him lecture more than one very longstanding administrator about what Wikipedia policies are, and assure them that he knows better than them. This means that mistakes which on their own would be minor, and easily corrected, instead take up other editors' time, as he persists in his mistaken beliefs, and doesn't learn.
• He has an astonishing inability to understand what is said. What I am referring to is absolutely not a matter of difficulty because English is a foreign language to him. To give just one example, he copied and pasted a page from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia without attribution. I pointed his mistake out, confidently expecting an answer to the effect of "oh, yes, thanks for pointing out my mistake, I've put it right now". Instead I got a message quoting at length policy saying that attribution is not necessary if the copying is done by the person who had written the content. The problem is that he did not write the content: it was written by another editor. I drew his attention to that, and again got an answer that indicated that he could not or would not see that the policy extract that he himself had quoted to show that he was right in fact indicated that he was wrong. This is nothing to do with difficulty with English: his English is clearly at a level way beyond that needed to know that "the same person" does not apply when two different people are involved. There are other examples of the same kind of inability to understand.
• In summary, this editor (a) has a lack of knowledge, and misunderstanding, of English Wikipedia policies; (b) will not or cannot (it matters not which) accept that he has such a lack of knowledge; (c) arrogantly dismisses the idea that anyone else might have more experience and therefore more knowledge of policy, and so can't learn from them; (d) shows an astonishing degree of WP:IDHT, making it impossible to communicate to him about his mistakes; (e) is unable to understand the most basic ideas. A summary of that summary is, in Beeblebrox's words, "clueless but imperious".
• This is not the kind of person who should be working at OTRS, where there is a major risk of seriously misleading and hindering people seeking help, instead of helping them, as Beeblebrox has rightly indicated. JBW ( talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 23:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

These are all excellent points. As someone who is a OTRS agent themselves (albeit in a very different area) my inclination is to trust fellow agents. And if you look at the conversation at User talk:Anna (Bay Staatsoper)#name you can see that when they first arrived on the scene, I pretty much assumed I was the one who was confused, and had made a mistake in thinking their (now changed) username represented a group. And you can also see that when I tried to clarify the situation, Doc Taxon's reply was basically "it totally is a group name, I have verified it so you can unblock it now" which shows, as James points out above, they didn't even try to understand what the real problem was, and it isn't because they don't speak English well enough. He finally conceded the point after I, for the third time explained what the issue was saying "I checked the policies and you're right". Well no shit, I've only done a couple thousand ORGNAME blocks over the decade I've been and admin here, I'm pretty sure I know how it works and I expect OTRS agents to be helping not getting in the way and confusing everyone with their cluelessness.

At this point, also taking aboard their continued intransigence in this very thread, I have to agree that I do not believe Doc Taxon should retain OTRS permissions given that they are apparently either unwilling or unable to to use their position in a helpful way that complies with even the most basic policies. Barring that, (since I don't think we can just do that right here) I'd suggest a topic ban from taking OTRS-related actions on EN.WP, pending a broader discussion at whatever forum it is that these things are decided. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• @ Krd and Ruthven: informing OTRS admins of this thread. -- qedk ( t 桜 c) 05:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I have been trusted OTRS support and administrator (dewiki) for a very long time now but I have done only little here in enwiki. I took many hours now to read and understand your project policies and guidelines and apologize that I haven't done it before any misleadings or mis-help of the user, but I learned from my mistakes. I also didn't want to discredit the work and knowledge of all the administrators who are involved here and sorry again for my intermediate level of English. I will explain the user what has been wrong with my support. To prevent such mistakes once more, I will discuss support processes with other supporters or administrators. Sorry for the trouble so close to the holidays, especially to Beeblebrox and JBW. Doc Taxon ( talk) 06:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you should've taken the time to read the block notice and establish some kind of understanding of the situation before you did anything at all. And it's already been explained to the user that your help was completely wrongheaded, so it is not necessary for you to explain it again, they seem to understand the situation far better than you did. It's all well and good to say you have learned from this now, but it shouldn't have taken this amount of time and pressure to get you to consider the possibility that you were wrong and the several highly experienced users who were trying to tell you that had a point. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Has there been any followup with the permission for File:Rex Jan2019 headshot OriginalFile StopDeletingThis iOwnIt.png, ticket:2019031310001666? That was back in June 2019. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Whpq: An OTRS agent reviewed the ticket on 07/28/2019 and could not confirm permission because they could not verify that the statement of permission came from the copyright holder or their authorized representative. No response has been recieved to the request for clarification and I could not find any other ticket relating to this file. The file should be deleted as permission has been unconfirmed for more than 30 days. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 21:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@ AntiCompositeNumber: Thanks, I'l tag as it no permission. -- Whpq ( talk) 22:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Has there been any followup on File:Ranita Das.jpeg, ticket:2019062710007094 which has been outstanding since July 2019? -- Whpq ( talk) 14:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Whpq: There has been no response to the request for further information sent in July last year. Nthep ( talk) 14:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you. I will tag it no permission. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There was some discussion with the user Kent tate on their talk page asking them to verify their identity as the subject of the article Kent Tate. They indicated they submitted proof of identity via OTRS, but I still don't see a {{ Verified account}} template on their userpage. Has this individual's identity been confirmed? -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Drm310, The original email wasn't clear about what they were asking for, so nobody placed the template. There is sufficient information in the ticket to confirm the identity of User:Kent tate, so I have placed the template on their user page. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 17:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have formally sent an email stating I give permission for the photo.

John Whiteside United Church of Bacon founder and CEO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:3100:3D9D:3405:64F0:7CB5:8C3A ( talk) 07:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice. Sdkb ( talk) 23:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: As of February 11, 2020, permission has been given to make use of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) image in the Wikipedia article Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll. Could someone here please arrange for the OTRS permission ticket # 2020013010006326, given by Wikimedia Commons contributor Nathaniel Tang, to be added to the article's Talk-Page? Thanks. Davidbena ( talk) 17:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The permission is already added to the image file c:File:1039-1 for screen.jpg, it doesn't need adding to any article talk pages. Nthep ( talk) 22:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

An OTRS ticket is often seen next to a cc license of some kind. In File:Juventus mascot kids J.png however, it is used next to {{ Non-free promotional}}. What is it that Juventus has okay'ed in the OTRS exactly? It can't be that they agreed to publish it under a cc license, because there isn't one. Jonteemil ( talk) 14:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. That file is not covered by the permissions statement in that ticket. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Jonteemil ( talk) 03:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have emailed permissions for a file I uploaded File:Buddy 2017.jpg, could someone please action the ticket VRTS ticket #  2020021910000191. Thank you, - FlightTime ( open channel) 02:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@ JJMC89: Thank you - FlightTime ( open channel) 06:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

An OTRS check is needed here, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I commented there. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

the authorized representative for the File:Maurie McInnis, 2019.jpg has informed me that they have submitted the Declaration of consent for image on wikipedia. Please let me know if further information is required.‬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ht777 ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Ht777: it's al been dealt with. Nthep ( talk) 21:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I have noticed a few files ( File:Planar3 from above.jpg and File:Belt driven Rega.jpg) where a permission is mentioned but there is no OTRS template. I asked the user here: User_talk:Ohconfucius#Do_you_still_have_the_permission? and I was told a permission was sent long ago. Can you check if you have something in the system? If you dont have it perhaps @ Ohconfucius: can send it again? -- MGA73 ( talk) 21:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@ MGA73 and Ohconfucius: I was not able to find an OTRS ticket relating to those files or the claimed author. -- AntiComposite ( talk) 21:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just sent the email again. --  Ohc  ^¡digame! 22:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, A new reply to ticket:2014111410004897 has been received, but it does not clearly identify the relevant files, their author, or the license. Please follow the instructions at WP:DCM. -- AntiComposite ( talk) 22:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@ AntiCompositeNumber: Can you check these files and once it is all checked and found ok copy the files to Commons? -- MGA73 ( talk) 13:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the ticket is adequate for those. c:File:Nait3 4550.jpg, c:File:0081 motor and spindle.jpg (already copied), c:File:Nait3 4573.jpg, c:File:Nait 3.jpg. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 15:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to OTRS. I'm not sure if I joined the right channel. I find that most of the tickets are spam. How can I filter tickets to see ones that are not spam? Interstellarity ( talk) 13:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Interstellarity. Try clicking in "queue view" and select info.en. It sounds like you're just looking at the generic home screen. GMG ^talk 13:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ GreenMeansGo: Thank you. That helps. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries @ Interstellarity:. The OTRS software is notoriously user-unfriendly and difficult to get the hang of at first. If you have any more questions feel free to ask here or stop by my talk page. GMG ^talk 14:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ GreenMeansGo: Are you an OTRS volunteer as well? Interstellarity ( talk) 14:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Interstellarity: I am. I suppose I don't have the flair here on my user page, probably because I've always used it more for Commons than for the English Wikipedia. GMG ^talk 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I did in the fairly recent past provide a statement of permission for the use of the unique portrait of J.H.Scheltema. I now know it's is not entirely unique as I have located other portraits of him. Regards Peter Reynders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Reynders ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

How do I opt out of email notifications for OTRS? Interstellarity ( talk) 11:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Mailing list or from OTRS? You can contact the mailing list admins (OTRS admins I believe) for the former and see your OTRS settings for the latter. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 11:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@ QEDK: I would like to do both. Can you show me how to contact them? Interstellarity ( talk) 12:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

