From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010-2012 | 2013-2014

OTRS for Wikidata[edit]

Hello, we are planning to propose to closed databases to release some data under the CC0 license for use in Wikidata and we need some support to create a similar system that the one for commons. Can someone help us to create this ? Thanks. Snipre (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

+1. Just to clarify: We have a support queue for Wikidata already. But this should probably be a different. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you have an example which data that could be? It has to be copyrighted in first place for OTRS to make sense.
Where would the permission be documented? As the data is likely spread over different objects, it cannot be on the object ('s talk page) as it is for files and articles, can it? --Krd 19:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Krd For example there is data from official statistical administrations like this one for Switzerland: typical data are surface, population, altitude of different administrative entites. They have a copyright which is similar to CC-BY-NC (see here.
This should be fixed but as first idea the authorization document from the data owner should describe the type of data concerned by the authorization (data, year, original file,... As exemple: the population data of all communes of Switzerland from the 2000 census) and the imported data in Wikidata under this permission will be tagged using a qualifier. We have to think if a copy of the data should be provided and stored somewhere or if the description of the data is enough. The Wikidata development team is working now with the legal team of WMF to solve this problem. Snipre (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Normally I would support making this a sub-queue of permissions::, i.e. something like permissions::permissions-wikidata. However, I have doubts in this case. Our approach with the permissions queues is that there is one access right for all sub-queues (on the assumption that all queues deal with the same questions). But the issues are not identical in this case. To avoid mix-ups, it might make sense to make it a separate queue with a dedicated role; not that many people are familiar with database protection rights since this concerns questions not otherwise relevant to the Wikimedia community. — Pajz (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
We are working with the legal team of the WMF to define the conditions for release of data under CC0. Hope we can find a correct system to solve the problem. Snipre (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Just thought I would follow-up to Pajz above - I too would be hesitent to include this as a permissions subqueue for the reasons he mentions. I would suggest making this a subqueue of the Sister projects::Wikidata queue (and perhaps give permissions users read-only access for verifications but that's more of an internal decision). Let let us know here or via otrs-admins at once you've decided. Rjd0060 (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Does OTRS handle fair use assessments for Wikipedia files? Or just permissions?[edit]

I'm thinking about becoming an OTRS volunteer, and I have some background (though no lengthy history, yet) in copyright law. Do OTRS volunteers only help clear permissions? Or do they also help to assess fair use claims for images on Wikipedia? For example, was this image reviewed by an OTRS volunteer, or someone else? --User:Bradleee

Hi Bradleee. At the moment we do not deal with fair-use issues. Permissions queues are used for verification of copyright release on free media hosted on Commons and other sites.
There are also some uses on the English Wikipedia (for example) where OTRS was used to arrange the license release of text used in an article. With all that in mind, we have general information queues where people send us questions and in those queues we receive reuse requests, fair use/licensing questions, etc. Hope this answers your question.Rjd0060 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Using my own copyrighted article in a WP article[edit]

Shalom. I am the owner of a copyrighted article that I wrote and which was copyrighted by me in the US Library of Congress. I have the document to prove copyright ownership of this article. The article contains my own English translation of Hebrew texts (excerpts gleaned from early Hebrew classical writings) describing the epic visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon, and the riddles that she posed to King Solomon. The entire text is written in Middle English, and, hopefully, the entire episode will be incorporated into a new and separate article on Wikipedia, replete with annotations (as provided by the box which toggles text displays of poems), while, at the same time, each box interspersed with short narratives explaining to our readers the general theme or historical background behind each scene described in the box. What makes this article different from the current article on the Queen of Sheba is that this one brings down only the Jewish oral traditions regarding her visit. In my view, the article will bring a new dimension to the way we present written texts and making use of the primary source, coupled with explanatory remarks as are common in every other WP article which describe a certain topic. My question is whether or not this is viewed as acceptable, and what will I need to do to show that I am the owner of this article and that I give my consent for its free use (public use) on Wikipedia? Thank-you in advance.- Davidbena (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid this isn't the best place to post such a question, this talk page is for general discussion about the OTRS system itself. For instructions on how to provide permission for re-use of your work, see en:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Secondly, it appears from your description that the content you want to share would be more fitting for a project like Wikisource, not Wikipedia. — Yerpo Eh? 08:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll look into Wikisource.Davidbena (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Membership in global group[edit]

