This is the requests and votes page, a centralized place where you can keep track of ongoing user requests, and where you can comment and leave your vote. Any user is welcome to comment on these requests, and any logged in user is welcome to vote.
When requesting rights that do not need the support of the community (e.g. filemover) please go to Commons:Requests for rights!
Any logged-in user is welcome to vote and to comment on the requests below. Votes from unregistered users are not counted, but comments may still be made. If the nomination is successful, a bureaucrat will grant the relevant rights. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.
It is preferable if you give reasons both for Support votes or Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.
Purge the cache. Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.
Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Reason: I am writing to request permission to review licenses. Having been around for almost two active years now, I believe I have a good grasp of Commons policies on this matter. My involvement in deletion request processes has been more active in the past, I admit, but my knowledge in this area remains strong. For instance, I'd like to mention this deletion request, where I conducted research and was able to conclusively prove that the image was a clear case of copyright violation. Another example is this deletion request, where, through my off-wiki efforts, I was able to ensure that almost 400 high-profile images related to the coronation of King Charles were unequivocally kept. Therefore, I believe I could contribute to the project as a license reviewer. Questions are always welcome if they are needed to clarify any point. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scheduled to end: 04:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (the earliest)
Reason: Hello everyone, I'm here to request license reviewer rights. I'm currently a file mover, patroller, and rollbacker on the Commons, and I've made over 18,000 edits (including 4,800+ deleted) so far. Along with that, I've patrolled over 2000 edits and moved over 700 files. I've been keeping an eye on new images and pages for quite some time now, and I've tagged lots and lots of files for deletion. I believe I am knowledgeable enough to review files, and I'd be more than happy to help with the backlog. Regards, Waqar💬07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scheduled to end: 07:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
Question Thank you for applying and offering to help more. I see that you do a *lot* of speedy deletion requests, mostly for user photos, and have been asked recently to slow down and assumegoodfaith edits, and it is a bit odd because your only upload is also a user photo. So, my question is: can you provide links to any copyright issues that you have dealt with on Commons, like deletion requests due to bad license. Thank you. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the list. With license reviewer permission these files (no license, no source, TOO) would be dealt with in the same way as DRs, so my question was more related to "knowledgeable enough to review files" and if there are any specific types of license related files in the backlog that you intend to process. Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 17:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I appreciate your clarification. I'd say, if I'm granted the reviewer right, I'd start off in the Category:FLICKR first, focusing on quality over quantity. This would allow me to gain a complete and comprehensive understanding of the different license types, and as I gain more experience, I might explore other categories as well, such as YouTube. I know it's a great responsibility, and I promise to be very careful with it. Thank you. Waqar💬18:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that convinces me you're qualified for the right. I mean, while you have provided some links, these don't necessarily show you're proficient in copyright matters, that's why I am opposing for now while you acquire more experience. Bedivere (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: I answered every question that I was asked to the best of my knowledge, and I'm sorry I couldn't convince you. I make thousands of edits every month and constantly gaining more experience, and copyright is an area I'm particularly interested in. I always come across lots of files with different license issues, and I was so eager to review them while I was patrolling. I have dealt with lots of images with obvious copyright violations that ultimately got deleted. Anyway, it's ultimately your decision, and I do respect that. I'll keep learning and improving. Thank you! Waqar💬06:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same, also opposing for now. With only one upload here it is unlikely that user has encountered unexpected copyright issues and gained experienced that way. Great work tagging bad uploads, and good to see COM:TOO understanding. However, please re-apply later with more experience. Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sikander: Thanks for the feedback! While I understand that I haven't uploaded much myself, I've gained a lot of experience by patrolling other users' uploads.
I'll definitely re-apply for the right after gaining more experience. In the meantime, I'll keep doing my best to contribute to copyright-related issues.
Neutral while they are prolific in tagging bad files for deletion, I am concerned by the lack of uploads. If granting for a few months as a trial is in the question, I'd support that. Queen of Hearts (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.
Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Convert TIFF files to JPEG files and link both. As requested at Convert Commons:Bots/Work requests § Category:Photographs by Carol M. Highsmith to JPEG. The TIFF files at Category:Photographs by Carol M. Highsmith are [recursively] loaded into the bot and converted to JPEG using Wand, a Python binding for ImageMagick. The Exif metadata is copied over using PyExifTool, a Python binding for ExifTool by Phil Harvey. The metadata groups that are being copied over, that I've discovered so far, are: Author, Camera, Composite, ExifIFD, GPS, ICC_Profile, IFD0, IPTC, Location and XMP-crs. The entire metadata can be copied indiscriminately if that is preferred rather a selection. The new JPEG file will have the same wikitext as the TIFF file, with an addition of {{{other_versions}}} gallery and but a removal of categories such as Uploaded by xyz user as it will be retained in the TIFF file page. The TIFF file page is edited with a link to the JPEG in the gallery and all the categories are removed with the addition of Category:LC TIF images with categorized JPGs. If duplicates are found, using the checksum, the page is skipped over and marked for manual verification and linking using gallery. The OpenCV strategy as described at User:Fæ/LOC#Housekeeping is rather out of my reach. The bot is being written using Pywikibot and is intended to run on Toolforge.
Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous
I'm not able to understand the issue we are trying to solve. All previews of these gigantic TIFFs load just fine for me (in under 2 seconds). I do not expencience much difference as compared to JPEGs. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:EugeneZelenko @User:Kotavusik Agree that following the standard naming pattern would be good. My bot recently acquired renaming/moving capability. But moving to another title and moving into another cat AFAIK cannot be done in a single request. So my bot will have to run through the ca 34'000 files two times anyway. Can you give the flag and approve the recategorization now? For the renaming I would like to hear an opinion of the uploader. Plus, many of those files are used, thus renaming them would require subsequent editing of other wikis, partially of such where I do NOT have a bot flag yet. Anyway, I will have to find out a way how to read out automatically on what wikis the files are used. But it might be a good idea to add sorting hints/keys when recategorizing, and do this not only on moved files, but also on those that are already in Category:Kotava pronunciation. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same bare word may be used in other language with different pronunciation, so this is whole point of using language code prefix (this convention came from Wikipedia and as far as I notice, more widespread) or suffix. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we put Avk- in front of the kotava words, then the kotava audio files already present on Wiktionary would need to be replaced. Kotavusik (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Bjh21 @User:EugeneZelenko @User:Kotavusik I definitely support the idea of mass renaming adding the prefix Avk-. Still how should I rename 34'000 files if I cannot rename the 2 most broken ones? The renaming in wikis where the file are used will be done by bot (CommmonsDelinker or my bot or other bot), it is NOT a task for Kotavusik. An additional advantage of this mass renaming is that the ling= parameter on eo wiktinoary will not be needed anymore, since the modul is able to read out the language from filenames following one of two supported standards. Can I get the approval and flag for the recategorization now? The mass renaming needs further discussion, but is sufficiently independent from the recategorization. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49: The two renaming requests that I declined were submitted under criterion 3 (obvious error) with no further explanation. Criterion 3 covers factual errors in filenames, but neither "JustaxoAudio files in Kotava.wav" nor "File:BakesikJen elparolo de vorto en Kotavao.wav" contains any factual error. However, the files might still be eligible for renaming under other criteria. You seem to have the co-operation of the original uploader, so maybe they could request that the files be renamed. That would allow you to use criterion 1 (original uploader request), which is very simple and doesn't require any consideration of the current filename. You might also be able to use criterion 2 (ambiguous name) or 4 (harmonizing names), but 2 would require case-by-case evaluation and I'm not sure 4 applies to pronunciation files. Whatever you choose, make sure that the bot records the criterion in the edit summary, preferably with an explanation of how it applies. --bjh21 (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any obstacles against approving the recategorization task? Should I make a separate request for the mass move task, or can it be approved here at same time or separately later? Taylor 49 (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. If they are used to illustrate wikidata entries, they should be sufficent to be marked as "prominent" here. Please tag these kind of edits from the bot with Special:Tags "BotSDC". This can be added during the editentity api call as an additional parameter. This will allow people to effectively filter these type of edits from their watchlist, if they wish to do so. --Schlurcher (talk)
Occasionally people add pictures like this to P18 (a park in this case). They are related to the person but not portraits. I am thinking how to exclude them. emijrp (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would need a new property "type of representation", that could be added as a qualifier to the Depict statements in Wikimedia Commons SDC for all images that are registered in Wikidata, and don't have a image (P18) property in Wikidata. Geert Van Pamel (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support votes or 
Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.
Granted. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Thank you for applying and offering to help more. I see that you do a *lot* of speedy deletion requests, mostly for user photos, and have been asked recently to slow down and assume good faith edits, and it is a bit odd because your only upload is also a user photo. So, my question is: can you provide links to any copyright issues that you have dealt with on Commons, like deletion requests due to bad license. Thank you. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral while they are prolific in tagging bad files for deletion, I am concerned by the lack of uploads. If granting for a few months as a trial is in the question, I'd support that. Queen of Hearts (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done no consensus for promotion at this time --Mazbel (Talk) 11:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On hold for the discussion linked -- DaxServer (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Centralized discussion