See https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/otrs-en-l and go to the Unsubscribe section. On OTRS, you can find "Notification Settings" after you click on the cog on the dashboard and then deselect notifications as you want. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 13:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@ QEDK: It says "Your unsubscription request has been forwarded to the list administrator for approval.". Did I do it correctly? Interstellarity ( talk) 13:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS admins. -- Krd 15:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Krd: I sent an email to otrs-en-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org. Is this the right email address to send it to? Interstellarity ( talk) 16:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that will work in this case. -- Krd 16:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

What exactly does the ticket mentioned at User:Cabbie333 cover? User Cabbie333 is claiming that his legal name is Lee Siegried, and that he is the subject of Lee Mroszak (i.e., that he is the DJ known as Crazy Cabbie and that he went by the name Lee Mroszhak). The ticket display simply says that his identity has been verified. Not very useful for a user named Cabbie333. By editing the page I can see that the non-displaying information "realname=Lee Siegfried", but what about the rest of it? Is the claim that this user is Lee Mroszak, the DJ Cabbie from the article verified? Meters ( talk) 00:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Meters: Yes, it has been verified that he is the subject of the Lee Mroszak article. MrClog ( talk) 01:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Meters ( talk) 01:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello,
I am not quite sure to understand the header left in the talk page of this article.
I am also unable to read the ticket mentioned on this header, ticket:2020042110009381, as I have no account/access for that.
I have contacted Nat here, but he declined to answer.
I have done everything on my side so that Wikipedia is granted the license, forwarded the original email from the copyright holder sent to wikifoundation (where you can/will find it if needed; e.g. here ) for that, added 3 paragraphs to the talk page of the article Pieter Pourbus to inform widely on all (including my) actions in that regard.
What is still wrong and/or missing?
Thank you in advance for your help,
Best regards,
-- Emigré55 ( talk) 09:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia,

Hereby I would like to inform you that I have sent an email to you regarding Raúl Marroquíns photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittvansloun ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Brittvansloun: Thank you for sending the email. However, you do not need to inform us about sending the email. -- MrClog ( talk) 21:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Most members of c:Category:David Fried have tags saying they are covered under otrs:2013081710001795. Are any English Wikipedia files also covered under that ticket? If any would be covered, it would probably be one of these: ( Related Commons request)

• File:Rainscape-no.4-2003.jpg
• File:Rainscape-no.50-2005.jpg
• File:Rainscape-no.49-2005.jpg
• File:In bed with Lucy and Dolly - no.40 - photogram.jpg
• File:In bed with Lucy and Dolly - no.32 - photogram.jpg
• File:Self Organizing Still-life - museum kunstpalast.jpg

Thanks. Wikiacc ( ¶) 21:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Wikiacc: otrs:2013081710001795 covers the following files only (external links because I copy-pasted them, sorry): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David-fried_portrait2.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stemmers,_sculptures,_view-1.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Way_of_words_-_david_fried.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Self_Organizing_Still-Life_-_Brussels.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David-Fried_globalexandria_sculpture.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Globalexandria_-_sculpture_W-1-13.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stemmer_-_SS3_-_view.jpg, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stemmers,_sculpture_view-1,_david_fried.jpg. No other files are mentioned in that ticket. I do not have access to see if the same sender sent other tickets, someone with permissions-en access may be able to check. -- Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 23:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Was a permission email ever sent for File:AlanRogerCurrie 2017.jpg? Wikiacc ( ¶) 15:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's VRTS ticket #  2018100910007773 but it was never resolved fully as we have never received permission from the copyright holder - who is not the person stated on the uploaded image. Nthep ( talk) 19:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is tagged as {{ OTRS pending}} and there's a ticket number listed on the file information page, but there are no edits by OTRS members. The file has also been uploaded as c:File:Dr ADP Baddevithana 2020 - Wikipedia - Licenced.jpg, again without any edits by OTRS members and this time without an OTRS pending tag, but the Commons file nevertheless mentions the ticket number. Can you take a look at the file? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged both as received but not sufficient. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 16:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This file has both {{ OTRS pending}} and {{ PermissionOTRS}}, which looks wrong. Additionally, there are two different photos in the history. Does the permission apply to both of them? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Krd removed a tag. The permission only applies to the version uploaded 21:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC). —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 16:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I listed the file at WP:FFD, asking to have the old revision deleted. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A mail from Rikke Jerrik containing permission to utilize her photo that has been uploaded as /info/en/?search=File:Blouse_of_René_Lacroix.jpg has been sent to < permissions-en @ wikimedia . org > ... please ensure that the photo is left in place.

Best Regards NilsHalina — Preceding unsigned comment added by NilsHalina ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

At the request of User:B-bot the photographer has resent the permission for File:Marieme 2020.jpg to permissions-en@wikipedia.org. The Ticket#: 2020062010004811 has been received.Thank you. EllenZoe ( talk) 15:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Changed photo to link for readability. Sam-2727 ( talk) 21:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

E-mail re-sent this date to permissions-en@wikimedia.org including confirmation from rights holder (IngeniumCanada)that permission for use of this image is granted.

Ns kid Roy Jamieson roy.jamieson@msvu.ca

@ Ns kid: The licence statement from IngeniumCanada isn't sufficient enough to satisfy the re-use condition required by Wikipedia. Please ask IngeniumCanada to email permissions-enwikimedia.org directly with one of the suggested licences. There's no urgency, if the image is deleted in the meantime it can be reinstated when permission is sorted out. Nthep ( talk) 15:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, The copyright holder (Steve Gottlieb) of this photo has just submitted a statement of permission. /info/en/?search=Steve_Gottlieb_(amateur_astronomer)#/media/File:Steve_Gottlieb,_amateur_astronomer.jpg

Please remove the file from Deletion Pending status. Thanks! Assambrew ( talk) 19:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Assambrew: I'm not in the correct user-group, so I can't update the file myself, but the processing OTRS member could not verify that the permission was from the owner of the copyright of the file. A reply was sent outlining the next required steps. (For someone in the global otrs-member group: please replace the current contents of the "permission" field with {{ OTRS received|id=2020070810008614|year=2020|month=07|day=9|reason=3}}) Best, -- Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Yes we got the reply, are trying to resolve. Assambrew ( talk) 18:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Meungvax is pursuing an issue involving WP:BLP claims about Pamela Anderson based on original research involving purported primary documents that are at odds with reliable journalistic sources. I suggested he try this noticeboard, and he says Anderson's publicist has contacted oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org.

I understand there's a current backlog of 27 days, and informed him of this at User talk:Tenebrae#Meungvax. (Previous discussion took place at Talk:Pamela Anderson, but Meungvax brought it to my talk page for some reason.)

I'm not actually sure what happens now. Does Wikimedia post a ticket with its findings / decision? Thank you for any information. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

​ ​The WP:Oversight team handles emails sent to that address. Thier backlog should definately not be 27 days. If anything is suppressable, I would not expect any commentary from the team. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. So if anything comes of this, someone from Oversight will take of it in the article? Is there anything more Meungvax need do? That editor has been a bit contentious, and I'm just trying to head off any difficulty. Thank you again.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 13:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

If anything is suppressable, then it will be removed (if not already removed) and hidden in the page history. The requestor should receive an email response indicating whether any action has been taken. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This file was uploaded back in February and the uploader asserts permission under OTRS:2020020510008825 in the description. Is this valid? If so, can an OTRS agent move it to Commons and put a reviewed tag on it?

Also: if I find other cases like this, should I convert them into {{ OTRS pending}} templates, mention them here, or just leave them be?

Thanks, Vahurzpu ( talk) 23:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Vahurzpu, That ticket did not resolve with a confirmation of permission. It should have been tagged with {{ OTRS received}} by the agent handling it, but that wasn't done. If a ticket contains a valid release, an OTRS agent will place {{ OTRS permission}} on the file description page. If you find any other files with just a ticket number, feel free to throw {{ OTRS pending}} on it. That will at least make it easier to find. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 03:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks! Vahurzpu ( talk) 03:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I recently re-read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_65#Censorship_at_David_Rohde, and was reminded that I was referred there to ticket:2008111310026387 - which, of course, I did not have authorization to read. I requested passages from it be made public, back then.

Yes, I understand that OTRS tickets protect information that, generally, should be protected forever. But, in this particular case, if David S. Rodhe needed protection, wasn't it only for the duration of his kidnapping?

Since Rodhe escaped, in 2009, are there reasons why the text of the original request couldn't be made public?

I am going to {{ ping}} people whose comments in the Village Pump discussion seemed related to OTRS: @ Rjd0060, Dfonseca, Uncle G, Hipocrite, MBisanz, Jimbo Wales, CBM, Mcools, Apoc2400, and Pnd: Geo Swan ( talk) 18:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"if David S. Rodhe needed protection, wasn't it only for the duration of his kidnapping?" - Yes, and if you check the page's protection log you'll see it was only protected for the duration of his kidnapping.