I was wondering what the process is to request membership in the global OTRS group? I used to have the local permission in Commons. I don't have access to the permission queues but I do occasionally handle permission tickets in info-en, so now when I add an OTRS permission tag in Commons (or en-wp) I show up in the scary "OTRS ticket added by non-OTRS member" logs. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Shan't these "permission tickets in info-en" be actually moved to permission queues instead of being handled directly on info-en? --Base (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Mostly yes, but sometimes it's just easier to get them done quickly because they're in the quality queue or whatever. Also, sometimes it's not just a photograph release but more complicated stuff, and it would be disingenuous to tell them "hey I took care of X but for Y I just dumped it in another queue so please wait two to three weeks". §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If you regularly process permission tickets, it may be an option to ask an OTRS admin for access to the permission role. --Krd 09:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
That is what I did at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, and it went through smoothly (I only have access to info-sl and permissions-sl queues), althought they told me that the Bureaucrats' noticeboard would be a more appropriate place for such a request. — Yerpo Eh? 10:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd think otrswiki:Administrator requests would be the best place. --Krd 10:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Krd: I asked in the Common's administrators' noticeboard but they sent me to meta, on the basis that this is a global role and no longer local to Commons. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, both was wrong, please ask an OTRS admin to extend your access to the permissions queues as already said above. The global flag will follow then. --Krd 21:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Krd is correct. The global OTRS group is intended for those with permissions access. In order to gain permission's access you will need to request it at otrswiki:Administrator requests. Tiptoety talk 17:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Staff accounts[edit]


Checking the global accounts list, I see that WMF employees are using their declared personal accounts to access OTRS, or at least it is those accounts that defined as being in the 'OTRS member' group. Last year (I'm sure someone can provide a link) WMF management made a commitment that staff actions would be limited to declared staff accounts, namely those with WMF in the name to avoid any misunderstanding with the community when staff actions were taken.

As it is not possible for an employee to waive their duties under their contract as an employee when responding to an email directed to their employer, I believe it is inconsistent and potentially misleading for the same person to take public on-wiki actions in response to an email using their private account, whether this is marking an image with an OTRS template, or asking a local administrator to take action on their behalf.

Is there any plan to migrate the account rights to declared staff accounts? Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying it is not possible for volunteers who happen to also be staff/contractors/employees to answer info/permissions mail as a volunteer? Because that's plain wrong. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 02:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
No, that is not what I said. I see no impediment to employees volunteering their time regardless of the name of their account.
Emails to OTRS are addressed to and quite clearly are the public writing to the WMF. If an employee wishes to work in their free time as a volunteer then that's fantastic. This does not mean that they are waiving their duties under their contract when dealing with correspondence to their employer. As I said, WMF management made a commitment that employees would use clearly identified employee accounts. As it is legally impossible for an employee of the WMF to answer WMF directed correspondence without being an employee at that moment, it makes sense for employees to stick to using their employee accounts even when generously providing their time for free.
If they are taking action when being paid as an employee, as doubtless many are, then there is no excuse to use personal accounts.
Day rate contractors may be a specific issue that would need clearer policy from the WMF to interpret. Based on my knowledge of UK law, I expect that any contractor who, say, replied on OTRS to a member of the public while acting as a volunteer but was under contract at that time, would expose the WMF to precisely the same risk of a lawsuit or a claim under their professional liability as if they were a full time employee. Such a risk does not exist for volunteers with no contract with the WMF, as the risk is entirely the volunteer's. -- (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this statement "As it is legally impossible for an employee of the WMF to answer WMF directed correspondence without being an employee at that moment" factual? Is there a clause in the WMF employee contract or in their employee handbook that states this? Otherwise, why assume that is true? Why can't someone employed by the WMF have an identity and ability to deal with Wikimedia outside their job. It should be simple for someone in the office to ask their HR department to clarify this one way or the other. -- Avi (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, along with interpreting the existing WMF commitment to use clearly named staff accounts where to do otherwise causes confusion. Perhaps someone more familiar with the WMF HR structure could ping appropriately? -- (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you happen to know what WMF puts in all of its contracts (employment or otherwise, also note WMF is able to contract an organisation/company to have work done, and might not have a legal agreement directly with the employee who gets assigned to do it), or are you just guessing? --Krenair (talkcontribs) 02:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not claim to know more than WMF HR, neither do I think it fair to put me on trial for asking a question. I apologise if you feel that raising this question creates a problem in some way, this is not my intention. Avi's approach seems sensible to me. -- (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bug - Notifications from the otrswiki to closed accounts[edit]

Bug submitted at phabricator:T89789 - an OTRS admin should probably comment on it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a bug within OTRS but an issue with MediaWiki (and every private wiki I assume). The bug will be updated (I'm told it's a duplicate). Thanks for the note. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yup, marked as a duplicate. It's just something that's been a low-level annoyance to me for a while, since you can't unsubscribe from the emails if your account is closed. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Photos from Ilgar Jafarov[edit]

Dear OTRS users,

I know professional photographer Ilgar Jafarov personnaly. He gave me a permission to upload all his photos into Commons under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International liscence. On 17th of March he wrote an e-mail to address from his own address ( In this letter he wrote that he gave a permission to upload all his photos under liscence above (showing two sites with several examples).

Could you please provide a ticket number which will cover all his photos.

Best regards, --Interfase (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, according to standard procedure, the copyright owner should have received the answer containing the reference number to the e-mail address he wrote from. Did you ask him? — Yerpo Eh? 12:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)