Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. |
This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.
Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
|
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
- Commons:Email templates
- {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)
Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN
Uploads without licence
[edit]About 3/4 of the permissions we receive from France and Spain refer to images without licence tag. This means considerable extra work for VRT, because we need to remove the complaint from the User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense and add the appropriate licence each time after having checked and approved the permission.
This has been going on for months now. Is there really nothing that can be done about it? It should be prevented that files get uploaded without licence tag. Mussklprozz (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is that we have so many accepted licenses that having a filter to prevent this is not really possible. If we decide that new users are only allowed to use the regular cc licenses we could easily create a filter. GPSLeo (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- How about a filter that forbids to leave the licence empty? This would eliminite 80% of the problem cases, since most users decide for cc-by-sa anyway. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'd suggest not to solve this by edit filter but by changing the upload interface. But it has to be found out at first which of the dozen ways for uploading creates this problem. Krd 12:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to be the upload wizard. See e.g. File:Laura Urbina.jpg and File:Jorge León Gustà.jpg. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the issue comes from the Upload Wizard. I mentioned that a few months back, and I am surprised that it has not been fixed yet. Yann (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the bug that selecting the permission option removes the license is still present. Just tested here File:Testfile2.png. @Sannita (WMF) could you have a look why this is still not resolved? GPSLeo (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, on April 13 of this year, I edited Commons:Uploading works by a third party to describe the necessary workaround for this on uploads, because Sannita let me know he did not expect the fix to occur promptly. I still have no idea why a fix to this would be difficult. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo Unfortunately, the Structured Content team is no longer active, and it is still unclear who owns UploadWizard in the latest re-organization. I'll keep pushing for a solution, if you would be so kind to send me the Phab ticket, I can try to find someone to work on it. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- The ticket should be phab:T391600. And the WMF did drop the maintenance of a core tool again? Is there an official statement why this happened? This is exactly what was the main criticism by the community in the open letters and also in the community call series. GPSLeo (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo AFAIK an announcement on Commons is in the making, but I have no news on when it will be published. About the ticket, I reached out to the devs, and they have it on their rader, but it's going to take at least another couple of weeks before it gets addressed, due to other priorities at the moment. I'll keep you posted, but please feel free to ping me here or in private about it, just to be sure it doesn't slip off my mind. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- is there any update on the announcement, can be more public than here Gnangarra 10:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Gnangarra no update, I pinged already in private the people behind it Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Sannita (WMF): Plewase follow up on this. --Krd 06:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd Still no update, I'm trying to find who can take care of this, but it's hard at the moment. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Almost 2 months and no answers from WMF? All we are getting is the sound of silence. Once again Commons is kept in the dark. Bidgee (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd and Bidgee: I believe there is literally no one from WMF currently assigned to the Upload Wizard. I gather that includes Sannita no longer being assigned this, either. - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Quiddity: Can you help out? Krd 09:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- I heard about Commons:Unsupported Tools Working Group, maybe they can help out? cc @Sohom Datta. Nemoralis (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Sannita (WMF): is there any way volunteers can work on the Upload Wizard? - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel I'm afraid I don't have the answer to that. I'm pushing one team to adopt this bug and solving it, but so far no luck. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Sannita (WMF): is there any way volunteers can work on the Upload Wizard? - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, the problem and the workaround are documented at COM:THIRD#How they can grant a license (and how you upload) step 12. If you need to give people an explanation, it is probably better to aim them there than to custom-write an explanation in each case. It would also be great if we could start doing translations of COM:THIRD: it seems to be stable and heavily used. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd and Bidgee: I believe there is literally no one from WMF currently assigned to the Upload Wizard. I gather that includes Sannita no longer being assigned this, either. - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Almost 2 months and no answers from WMF? All we are getting is the sound of silence. Once again Commons is kept in the dark. Bidgee (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd Still no update, I'm trying to find who can take care of this, but it's hard at the moment. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Sannita (WMF): Plewase follow up on this. --Krd 06:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Gnangarra no update, I pinged already in private the people behind it Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- is there any update on the announcement, can be more public than here Gnangarra 10:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo AFAIK an announcement on Commons is in the making, but I have no news on when it will be published. About the ticket, I reached out to the devs, and they have it on their rader, but it's going to take at least another couple of weeks before it gets addressed, due to other priorities at the moment. I'll keep you posted, but please feel free to ping me here or in private about it, just to be sure it doesn't slip off my mind. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- The ticket should be phab:T391600. And the WMF did drop the maintenance of a core tool again? Is there an official statement why this happened? This is exactly what was the main criticism by the community in the open letters and also in the community call series. GPSLeo (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the bug that selecting the permission option removes the license is still present. Just tested here File:Testfile2.png. @Sannita (WMF) could you have a look why this is still not resolved? GPSLeo (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the issue comes from the Upload Wizard. I mentioned that a few months back, and I am surprised that it has not been fixed yet. Yann (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to be the upload wizard. See e.g. File:Laura Urbina.jpg and File:Jorge León Gustà.jpg. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'd suggest not to solve this by edit filter but by changing the upload interface. But it has to be found out at first which of the dozen ways for uploading creates this problem. Krd 12:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- How about a filter that forbids to leave the licence empty? This would eliminite 80% of the problem cases, since most users decide for cc-by-sa anyway. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
VRT ticket is 2025081310007167
[edit]How does one attempt to return an image to a person's Wikipedia page? I loaded an image of Dame Louise Richardson and it was removed for copyright violation. Looking forward to your reply. Ronald Sexton (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- The file will be restored when we verify the copyright holder. Nemoralis (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Just checked the ticket, they didn't respond to our questions since August. Nemoralis (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking, is there any way to expedite the process? I noticed on the VRT page they give a 35-day notice. August is much much longer than 35 days notice. Ronald Sexton (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- We need an answer on ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking, is there any way to expedite the process? I noticed on the VRT page they give a 35-day notice. August is much much longer than 35 days notice. Ronald Sexton (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Just checked the ticket, they didn't respond to our questions since August. Nemoralis (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Files erroneously(?) changed to CC BY-SA after verification
[edit]Hello,
I worked with two photographers to get their photos uploaded here on Wikimedia with a CC BY 4.0 license. After uploading the files and directing them to email the VRT with the CC BY 4.0 template provided by the release generator tool, however, I noticed that the licenses were changed to CC BY-SA alongside the file page edits which added the verification checkmark and ticket number.
I thought maybe it was possible that perhaps the photographers changed their mind and communicated in their email chain to the VRT to have it with a SA provision instead, but I reached back out to one of them, and they tell me that they didn't request anything like that and simply sent the CC BY release.
Can someone look into why the licenses were changed to be CC BY-SA, and if it was done in error, to change them to CC BY 4.0?
Here are the affected files:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Marcos_Macuahuitl,_Museo_del_Templo_Mayor.jpg , ticket:2025101110004954
and
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spiro_Mounds_Obsidian_Scraper_with_Mesoamerican_origin,_Dorsal,_Craig_Skinner_of_the_Northwest_Research_Obsidian_Studies_Laboratory.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spiro_Mounds_Obsidian_Scraper_with_Mesoamerican_origin,_Ventral,_Craig_Skinner_of_the_Northwest_Research_Obsidian_Studies_Laboratory.jpg , both with ticket:2025110610101955
I'm not sure who the VRT agent was, as requested by the page notice here, but the verification was added by @Krd
MajoraZ (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- JFYI, the -SA thing is a bit more restrictive that only having CC-By, as it mandates that any posterior usage of the imagery is also to be done under CC-By-SA. It shows for, at least, a somewhat perpetuated advertising namedropping for the benefit of these photographers, so from the viewpoint of creators, the CC-By-SA combination (which is the most restrictive allowed on Commons) is often better than only CC-By. Of course, if the creators morally want more freedom for their works, they are totally free to imperatively request the switch to CC-By, otherwise, their may benefit more from keeping the -SA. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)