There's nothing in the OTRS ticket that would cause the alteration of even one word in the article. You can volunteer to help out at m:OTRS/Volunteering, sign up to the confidentiality requirements and see for yourself if you wish. Cabayi ( talk) 19:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

OTRS tickets can not be made public except in accordance with meta:ANPDP and meta:CAFNI. Under those policies and current OTRS procedure, I can confirm that it relates to the article about David S. Rohde. I will also mention that the volunteer who handled the ticket no longer has access to it. The ticket number indicates that the initial message was sent on 2008-11-13. Disclosure of further information from the ticket would not be permitted without approval from the Wikimedia Foundation and/or all parties to the ticket. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 20:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Well, if all the parties have to give their permission, then no-one who doesn't already have access to read the ticket can request access to the ticket, because the identity of the requestor is supposed to be kept confidential, correct? Geo Swan ( talk) 05:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Not correct. As I said above, you could volunteer for OTRS and read the ticket, though I suspect your current flurry of challenges to "censorship" would leave you uncomfortable with the confidentiality requirements. Cabayi ( talk) 11:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I'd also note that the OTRS admins will probably be a little concerned if someone's primary reason for applying to join OTRS was to get access to confidential information Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Cabayi, I would have no problem agreeing to another confidentiality agreement. I sit on a committee that has access to confidential information about my 300 neighbours. That required me to sign a confidentiality agreement, 25 years ago.
• I think my record here shows I am patient and helpful, yet firm, and that I do not respond in kind to angry respondents. Please don't judge me based on a surface look at that retioncent challenge. About half the individuals there have practiced AGF, and took my defence at face value. I am afraid other respondents there are repeating the original challenge, and dire warnings based on taking that challenge at face value, because they either didn't read my defence, or are unwilling or unable to practice AGF.
• About a decade ago an individual who had recently joined the OTRS committee posted his or her alarm when they found other members of the committee were not well informed about security issues. In particular he or she found other members of the committee were accepting third party correspondents' claims they were the real-life John Doe solely because they posted from john.doe@hotmail.com or john.doe@yahoo.com - third party email services that provide zero meaningful proof anyone is who they claim to be.
• So, for the last decade, my primary concern with OTRS has been whether the committee member who raised the concern had succeeded in getting other members to be more effective in the identity confirmation part of their duties.
• FWIW, in 2011 I challenged OTRS ticket 2009011410017732, which resulted in article restoration, as per this DRV and administrative AFD. Geo Swan ( talk) 15:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  Geo Swan, if there is a legitimate need to confirm someone's identity, that is carried out in OTRS. If the person is using their real name as their username, they would need to confirm their identity. The only other situation I can think of where identity should be confirmed (at least in info-en) is for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, where some special consideration is given to requests from the subject of articles. In other situations, it isn't necessary to confirm the identity of the correspondent, because they are given no special consideration regardless of their identity. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Okay...

    And when there is a need to confirm someone's identity I'd prefer the confirmation did not rely on an email address that could be trivially spoofed. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

    • Geo Swan, this is avoided by responding to the "official" email address, right? For instance, if someone spoofs example@government.gov, you would reply to the email address example@government.gov and discover that it is either fake or being spoofed, based off of the reply from that email address. Also, essentially no method of verification on the internet is 100% perfect. Even if OTRS allowed people to send in official IDs (although we don't), those could be faked. Sam-2727 ( talk) 17:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Er that's a blast from the past. I'd like to comment that my 11 year ago self spoke with far too much anger about a topic that only should have caused a minor bit of agita, far outweighed by the possibility (however slight) that we might save a life by withholding true information. That said, we do still kill people through poor article content polices that permit false/misleading information to stand. To the topic of this request - I suggest you ask the NYT for a copy of the request and subsequent comments? Hipocrite ( talk) 08:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

We contacted Wikipedia and my client, Frudakis, sent an email giving permission. The reply said we were OK.

I previously filled out the Wikipedia photo form with all of the information. The photo was taken by Frudakis and they sent an email to Wikipedia. The reply said we were OK. What else is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cher Skoubo ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Would someone be able to review the situation here? This user was blocked for editing under his real name (which is well-known), was told by OTRS that he was free to edit under a pseudonym, did so, and was then blocked for "abusing multiple accounts". His unblock request was declined by an involved administrator. Tim Smith ( talk) 03:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2020071810000184 was handled in accordance with OTRS policies and the current best practices regarding WP:REALNAME blocks. No comment regarding the abuse of multiple accounts block. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 04:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Where are these policies and best practices documented? Tim Smith ( talk) 18:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know? Tim Smith ( talk) 00:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Tim Smith, Besides all of the English policies and guidelines, which OTRS agents must follow, there are some at meta:OTRS (see "activity policy" and "access policy"). On otrswiki: (not publicly accessible), there are some common sense guidelines and help pages. I don't think anything on otrswiki is a strict "policy" per-se that isn't published on meta as well. As for this particular instance, it's wise for people to edit under pseudonyms instead of their real name because they can be subject to harassment if their real name is associated with their Wikipedia account. This is documented on Wikipedia at WP:REALNAME. The block, etc. isn't under OTRS's purview. Sam-2727 ( talk) 00:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. I don't see anything at meta:OTRS about WP:REALNAME, and I don't have access to otrswiki. My concern is that OTRS is telling recipients of WP:REALNAME blocks that they are free to edit under a pseudonym, without cautioning them that if they do so, they risk being blocked again for "abusing multiple accounts", even if they do not make any further edits with their original account, and especially if they contribute to any page or discussion they had previously edited. This is in fact what happened in the case I mentioned. Was it an oversight that this user did not receive such a cautionary notice? Would it be a best practice for OTRS to include one? Tim Smith ( talk) 04:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Tim Smith, yeah WP:REALNAME isn't at meta:OTRS, that was just me pointing out an example of an English language policy that guides how OTRS tickets are responded to. Generally, the pseudonym would not be a problem (although the typical route would be to formally request a rename). As has been pointed out at User_talk:Chris_Langan#Irregularities, this situation isn't really about the WP:REALNAME misunderstanding: there's more to it (specifically, other accounts besides the one pseudonym one). As TB says on the talk page, "For the record, SOCKLEGIT was not ignored. I just at the time (and now) believe that the use of at least three other accounts in the way that was used is not legitimate." Thus, the "abusing multiple accounts" block was not because of the OTRS issue (although it stememed from a slight misunderstanding of it).

That being said, when answering these types of tickets in the future, I personally will try to make clearer the renaming process. This is a personal thing though, and other volunteers are not obliged to do the same. Sam-2727 ( talk) 05:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, I'm glad that you at least will try to make the process clearer. Regarding the "abusing multiple accounts" block, I see things differently. One of the other accounts was his wife's, and had already been declared as such. Two had not been used in over a month, he disclaimed any knowledge of them, and they had no problematic edits in any case. Thus, the only account that could have been "abused" was the pseudonym "Ctmu" which he created after being told by OTRS that "[i]f you want to edit under a pseudonym", "you are free to do so". It was his single edit with this pseudonym that triggered the SPI. That's why I was hoping that OTRS might be able to step in and clear things up, at least with regard to this account and the propriety of creating a pseudonym following a WP:REALNAME block, per the advice he was given. Tim Smith ( talk) 02:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by the sequence of events leading to the block, so I'd rather not comment on it specifically without taking an in-depth look, which I currently don't have the time to do. That said, I am still fairly sure OTRS did the right thing here. Sam-2727 ( talk) 23:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

My recent upload of an file File:Hafizuddin Ahmed - Bir Bikrom.jpg have been nominated for deletion as because the person is alive and the license is provided is copyrighted. I need an ORTS agent to look out in this ticket 2018101610008188 and let me know that if it include a free license for those images too. If so I will change the image license and request you to verify that. If not, please let me know. Thanks. ~ A. Shohag ( ping_me|| Talk) 03:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Team, please help to have a look at the emails sent with the above ticket number related to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K._A._Subramaniam and kindly assist to restore the article when you get a chance. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan Sylu ( talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I sent the following mail to the permissions-en@wikimedia.org, regarding Deletion pending for File:Wilfrid Israel, London, 1942.jpg: "Hello, The issue of this file is coming and going for over a year now. I already corresponded with the permissions committee in the past, and explained the matter at length. I added all the known details, which are not a lot, I was directed to add them. I very much hope these should suffice, since there are simply no additional details known or available. By the way, this picture is also the base for Naomi Shepherd's book cover (in addition to the original picture that appears within the book), and also appears in the Wilfrid Israel Museum in Kibbutz Hazorea, Israel. This is the same picture that I've known from the day I was born, which my father kept as a memory from his friend Wilfrid Israel. The same picture has been used since 1943 (Wilfrid Israel’s death) countless times, in books, newspaper articles and magazines all over the world. It has also been used in the two films of award winning film maker Yonatan Nir, and in the posters that describe those films. I hereby request again, to get the permissions committee once and for all to show this picture of Wilfrid Israel on his Wikipedia entry. Obviously, since the picture has been used so many times before and has been legally approved by at least 4 different book publishers, it doesn’t make any sense to prevent it from being displayed in the Wikipedia, just because it falls within a narrow gap, in which we cannot prove when the photographer has passed out. Appreciate your understanding and prompt approval. " Not sure whether this makes any difference but an example of this picture being published long before is in the October edition of the AJR magazine: https://ajr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2010_october.pdf. -- Ophirbaer ( talk) 14:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I hereby affirm that I, Kekkofranco, am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of /info/en/?search=File:Alessandro_Del_Vecchio.jpg as used here: /info/en/?search=Alessandro_Del_Vecchio, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Kekkofranco October 13rd, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kekkofranco ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Kekkofranco, this noticeboard is not the place to put such notices. Please email permissions-en@wikimedia.org instead. Sam-2727 ( talk) 12:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This ticket is in processing but has not been verified yet. ww2censor ( talk) 12:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I sent the email to the reference address. I am waiting for the answer... Kekkofranco ( talk) 10:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Team, please help to have a look at the emails sent with the above ticket number related to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K._A._Subramaniam and kindly assist to restore the article when your team get a chance as soon as possible. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan Sylu ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Anna shcherbakova, skate america 2019.jpeg, File:Anna Shcherbakova, 2018-2019 season.jpeg, and File:Anna Shcherbakova, skate america 2019 sp.jpeg have been uploaded stating these images are freely licensed and covered by OTRS Ticket 2008012510003504. Can somebody verify this is the case? Thanks. -- Whpq ( talk) 13:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Whpq, the ticket's a bit of a mess, but it releases all images from http://davecskatingphoto.com/ under CC BY-SA. ~~ Alex Noble/ 1-2/ TRB 14:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody from OTRS add the proper permission template? Thanks. -- Whpq ( talk) 10:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. The subject of the article Bruce Lerman has requested deletion. As the author of the only substantial content of this article, I request deletion of that page in good faith.

I sought to make this request by the template created for this purpose, here, in accordance with the terms of the template, as the author of the only substantial content in the article. And left talk page comment to that effect as well, here. But the template was removed here, and I was directed to post the request on this page. -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:4992:A0ED:F7D3:7658 ( talk) 20:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Liz:, not sure why they have been pointed here - this looks like a relatively straight forward WP:G7 to me, rather than a WP:BLPSELF? Article has a bit of history, but if you strip out the AfC accept and the ping-pong over blanking, this is the only substantial editor. What am I missing? Best, Darren-M talk 21:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Any thoughts? Thanks. (above IP) 2604:2000:E010:1100:215F:6154:C4FE:D79 ( talk) 22:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Darren-M - There's been no response. Nor further comments. May it perhaps be possible to proceed? 2604:2000:E010:1100:6D33:D64C:D645:5E79 ( talk) 07:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

File:JitendraSinghTomar Photo.jpg tagged with ticket 2020060110006069 is from June 2020. Has there been any confirmation of permission? - Whpq ( talk) 13:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Whpq: No, it's not confirmed. Actually, the customer has not followed up the case and I think the file can be considered for deletion. -- Mhhossein ^talk 08:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have nominated this for deletion. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"Deletion pending for File:Sokolina 2005 MetMus AerialView M.jpg" and "Deletion pending for File:Sokolina 2007 MetMus AerialView NYC.jpg"

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International {{ CC BY-NC-SA 4.0}} I have already sent the copyright message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. I have re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, confirmation Ticket#: 2020120410011652. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125aps ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Handled —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A statement of permission for use of these two photographs has been sent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macleansimon ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Handled —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear,

I verify that I send today by email the statement of permission (send to me by Prof. Dmitri Alekseevsky), to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I used my work-email to do so.

We now hope that the picture will not be deleted and the page of Prof. Dmitri Alekseevsky will be published soon. Thank you.

Sincerely, user: Yiannis314159 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiannis314159 ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2020120810007874 does not have a sufficient permission statement. The email response details how to address the issues. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Permission for the file File:Lotti_Golden_and_Ahmet_Ertegun_1968.jpg was granted. Anita Golden the author of the photo sent email to Permissions and received authorization. I am providing the response here: Photo Submissions <photosubmission@wikimedia.org> Sep 2, 2020, 12:33 AM Dear Anita Golden, We have uploaded your photograph to our site, here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lotti_Golden_and_Ahmet_Ertegun_1968.jpg Thank you for providing it. Sincerely, James G. Howes [Ticket#2020081810011858] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Image: I am submitti [...]) Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> Anita Golden's image received permission for use in an earlier submission as well, provided below: [Ticket#2019042310000226] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Permission) Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 8:52 PM Dear Anita Golden, Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later. If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2019042310000226]. Yours sincerely, The Volunteer Response Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magdalamar ( talk • contribs)

The image has been reuploaded under a slightly different file name - it is at File:Lotti Golden and Ahmet Ertegun 1968.jpg, and has been tagged appropriately. I've made a redirect from the old file name for you, so any old links work. ~~ Alex Noble/ 1-2/ TRB 11:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please act on the old pending request for Bruce Lerman?

Thanks. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:1C67:EF9F:87E0:9389 ( talk) 11:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you email info-en@wikimedia.org? I'll take care of the request if you email that address. Sorry for all the trouble. Sam-2727 ( talk) 18:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I did as you suggested. But it is still up there. I'm a little confused, as I first posted on the page as I was told to. Then here - see prior discussion, and no action was taken. Then here now. And I've now sent the email you suggested. But still no action. Thanks. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:B585:6698:9949:8BC0 ( talk) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi to OTRS volunteers ... I have corresponded with an author to request a photo which can be used to illustrate the existing Wikipedia article about them. They have provided a photo to me, which I presume is theirs to freely release. I believe it was taken on their own camera or on a friend's camera, but it is a photo of them, taken by a friend, and was therefore not taken by them, so they cannot certify that they own copyright by reason of their having taken the photo.

I would send them to submit the photo via the "Commons:Wikimedia_OTRS_release_generator" (at here), but that seems to allow only for photos which a person has themselves taken.

How can they or I submit this photo and get it released under CC-BY-SA or whatever? -- Doncram ( talk) 00:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The photographer needs to provide the permission statement unless copyright has been formally transferred from the photographer to the subject, frequently by way of contract. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 08:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

JJMC89, I appreciate the general need for Wikimedia to handle permissions very formally, and I want to navigate this properly, but also not seem entirely unreasonable and inappropriately bureaucratic regarding a pretty informal, friendly situation. It does not conform to the formal situation of having a paid photographer and written contracts and releases. Literally if I hand my camera to a stranger to take my photo in front of a tourist attraction, and they snap it for me and walk away, certainly I do own the photo, and I can post it on the web, put it into the public domain or whatever, right? It would not make sense for Wikimedia to demand that tourists whip out formal contracts and obtain signatures and copies of drivers licenses or other identification from strangers who are willing to snap a pic as a favor. As long as I am willing to certify that I own the copyright in such a situation (because it is inconceivable that anyone else owns it or wants to own it), that should be okay, right? Or if my aunt, now deceased, took a photo of me on my camera or on hers, say.

Anyhow, in this case I believe that there is not a written contract, but rather there was a verbal contract / understanding between subject and photographer, i.e. that the person who snapped the pic and handed the camera back to the subject, or who snapped the pic and emailed it to the subject, did understand this was a pic which the subject needed to get for purpose of illustrating the article in Wikipedia. The photographer person was doing a favor, which in effect was providing a gift of the ownership of photo. This was several years ago now and it is not feasible to get that photographer person to come online and make certifications about something which was very simple at the time, if indeed the subject knows for certain which friend or conference attendee or whomever snapped the pic.

To cut through this, will it suffice for the subject to submit the photo via the Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator and certify "I am the owner of copyright". I believe that would be an accurate statement on their part and should settle this.

I am sorry if my asking these questions seems excessive or problematic. There is really nothing complicated or untoward here. I just have been stuck on how to handle such simple questions for a long time because I think Commons is not very forward about how to handle such informal situations, and now it comes up that I am in position of formally advising a non-Wikipedian on how to proceed. I am guessing that the right way to proceed is for the person just to certify they own the copyright, then Commons is protected and will not have any problems. It is inconceivable that anyone would ever dispute the copyright status of the photo. JJMC89, thank you for your reply, and I hope you can just ease my mind a bit further by verifying, I hope, that what I have stated is pretty much the right way to proceed. sincerely, -- Doncram ( talk) 17:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's far from inconceivable that anybody would dispute the copyright status of the photo - this type of issue arises all the time. This isn't a Wikimedia Commons issue, it's a copyright law issue. Copyright law is brutal and falling foul of it can have life changing consequences - such as receiving a criminal record (since it's tried in a criminal court, not a civil court) and bank account emptying penalties. We (Wikipedia and Commons) therefore have both a legal and moral obligation to ensure that we try and get copyright correct each and every time.

The copyright status is clear - the photographer generates the copyright, and in the absence of a contract assigning the copyright to another party, they own that copyright. The photographer needs to provide the release in this situation. The subject/uploader claiming ownership would be perjuring themselves, something that could have profound consequences and which must be strongly discouraged. Nick ( talk) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Doncram: ( edit conflict) I think you'll find this page at meta useful meta:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership especially the section "The Example of the Third Party Photographer". Nthep ( talk) 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nthep very much for linking to that, which provides reasonable guidance that the camera owner owns copyright of the pic, when they get help from a passerby merely to click the pic.

I think I have enough understanding here, to advise the author to assert their ownership. It would be just too too unreasonable, if it were Commons official position that, to obtain a photo of oneself, one can't ask a friend or stranger to take the pic. Without any need to get them to identify themselves, to show proof of identity, to sign any papers, or to show up on-line and identify themselves and provide certification of their willingness to transfer ownership of copyright.

In this case, it is plainly apparent to me that, if the original situation was as I understand it to be, the author does in fact own the photo copyright, technically, by oral contract of their asking "take my pic for me please" and their friend saying "sure no problem", as well as by the circumstances described at meta:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership. I disbelieve the relevance or appropriateness of Nick's scare-type tactics here. The photo owner's assertion of photo ownership is not perjury, it is truth.

So I think I have enough here, thank you to all 3 of you who provided information. -- Doncram ( talk) 18:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

More generally (going off-topic relative to my original question):

I also think that it is important to provide reasonable advice allowing the public to submit photos taken in various informal situations, and I am inclined myself to try to do that in a wp:ESSAY (perhaps to be started at User:Doncram/PhotosFallingOutsideSimplestCopyrightStatus). Some thoughts/questions:

• Honestly, who at Wikimedia Commons knows otherwise, or could possibly be in a position to question the author's assertion if the author is given proper advice and makes their honest, proper determination that they do own the photo? What, is anyone at Commons empowered to attack them in some criminal court and to seek to empty their bank account? What a malicious, ridiculous idea! Practically speaking, doesn't Commons have to take persons at their word?

• It might be argued that, in order to protect itself generally somehow, that Commons should empower its agents/volunteers to be over-the-top scary and negative. Perhaps by making accusations of perjury and threatening criminal lawsuits, etc., to prospective photo donors, and otherwise providing disinformation, Commons can dissuade some persons having photos that are somehow grey in status from submitting them. At cost of driving away perfectly innocent, legitimate photo owners, who are just not perfectly clear on what is legally and properly allowed, partly because Commons is unwilling to provide accurate guidance. However, I think that the the free software movement/ Free-culture movement etc. is poorly served, if that is going on, which I kinda think it is. I believe that Jimmy Wales is on record in the past arguing against too much timidity in assertion of public domain ownership of lots of types of materials, arguing that free content is in fact being lost. Wikimedia Commons may well be erring by not actively seeking out content of various types that it could, by not facilitating media donations of photos taken in certain informal situations. Being "conservative" means being mistaken in many cases, and is not automatically a virtue.

• And, practically speaking, aren't Commons' general needs for proper, clear respect of copyrights perfectly well served by obtaining the photo owner's assertion of ownership?Surely Commons and any commercial or other photograph collection service must employ some standard of reasonable care towards establishing copyright ownership of each photo properly, but in that they must rely in good faith on legal assertions, affadavits, etc. provided to them. If they are lied to, and then sued when it turns out a photo they release is in fact owned by some other party, then it must be a proper defense that they have stringent practices and they took reasonable care, and, they might not be liable at all for hosting the material. I am mildly curious whether or not Wikimedia Commons ever actually pays damages, if/when it is ever sued for publishing photos improperly, or whether it always succeeds legally in arguing that its due care processes protect it from liability. (And I think this has to do with "big tech liability protection" and Section 230 and "immunity from liability for providers and users of an 'interactive computer service' who publish information provided by third-party users" and all that.) If Commons ever actually is held liable for damages, they obviously would have the right to sue the party who falsely asserted original ownership. But whether or not Commons ever does get burned, Common does in its operations assume some small risk by accepting photos along with assertions of original ownership that may be true or false. But isn't it well enough served, in fact, by allowing and relying upon photo donors' assertions of ownership?

I'll stop here, would welcome further discussion, though I think my original question is well enough answered. I do appreciate the no-doubt-well-meaning comments provided already. Sincerely, -- Doncram ( talk) 18:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Doncram: You're absolutely correct with regards to legal protections available to Commons and some other re-users of material hosted by/downloaded from Commons - that's what DMCA exists for, that's what the Safe Harbor provisions provide for, but these protections don't fully extend to physical usage of copyright material offline. If I write a book and use a photograph that has been uploaded to Commons with the incorrect copyright information, the copyright owner can still come along 18 months later and insist on restitution, or they can still refuse to provide clearance, requiring me to take my book off sale. If we're being brutally honest, there's almost nothing that we do, as users on Commons, that protects Commons itself, it has chunky legal protection in law and a well funded charity operating it. It's fine. It's the re-users of our work who could well end up in court, either being prosecuted for copyright offences, or being forced to make significant financial restitution (both to the court and to the actual owner) that we are trying to protect. I don't know if you care about them or not, it's hard to tell from your post. Nick ( talk) 18:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nick, I have really not been aware at all about that perspective. Just browsing now, looking for examples of Commons being sued, I found my way to this account of 2019 lawsuit "Philpot v. WOS", which is an example of a photo re-user being sued. (And, by the way, is there any review or collection or general reporting about Commons being sued, or re-users being sued, that you might be aware of? I'd like to learn more.) I suppose I should/will care about re-users now. In my past interactions at Commons and within Wikipedia about any copyright issues, I am pretty sure that concern has never been brought up. Typically in Wikipedia copyright discussions, I have encountered what I feel are too-zealous persons seemingly attracted to the enforcer-type, negative-type role, who spoke in terms of "thou shalt not do X" etc., without discussion of impacts such as losses of content or consequences for re-users. Thank you. -- Doncram ( talk) 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Permission was resent today for File:John_Barker_teaching_in_Tashkent.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docia49 ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 January 2021‎

Processed and transferred to Commons —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As requested, I have just re-sent the statement of permission for File:Abigail Reynolds.jpg after the first file was not received. The email was sent from (email excised for privacy). I suggest checking spam files as the server has been marked for sending spam, which is why I generally don't use that server for email any longer, but in this case you require it. To get around that, I also bcc'ed the email to my personal email which begins with asja and forwarded that email to you as well. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littorea ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Littorea: In most instances the subject of a photo is not the copyright holder of their photo. That is normally the photographer and they must send OTRS an email directly from their own email verifying their permission, unless the copyright has been transferred to the subject by legal means. They should deal with it within the ticket system. Good luck. ww2censor ( talk) 00:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

For File:Jeffrey-M-Cohen-May-2020.jpeg, ticket # 2021011010000233 is asserted to provide permission per this statement. Is there an update for this? -- Whpq ( talk) 00:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Whpq: The ticket was replied to the same date that it was received. The ticket does not contain a release under a free license, and what we do have may not be from the copyright holder. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the owner of the current photograph of the subject has sent you the permissions letter and cc'd me in to it. Rwatson1955 ( talk) 15:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A response was sent on the same day that it was received, but the customer has not responded to the question posed. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 17:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This file was uploaded with the source being an OTRS ticket. Why was the copyright owner left blank? I would have presumed that this is a work of the US Federal government as part of the US Department of Defense, why was this uploaded as a non-free file? File:DVIDS.png exists as a public domain file on Commons. Dylsss^{( talk contribs)} 04:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a question for the uploader, Sphilbrick. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this edit reversion here is labelled as the Wikipedia volunteer response team but it is inappropriate as it is using a private correspondence as a reference as well as using Wikipedia to reference itself, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems a bit off, given that the person who made the edit was not logged in, yet in a previous edit they cited a ticket number, [1] suggesting they do have access to the queue. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I forwarded emails from Yan Zhu to OTRS-zh, and she told me her Chinese name in the emails. -- 2A10:1FC0:0:0:0:0:B0C7:6C8B ( talk) 11:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Emails are not sufficient for use as references, see WP:BLP. Such personal information needs to be sourced from secondary reliable sources or from the subject's own twitter, facebook or instagram or her own website, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Atlantic306: Now you can see her Chinese name on her GitHub profile (ref: her website). -- Txkk ( talk) 11:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a bit confused while importing this file to Commons. The original revision states the photographer is "Lila Scott" while the current version states "Ellen Tremiti" (see diff #1000997867). Can someone please assist me to find out which of these the author should be credited as? Thank you, Twassman | Talk | Contribs 17:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the permission statement, Scott is the photographer and Tremiti is the copyright holder. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Twassman | Talk | Contribs 18:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have sent an email to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" for the File:St. Finan's Hospital Corridor.jpg at " File:St. Finan's Hospital Corridor.jpg". Hopefully this is sufficient to keep the image from being deleted. -- DaveDaRave19 ( talk) 15:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

DaveDaRave19: A ticket number has been applied to the file but the completed permission statement must come from the original attributed photographer, Daniel Yeates, unless the copyright was transferred by legal means. Please be aware that OTRS does not accept forwarded permissions, so your email is likely not good enough as you don't appear to be the copyright holder. ww2censor ( talk) 14:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ophirbaer. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Portrait of Hubert Pollack 1954.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so. If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so. If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and received directions of how to provide copyright's holder permission, which I did. They sent a mail to the specified email address, and the file itself has been updated with all the details. This was done for both the English and the German Wikipedia entries. Ophirbaer ( talk) 09:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I checked the reply of Mrs. Edna Guggenheimer, and realized that it was mistakenly sent to permissions@wikimedia.org instead of permissions-en@wikimedia.org. That is probably, why it wasn't received. I sent it now to the correct email address. Sorry for the confusion. Ophirbaer ( talk) 10:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Resolved —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! I just want to inform the OTRS of the message sent by the copyright owner of the image Agwatyap III uploaded by me on Wikipedia, to help me link the message up to prevent the image from being deleted. Thanks a million. Kind regards. Kambai Akau ( talk) 14:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Someone is going to (or already has) contact(ed) OTRS regarding a photo of the director Lauren Wolkstein. The article about Wolkstein has a long history of copyvio (many photos as well as the original text) and suspected COI/PAID/SOCK editing. Please be very careful when checking the permission. The photo in question is File:Lauren Wolkstein.jpg which according to the description is a "Headshot of filmmaker Lauren Wolkstein by photographer Shah Zaman Baloch." and "Provided by the subject, Lauren Wolkstein". It's a reupload of c:File:Lauren-wolkstein.jpg which was uploaded by Dstaebler in 2018. Zedembee said that Wikipedia has been/will be contacted by mail, but they might have meant Commons instead. I'm unable to warn the Commons OTRS people. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 09:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

it's VRTS ticket #  2021042910006385. A link to this section has been added to the ticket. Nthep ( talk) 11:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

All completely ridiculous. I'm amazed you folks have the time. I'm not dignifying your accusations of COI or Paid with my attention. They are groundless. The image that Alexis Jazz keeps reverting to is old and looks nothing like the subject owing to its odd angle and poor quality. The image I posted instead is far more lifelike and representative of Lauren. (Something I absolutely can be in a position to know without any conflict of interest.) The overwrought tone of "Please be very careful when checking the permission" is unwarranted. It goes beyond caution, which is necessary, and into hostility, which is not. I suggest Alexis Jazz leaves the matter now to others and moves on to other things, rather than repeatedly reverting edits on subject's page in contravention of Wikipedia etiquette. Thanks, Zedembee ( talk) 22:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Zedembee, how much more recent is the black and white photo? — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz Please take a break on this discussion for 24 hours, per Wikipedia etiquette and allowing the permissions file to be attached. Thanks, Zedembee ( talk) 22:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Zedembee, you say it's more recent, it'll be relevant to know how much more recent. I'm not arguing right now, just asking a question. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz In disapproval of various comments you have made on Lauren Wolkstein's Talk page, I wish to disengage from you. Zedembee ( talk) 22:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Zedembee (no ping since you wish to disengage), oh come on, don't dodge the question. This could have been so much more fun. (edit: sorry, that was not necessary) Nthep, the black-and-white photo is from 2012, not " more recent" like Zedembee claimed. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz If I was misinformed on (or simply misunderstood) the date of the photo, so be it. I maintain the photo is more lifelike, which is the true issue here. Let's leave it to others now, you have made your arguments and I mine. Your preoccupation with this subject and assumed authority thereof is frankly bizarre. Zedembee ( talk) 23:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz And for the record, I don't find it "fun" to be constantly badgered or impugned by you. I will make no biographical declarations here, but your arrogance is so deeply misplaced that, frankly, that's the "fun" part! End of communication, you have had enough of my time for one lifetime. Zedembee ( talk) 23:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This file, which is at https://www.flickr.com/photos/zxdavem/147792192/ marked as all rights reserved, mentions Ticket:2020092710018261. What is the status of this ticket, should this file be deleted for lack of permission? Dylsss^{( talk contribs)} 20:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Dylsss: No response has been received from the copyright holder since September 2020. On that basis you can nominate it for deletion. Please sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this ~~~~, thanks. ww2censor ( talk) 21:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, nominated it, also my post is signed? Dylsss^{( talk contribs)} 21:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I have been assisting Jordan Geller (who is the subject of both photos) in getting permission from the photographer/copyright holder. Is there any indication that the copyright holder sent a permission email? On another note, the photographer/copyright holder gave Jordan Geller a personal CD which contains the uploaded photos. However, for the source of both files, I inserted a URL that contains basically an identical copy of the photos that Jordan Geller uploaded. I did this because the URL clearly indicates the identity of the copyright holder. Should I insert something else for the source for the files? Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 23:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Those files are not hosted on EN.Wikipedia, so you might want to ask at the Commons OTRS noticeboard. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Will do. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 02:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings,

This message is to inform you that I have sent a request to permissions-en to use the Francis Wong image ( File:Francis Wong saxophonist.jpg). I received permission from Francis Wong to use the image.

Thank you, POIpoke00— Preceding unsigned comment added by POIpoke00 ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, I sent an email to permissions-en requesting permission for Jon Jang's photo on this page: /info/en/?search=Jon_Jang. I will be sending along another message to permissions-en following their template. Apologies for the tardiness in rectifying this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by POIpoke00 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

But which photo did you request for? -- Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The file information page mentions an OTRS ticket, but there is no OTRS template. The file information page quotes a permission statement which only seems to permit distribution but not modification. Could you check if there's an acceptable permission for this file? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That statement reflects what is found in the ticket – only permission to distribute. That also applied to c:File:Kuzma.jpg. I have nominated both for deletion. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also check File:Fumar.jpg from the same uploader? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The photographer's statement gives permission to publish the photo. It does not specify a license. I've also nominated it for deletion. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The uploader provided a ticket number Ticket#2021062210001782 with the upload, but no OTRS/VRT tag has ever been applied to indicate a ticket for the image was even received. Is there valid permission for this image? -- Whpq ( talk) 01:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tagged the file as no permission. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Ticket:2021062210001782 is correct and it has been added to the file but is not completed yet. ww2censor ( talk) 13:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to have my OTRS account and wiki access reactivated. I was suspended for inactivity and now have more time than sense and would like to give it another go. Thanx, - FlightTime ( open channel) 23:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@ FlightTime: I am not sure VRT admins watch this page, so if you haven't been contacted yet, the correct place to ask for access after inactivity is m:Volunteer Response Team/Volunteering as per m:Volunteer Response Team/Activity policy. Dylsss^{( talk contribs)} 23:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This is to inform you that I have the permission of photographer to use the photo of Diana Taylor on her Wikipedia page.

The photographer is Monika Berry - www.monikaberry.com.au

I tried to find a ‘Statement of Permission’ form on the Wikipedia website but couldn’t locate one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planitroxie ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Planitroxie: Please see Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing. That should have everything that you are looking for. I would also recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

An ancient OTRS Permission Sent template is present. Please will an OTRS person verify (or not) that this template is valid? Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 18:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Timtrent Ticket:2021082410003451, and it's valid for Draft:MARINET, Draft:A-Navigation and Draft:Autonomous_and_Remote_Navigation_Trial_Project. Regards — MdsShakil ( talk) 11:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@ MdsShakil are you able to make whatever formal update the template on the draft needs, please? Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Timtrent Template removed from draft, usually used on talk namespace — MdsShakil ( talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@ MdsShakil would it be relevant for the Drafts' talk page? You are the expert, not me. Thank you for your help, by the way Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 17:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Timtrent: I see this question wasn't answered, so thought I would chime in for future FYI. Yes, it would be relevant and appears to have been added already. -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@ TheSandDoctor thank you for closing the loop on this Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 09:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible for a VRT member to prep and move the files of said user to commons? -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 00:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

A request was made at my talk page by @ Josve05a: - User_talk:B#New_categories_and_templates - to update B-bot to name the dated OTRS categories as Category:Items pending permission as of March 2022 instead of Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission as of March 2022. I wanted to make notice here before making that change in case anyone has any objections. If there are no objections, I will make the change this week. -- B ( talk) 15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Ariana and the Rose.jpg is using the deprecated "ticket=url" parameter. Requesting that a VRT member confirm permission/fix template. Thanks! House Blaster ^talk 14:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up arbitrary uses of standard-talk class in pages. I've stumbled onto some 20 articles with an ancient substed version of {{ ticket confirmation}} (all link to the GFDL as the license) but no listed ID. I'm a little leery of replacing them with the modern template because that drops them into Cat:Items pending permission, which I'm not sure is appropriate. See search.

I would guess these should be confirmed and either replaced with the appropriate ticket ID and template by VRTS agents or the mainspace pages dealt with as copyvio, but maybe a VRTS agent can take care of it. I'd really like to dodge having to send this over to WP:CCI to deal with 15-year old mainspace pages. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I fixed a few, the following I was not able to fix:

• I couldn't find a ticket for Talk:Cisco_Press
• I couldn't find a ticket for Talk:Septic_arthritis, Talk:SAPHO_syndrome, Talk:Achondroplasia, Talk:Neuropathic_arthropathy, Talk:Periosteal_reaction, Talk:Segond_fracture, and Talk:Calcium_pyrophosphate_deposition_disease
• ticket:2006062110009288 provides a Wikipedia-only permission for Talk:Swathi_Kiranam, Talk:Mahanadhi_(film), and Talk:Ethirum_Pudhirum
• I couldn't find a ticket for Talk:Jaime_Bravo and https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225240/https://www.matadorjaimebravo.com/Wikipedia.html provides only a Wikipedia-only permission

AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 21:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Internet Archive page you found doesn't look like it's just a Wikipedia-only license (although it clearly has that, too). If you keep reading it says "I hereby permit the content's use under the terms of Wikipedia's GNU Free Documentation License." VernoWhitney ( talk) 01:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I already let ACN know, but there is another batch that needs review (some overlap of the above) at this search. Which is unrelated to my objective but I figured it merited listing. -- Izno ( talk) 02:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Can a VRT agent export the files to commons as I'll definitely have a hard time triggering filters. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 07:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Doing... — MdsShakil ( talk) 09:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Minorax  Done — MdsShakil ( talk) 09:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I know at least one VRT member is aware of this but I wanted to be sure it was noted here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Celestina007's secret tools. There seems to have been a lost of trust in this user and their use of certain permissions, including VRT access. I have already removed a number of other user rights as an admin action. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed - one principal clarification is that the member in question is Matthewrb (noping), who is a VRT admin and so has most likely raised it in an admin-only email discussion as that's the normal means for discussions of VRT members. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This user has been removed from VRTS by consensus of the admin team. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 02:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The above mentioned incident has got me thinking, and I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Slight tweak to VRT application policy. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello all,

For the sake of transparency and in light of Beeblebrox's proposal linked in the above section, I'm posting a notification here that I am applying to join the VTRS. My request involves access to #info-en, #info-es, and #info-simple. The application can be viewed at Meta:Volunteer Response Team/Volunteering#Mhawk10.

Happy editing! — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up arbitrary uses of standard-talk class in pages. I've stumbled onto some 20 articles with an ancient substed version of {{ ticket confirmation}} (all link to the GFDL as the license) but no listed ID. I'm a little leery of replacing them with the modern template because that drops them into Cat:Items pending permission, which I'm not sure is appropriate. See search.

I would guess these should be confirmed and either replaced with the appropriate ticket ID and template by VRTS agents or the mainspace pages dealt with as copyvio, but maybe a VRTS agent can take care of it. I'd really like to dodge having to send this over to WP:CCI to deal with 15-year old mainspace pages. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I fixed a few, the following I was not able to fix:

• I couldn't find a ticket for Talk:Cisco_Press
• I couldn't find a ticket for Talk:Septic_arthritis, Talk:SAPHO_syndrome, Talk:Achondroplasia, Talk:Neuropathic_arthropathy, Talk:Periosteal_reaction, Talk:Segond_fracture, and Talk:Calcium_pyrophosphate_deposition_disease
• ticket:2006062110009288 provides a Wikipedia-only permission for Talk:Swathi_Kiranam, Talk:Mahanadhi_(film), and Talk:Ethirum_Pudhirum
• I couldn't find a ticket for Talk:Jaime_Bravo and https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225240/https://www.matadorjaimebravo.com/Wikipedia.html provides only a Wikipedia-only permission

AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 21:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Internet Archive page you found doesn't look like it's just a Wikipedia-only license (although it clearly has that, too). If you keep reading it says "I hereby permit the content's use under the terms of Wikipedia's GNU Free Documentation License." VernoWhitney ( talk) 01:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I already let ACN know, but there is another batch that needs review (some overlap of the above) at this search. Which is unrelated to my objective but I figured it merited listing. -- Izno ( talk) 02:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, VRT,

I wandered into this category and was surprised to see several VRT members here who have been blocked for years. And also there is some confusion between editors on this category list and those on the VRT list on Wikimedia. I'm sure that this isn't a high priority task for y'all but this list and category are the way Wikipedia editors know who is part of your response team and so it is a reflection of your group so you might want to ensure it is up-to-date and doesn't contain any editors who've been blocked for bad behavior. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi VRT noticeboard. I tried to revert this unexplained deletion (which broke a template) at Talk:Flavio Briatore but got the following message:

"An automated edit filter has identified that you are trying to accept permission on behalf of the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team but do not have the global vrt-permissions user right.

VRT permission verifications can only be added or modified by Wikimedia VRT permissions volunteers.

Any questions can be directed to the Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard."

Could someone with the necessary permissions please make the revert? Thank you. DH85868993 ( talk) 05:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. –– FormalDude talk 05:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The tag on File:BibopTED.jpg says it has been verified by VRT in this ticket, however the image description says if you want to use any of these photos for anything pls contact kk@kriskrug.com // 778. 898. 3076 first, which would hint at an inappropriate licensing. Can someone with access to the ticket please verify that a CC-BY-SA license was unambiguously granted? If yes I will replace the description, if no we need to delete the file. (Please ping when responding.) Tigraan ^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Tigraan I checked this ticket and it doesn't have any problems, the permissions is ok. By the way, this is an commons file, best way to discuss regarding this to c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard — MdsShakil ( talk) 04:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the check and for the info. Tigraan ^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi VRT, I am a sysop and recently I received a request through "email this user" to ask for the deletion of userpage history. I think the request is justifiable per WP:G7 but understandably said user does not want a public wikitext discussion about why they are requesting revdel. I suppose the right way forward is to perform the deletion myself and deposit the email request to some VRT confidential email archive for accountability purposes - where is the right queue to send the request email to? (Please ping on reply, thanks) Deryck C. 15:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Deryck Chan info-en is fine for that - just make a note that it's already been taken care of and no on-wiki action is required. VernoWhitney ( talk) 13:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Deryck Chan just a note: if I get a request to delete "userpage history" I usually let the user know I'm treating it as a normal G7 and just delete the entire page - they can always recreate their userpage if they want to. Revdeling is more like to cause the Streisand effect. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:xaosflux and User:VernoWhitney. I shall communicate these options to the concerned editor by email. Deryck C. 11:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Can someone check and verify if this is related to ticket:2010121310004144? -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 07:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Verified. Permission to publish given in ticket 2010121310004144 matches the license stated in the image description. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the file mentioned in ticket:2009032810020725? -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 12:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Minorax Negative — MdsShakil ( talk) 13:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I get the following error while trying to revert this vandalism on Talk:Daivadnya An automated edit filter has identified that you are trying to accept permission on behalf of the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team but do not have the global vrt-permissions user right.VRT permission verifications can only be added or modified by Wikimedia VRT permissions volunteers. Any questions can be directed to the Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard.. Please can someone with this permissions revert the edit? Thank you. LukeEmily ( talk) 15:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Done GMG ^talk 16:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear about the status of File:Butler Plantation Weeping Time historical marker, McIntosh County, GA, US.jpg, ticket 2022082410008981.

I took the photo of the historical marker and uploaded it. Someone objected to it. The Georgia Historical Society wrote to Permissions and said that it was free under commons license 4.0, I think. Today I was CCed on an email back to them saying that the file info had been updated.

The photo was used in two articles, but someone removed them. Can I put them back in the articles, and, since it is now free, can I upload the original file again? Can I remove the "fair use" thing? (It is currently listed as an orphaned non-free work, and I think that is wrong.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Bubba73: Not sure why the bot thought the image was under fair use. You can put it back in the articles, yes. Elli ( talk | contribs) 22:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The bot probably thought that because when someone marked it as a copyright violation, I put "fair use" until I could see if the Georgia Historical Society would tell permissions that it is free. I noticed you just took that out, thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Would appreciate if someone is able to verify the ticket. -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 10:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Minorax: The ticket is a request to update the image in the company's article, not a release under a free license. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@ JJMC89: Then should it be deleted since it is no longer an up-to-date logo? -- Minorax^{«¦ talk¦»} 05:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It certainly could be since it is unused and unlikely to be used. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Could someone with current VRT access update {{ VRT backlog}}, please? It had been set at 0 since May. I changed it to 36 based on the Commons backlog number, though I realize permissions-en and permissions-commons are two different queues.

If someone could look at the current backlog size for the permissions-en queue and update the template, I'd appreciate it.

Technical details: The way B-bot works when it tags images with an expired {{ Permission pending}} tag is that it looks at the last time the template was updated and then assumes the backlog has been growing since that time. (In other words, we know it had a 0-day backlog in May, but we don't know if the backlog has stayed at 0 that entire time or if not a single issue has been processed since May.) When the backlog is months-long, this doesn't matter - chances are it isn't going to be a 92-day backlog today and then when someone updates it a week from now, it's a 92-day backlog then. But if there is no backlog and 0 is the right answer forever, then the template never gets updated (because it doesn't need to be), yet B-bot thinks that it only has out-of-date information. So if, say, 0 is the right answer today and then you want to indicate that 0 is the right answer a week from now, a null edit would accomplish that (add a blank line after the noinclude or something ... then the bot will perceive it as updated information, as opposed to an out-of-date 0). -- B ( talk) 16:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Could @ Krd: or anyone with VRT access please update {{ VRT backlog}} again? Even if 0 is still correct, please make an empty edit (e.g. adding a blank line before the noinclude) so it will show as updated. -- B ( talk) 11:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey there! The respective owner of this file, File:DougDoug_Thanos.jpg contacted Wikipedia yesterday concerning the file, emailing me back saying that we should be good to go. I was wondering if you have received the licensing information for the file. If you could let me know, that would be great. Thanks! The ticket number is 2022112510011058 Best, Zeke ( talk) 02:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Zekerocks11: It is good to go now. ww2censor ( talk) 15:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

An FFD has been filed claiming a number of album covers are covered under ticket 2013102510001373. There is c:Category:Album covers by YG Entertainment on Commons, but no information about the scope of the ticket. Can somebody please have a look and comment at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 November 25#File:Square One - Blackpink.jpg -- thanks! Whpq ( talk) 14:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Whpq The permissions are valid to use YG Entertainment album covers under the CC BY 2.0 license. — MdsShakil ( talk) 06:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The following comment was added to the FFD for the album covers after it was closed. I've moved it here in case there is further action that needs or can be taken. This post was made by User:Xia and moved from here:

@ Paper9oll I used to be an OTRS agent, and I was the one who obtained the permission from YG. I noticed that someone who claimed to be from YG uploaded album covers under CC to Commons, and asked the person to verify to OTRS that he is indeed who he claims to be and that they should give permission for all album covers. Sorry for opening up a closed page but I only got a notification of being pinged after it was closed. This was huge victory back then. Note that back in 2013 Kpop was nowhere near as global as it is now, and so agencies were more willing to give such permissions. I think until they start complaining we can still use that permission and if they change their mind, they should explicitely express it. I still have the original email from Mr Ahn (who signed the permission) in my indbox. Xia ^{talk to me} 15:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Xia This is very ambiguous and we shouldn't assume that they are fine with the album/single's covers after the ticket date to be licensed and/or re-licensed under CC BY 2.0 licensing. Any possibility if you can re-confirmed with them if their position are okay with Wikimedia re-licensing album/single covers released after 25 October 2013 to be under CC BY 2.0, and also ask them to confirm if future releases (meaning album/single that are unannounced and yet to be release) can be licensed under CC BY 2.0 moving forward. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 09:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Paper9oll well you can also do that, why should it be me specifically? That person no longer works for YG, so please feel free to find a contact and discuss with them. Our opinions differ on this, I am fine with the current permission. :) Xia ^{talk to me} 19:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Xia Ah I see, was asking because you communicated previously with them while I didn't know the contact person no longer works for YG, idk who to contact also lol but its okay, no worries. Was asking you that question earlier because 3 album/single covers released after 25 October 2013 was tagged as licensed under CC BY 2.0 of which 2 of it were uploaded by you, while another 1 by another editor.

I'm okay with leaving the non-free album/single covers by YG released after 25 October 2013 (minus that 3 album/single covers, not sure what to do with it) as non-free as it's has always been for majority of the album/single covers (minus those that couldn't meet threshold of originality) by any labels, just wanted to make everything clear (for references moving forward) that all YG album/single covers released by them (be it digitally or physically) after 25 October 2013 shouldn't be converted to CC BY 2.0 licensing. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 03:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Paper9oll If the person who released the album covers no longer works for YG, shouldn't the latest date for those released under CC BY 2.0 be when he/she left YG rather than when the ticket was sent? 2600:1700:9DD0:8FD0:B862:5072:4807:3A1C ( talk) 18:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it should be till 25 October 2013 instead which is the date of the ticket filed. Any album/single's cover with actual release date released after 25 October 2013 by YG is outside the scope of the ticket. Any album/singer's cover with actual release date released after 25 October 2013 uploaded here is currently tagged as non-free which so far has zero legal-related issues hence I'm not exactly sure which you're so insistent with relicensing them as CC BY 2.0 when the current non-free licensing works perfectly fine here on Wikipedia unless you have ulterior motive outside of Wikipedia and is using the album/single's cover here for other means outside of Wikipedia then you shouldn't be here. Neither do I know when does that employee left YG as that's their personal matters which doesn't concern us. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 04:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Explicit: as the admin who closed the FFD. I am not sure what the next steps for this would be. Normally a challenged FFD closure would be sent to deletion review, but I suspect that would just result in an "endorse closure" and punt it back to VRT to sort out. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If VRT agents here believe that the permissions ticket continues to apply to album covers published after October 25, 2013, then I think it should be okay to just relicense the files accordingly. This issue is probably outside the scope of FFD anyway. ✗ plicit 00:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree fully with Paper9oll. There is absolutely no evidence, in the ticket or elsewhere, that makes any claim that future album covers beyond the date of the ticket would be licenced freely. Without any such verification from the copyright holder, we should not even consider making any changes. Only newer album covers that are too simple to copyright can be licenced freely. Everything else newer than October 2013 must be considered still in copyright unless we get verification from the copyright holder, so one of the editors promoting the idea of future licencing from the ticket date should obtain that verification or please put this to bed now. ww2censor ( talk) 14:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

User_talk:Sphilbrick#VRT_ticket S Philbrick (Talk) 22:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Primefac ( talk · contribs) is dealing with it. Nthep ( talk) 22:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The body of the Killing of Tyre Nichols page is currently blanked behind a copyright violation allegation. The user who has blanked the page ( WikiWikiWayne) did not properly apply a source url to the copyvio template, and did not properly tag the appropriate sentences, paragraphs or sections, of the article. They instead opted to blank essentially the entire article behind two copyvio templates with no sources. I have reviewed the page against its linked sources using Earwig's Copyvio Tool and found no copyright violations. Firefangledfeathers has also reviewed the page against its sources and come to the same conclusion. Multiple users have asked WWW to explain or substantiate the claim of copyright violation; WWW has repeatedly refused to do so.

There is to date no substantial documentation for why any part of the page was ever flagged for copyright violation. The page, which receives ~1,500 views per day, has been sitting completely barren for 36 hours or so.

Only clerks, admins, or VRT agents can remove copyvio templates. There are only nine active clerks on Wikipedia, and it may take them days before they are able to put out this fire. Could somebody on the VRT please review and remove the tags? Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 08:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

As written, I feel that I am being personally attacked. Please self revert anything that could make me feel attacked, broadly construed. Criticize the deed, not the doer. This post assumes bad faith. We have policies against that. Thank you. Take care always. {{u| WikiWikiWayne}} { Talk} 08:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is already at WP:AN, posting here misunderstands the role of VRT in copyright investigations. Nthep ( talk) 10:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WWWayne, I was pinged to come and rescue you from whatever pressure you feel is being put upon you here. From what I understand you have a personal family situation which is very bad, so the only thing I can say is sign off Wikipedia, don't even look at it for a few days, and put your attention where it's needed. I wish you well in whatever you are enduring, and maybe now go and endure it. I'd politely ask everyone to leave Wayne and his actions be, they can be discussed when he is ready to put attention on Wikipedia and not where it's needed now. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, I just read your comment at your talk page and see my advice is similar and crosses the pop-psychology line. So, never mind (as Rosanne Rosanne Odanna would say, and I'm spelling that from ignorance of how it's actually spelled). Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Colleagues, I would like to attract your attention to the fact that Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication of this image under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Commons VRT member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2023032010011928 and this fact is mentioned on Commons at [2]. Thus now the licensing information is different for the two copies of the same file. I would suggest to delete the copy from English Wikipedia as all the legal and licensing problems are solved and it should be deleted under F8 criteria. Thank you and regards, -- LexKurochkin ( talk) 11:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ LexKurochkin done. You could simply have tagged the file for deletion under F8. Nthep ( talk) 13:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am mostly active at Commons and not really experienced on this side of Wikipedia. -- LexKurochkin ( talk) 13:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Dbrown1793 removed {{ ConfirmationOTRS}} from Talk:Renaissance Community with this edit. I would like to see it restored.

I recently started to see if some of the problems with the article, such as lack of citations, could be resolved. I happened to take the initial step of seeing if there were copyright violations & I saw this:

• https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1157124667&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.authorsden.com%2Fvisit%2Fviewshortstory.asp%3FAuthorID%3D119932%26id%3D46028

The URL in the OTRS confirmation is now a dead URL. Here is a citation with the archive link:

• Brown, Daniel A. "UMass Amherst W.E.B. Du Bois Library, Special Collections and University Dan Brown (Brotherhood of the Spirit) Collection". library.umass.edu. Archived from the original on 2010-01-18.

Although the archive date is 2010-01-18, there is a "© 2004 University of Massachusetts Amherst" at the bottom of the page, & the last event mentioned is in 2003. I believe that the archived page represents the original work, & that Daniel A. Brown later copied it to https://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewshortstory.asp?id=46028&AuthorID=119932. Here is the full citation:

• Brown, Daniel A. (2010-01-02). "The History of the Renaissance Community: 1968-1988". AuthorsDen.com. Retrieved 2023-05-27.

Although I want to challenge the notability of the article based on the lack of citations, I do not want to needlessly discuss copyright violations & involve the Volunteer Response Team if the matter has already been handled. Since I do not have the vrt-permissions user right, I cannot re-insert the {{ ConfirmationOTRS}} template. I am hoping that someone responding here can do that.

P.S. Is it possible to put the full citation from library.umass.edu with the archive parameters into the |source= parameter? Peaceray ( talk) 04:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Could someone clear this category please? There are several unresolved entries dating as far back as August 2022. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A few months ago, I uploaded File:Juguang metro station into Wikipedia, and sent a request for permission to the Government of the Republic of China, but did not get a response. I received a talk message telling me to send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, and I did it. Ticket:2023060110006901 Brachy08 (Talk) (Contribs) 11:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Brachy0008: Sorry to tell you but no response was ever receive to that ticket. ww2censor ( talk) 11:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait what? Brachy08 (Talk) (Contribs) 11:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Brachy0008: What does "Wait what?" mean? Do you have a question or comment? ww2censor ( talk) 13:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I sent it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. And I got a reply. Brachy08 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Brachy0008: at the time I responded, no reply had been received but now there is some correspondence. ww2censor ( talk) 22:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok Brachy08 (Talk) (Contribs) 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice to all VRT agents: A system maintenance period will start at: 06/14/2023 20:00 and is expected to stop at: 06/14/2023 21:00. Tickets will not be answered at this time. We appreciate your understanding. - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a question about the copyright situation of File:Golf by the Mayor.jpg, which has both a UK-only public domain tag and a VRT confirmation, but no license. Could someone tell us what the content of this VRT ticket is? Felix QW ( talk) 16:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The ticket asserts that the work is PD in the UK. It is not a permission statement from the copyright holder. I've removed the VRT template. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it may be wise to take action on this ticket. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that was done. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to be a verified user (following a current ANI thread where an editor is in a Catch-22 situation because they hadn't verified). How do I go about doing this? Ravenswing 21:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you are talking about, could you clarify and/or link to the relvant thread? Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_to_restore_talk_page_access is the ANI thread in question, but that issue's only tangential. Ravenswing 06:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! File:Drshohrehghasemi.jpg has been tagged as permission pending since February – are there any updates on its status? WP:NOMOREGFDL also appears to apply, given how it is currently tagged, which should be communicated if obtaining permission is still ongoing. Thanks! House Blaster ^talk 03:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

HouseBlaster: Sorry to say, but the last request has not been responded to since February. ww2censor ( talk) 10:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

John von Neumann won't load - just says

The maximum request time of 60 {{PLURAL:60|second|seconds}} was exceeded.
[a289dc7e-5604-4a4b-a7a3-1eec5863072d] 2023-07-21 19:31:37: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\RequestTimeout\RequestTimeoutException"

Other pages load fine. Ariel. ( talk) 19:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t a request related to the volunteer response team. - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to clear up permission over at Draft talk:Frequency principle/spectral bias, but I can't find the ticket for it. I've searched based on date and name and email address and found nothing, and the page author gave Ticket:2023071910007214, which doesn't seem to exist. Might it be hiding in a different queue I don't have access to? I'm afraid it's been a while since I've been heavily active at VRT and I'm stumped. Can anyone help me out? VernoWhitney ( talk) 18:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Input from a VRT member would be helpful at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease#Curtis Stigers. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. I posted a comment there. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That's all we needed! Thanks! Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps an admin can excise the history as detailed in this ticket. ww2censor ( talk) 11:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)