Commons:Requests and votes

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This project page in other languages:
Deutsch · English · español · português · [ edit ]

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!

How and where to apply for additional user rights on Commons[edit]

All applications made on the above pages are automatically transcluded onto this page.

How to comment and vote[edit]

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 Symbol support vote.svg Support votes or Symbol oppose vote.svg 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.

Requests for Oversight rights[edit]

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.

  • 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.

No current requests.

Requests for CheckUser rights[edit]

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

  • 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.

No current requests.

Requests for bureaucratship[edit]

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

  • 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.

No current requests.

Requests for adminship[edit]

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

  • 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.

Martin Urbanec[edit]


Martin Urbanec (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 17:19, (UTC)

Hello everyone,

my name is Martin Urbanec, and I am mainly active at the Czech Wikipedia, where I serve as an admin, bureaucrat and CheckUser (used to be an arbitrator as well). Globally, I serve as a Wikimedia Steward. You can also know me from the Wikimedia Technical community (see Phabricator), mainly focused on site requests.

If promoted, I would like to directly deal with cross wiki abusers that often make their way to Wikimedia Commons, help the counter vandalism unit, and also help to decrease the backlog Commons has. Given I am also an OTRS agent, I would also like to use the bit to undelete images with a late-delivered permission in OTRS. I am also happy to lend my hand with whatever needs to be done, and my RfA isn't limited to those fields.

I have general knowledge about the copyright law (mainly in Czech Republic's copyright code), as well as Commons's licensing requirements, and I believe I can make use of such knowledge as a Commons admin.

If there is anything else you would like to know, please let me know, I am happy to answer any questions.

Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 1st vote and first comment. This might sound similar to YouTube comments. // Eatcha (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - obviously a competent user from their permissions elsewhere ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 17:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rschen7754 18:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -Killarnee (CTU) 18:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why not Martin? You are clearly a trusted and helpful user. T CellsTalk 19:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --- FitIndia Talk 19:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have positive experiences of interacting with Martin Urbanec from SWAT. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Majority of your contributions are reverts and global renaming. You do very little maintenance. I'd prefer a candidate who's engaged with Commons, not just experiences from different projects. 1989talk 20:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Addendum Tagging plain text and signature images as no permission? Not good... 1989talk 20:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed, I should be more careful with the "select all" feature when doing bulk tasks. Reverted myself for the signatures. I think the other images does not fall below the treshold of originality, and as such, needs a release. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Like this one? 1989talk 20:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    How about this one? 1989talk 21:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    It isn't purely text, someone had to think to create both images. It may look simple, but it might also took hours to create (I mean, for the original author). Moreover, both images are probably not their own work anyway. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    That doesn't matter. Both images + more you tagged are clearly in the public domain. 1989talk 21:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per 1989 and your OTRS work is absolutely unacceptable. I'm greatly concerned, for example, that you do not know the difference between the subject of the photo and the author of a photo. Copyright initially vests with the latter, yet you accepted the OTRS from the former for File:Ragy Thomas photo.jpg, with no evidence of a transfer (the OTRS interface has a template explicitly for such a scenario!) For File:Marieme 2020.jpg you accepted a ticket with no contact or evidence of permission from the author. I do not trust that you understand basic aspects of copyright or our COM:EVID requirements. Эlcobbola talk 21:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your vote. However, I disagree with your evaluation. As far as I can see, the first photo's permission was sent by the noted author (Eric Egerton) rather than subject (Ragy Thomas). Moreover, this photo is very likely to be a corporate authorship, and in many jurisdictions, the employer holds the permission by law, with no specific need for transfer. That is why the permission always needs to contain a claim of authorship. In the second case, the photo's permission was indeed sent by the noted author, from their personal mailbox. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      • You're correct in the first regard; I referenced the wrong image and as I cannot find the one to which I intended to refer, I've struck that issue and am happy to consider it thus non-existent and my error--my apologies. I find, however, your comment regarding corporate authorship concerning. Corporations generally do not keep professional photographers on staff (especially small ones like Sprinklr) and independent contractors would generally retain intellectual copyrights. That image notwithstanding, you've not addressed the second image and, as supplemental concerns: for File:Mathias Kiss.jpg you accepted permission from a person who is not the author stated in the metadata; you accept images (e.g., File:Jos.Jindra Kunvald 1958 - 30 km b.jpg) from people claiming images are from "family archives" with no evidence that 1) a family member was the photographer and 2) that the sender of the correspondence was the heir who inherited the intellectual property. There are tickets from a theatre formed in 1990 purporting to license images that appear from the turn of the 20th century. Etc. Again, I am concerned that you do not have an adequate appreciation for parties who genuinely hold copyrights and of our evidence requirements for the same. Эlcobbola talk 22:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Hello, I did react to the second image - I said that the release sent to OTRS was sent by the author as noted in the Commons file. Moreover, the release was signed by the author.
        • Ad File:Mathias_Kiss.jpg, the file doesn't contain any metadata, but is large enough so it is plausible it is the original. I wasn't able to find the image elsewhere, and the release doesn't have any obvious issues. It is correct the OTRS agents can never be 110% sure about the image's status, because copyright law allows for so many possibilities - and in most (if not all) cases, only the author can be sure about the copyright status. The sense of releases is to shift the responsibility to someone else. It is similar to licenses in the real world. If someone claims they are an author, offers you a license, you pay for it, and use the work, you live in good faith your usage is authorized. Of course, it is possible you paid a frauder, but it allows you to shift the damages elsewhere. This applies to other listed cases as well.
        • Ad File:Jos.Jindra_Kunvald_1958_-_30_km_b.jpg, the release does actually state "I, Name, birth certificate number XXX, heir of copyright, agree...". Obviously, that may or may not be true - in those cases, OTRS agents have to more or less rely on the individuals sending the release they are correct - as agents are not law enforcements, they can virtually never be absolutely sure, regardless how good permission you show.
        • Ad File:Divadlo_Tábor_Oskar_Nedbal.jpg, I admit there was a tiny mistake on my end (the release states "I, author", while it should likely say "I, representative of the copyright holder"), but the release is otherwise fine. You are not right the theatre was formed in 1990. The theatre exists there since at least 1840, see cs:Divadlo_Tábor, or even the link you posted. As any theatre, the theatre in Tábor changed names over time, and in 1990, it was renamed to Oskar Nedbal Theatre, as a sign of appreciation to Nedbal. Change of names doesn't affect the corporation itself, it is still one corporation, having all the rights it had before, including the picture's copyright.
        • --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've thought about this and feel there is a degree of badge collecting here. I'm guessing current activity levels will reduce after this RfA ends. --Herby talk thyme 11:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm with Herby. Stewarts only should be in seldom and special exceptions become Commons Admins. Only if they really very active here. and less than 9.000 Edits in 5+ years is definetly not enogh to show enough knowledge in the here required fields of work. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have very good experience with Martin from cswiki. I don't agree that Martin is just a "badge-collector". — Draceane talkcontrib. 15:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Herby --DCB (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, of course!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Trusted, LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I personally don't agree being Martin termed as Badge or Hat collector. They have been quick and helpful when it comes in Steward work and I believe given an opportunity they will do their best here. Also this rights will help them in their x-wiki work. Best wishes --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 08:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. —Hasley 16:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support In generally I feel that they will be a reasonable admin. I am a little scared about the zealous answers to the copyright questions below. I would not want admins to fail to see context and to always assume copyright violation when a photo is made in an inaccessible interrior. A lot of times it can mean a violation, but far from always. Hopefully they will grow. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I wanted to support because your steward work is excellent but a basic understanding of copyright law seems lacking. Effort has nothing to do with copyright for example. At least not in Europe and the US. I don't expect admins to understand every aspect of copyright law (no admin does) but I do expect them to be familiar with our basic policies, guidelines and help pages. Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not convinced + per others. Some of your uploads seem not properly licensed, such as [1], [2] --A.Savin 15:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Experienced with the tools and language skills is a plus. So, opposing votes are not convincing. Érico (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question You are patrolling new uploads, and come across a photo which is claimed to be "own work". Under what conditions would you accept the claim without further proof, and when would you demand more evidence? In the latter case, please list the different kinds of evidence that the uploader might need to supply depending on the situation. -- King of ♥ 04:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Hello, thank you for the question. Firstly, I would search the photo using the "search by image" functionality of Google Images. If found elsewhere, I would always require a release. If not found elsehwere, I would accept the photo if it looks like "likely" it is their own work - it seems shootable according to the information present in the image. For portrait photos of well-known persons, especially if they look professional, I would generally require a release sent to the OTRS, as it is unlikely a random person on the street would be able to shoot that photo. Similary, photos shooted in publicly-unavailable interior places would generally warrant a release. In another words, as long as the author's authorship claim seems to be plausible, I would generally not have an issue with patrolling the photo. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question A monument in the United States was built and placed in a public area in 1948, and the sculptor died in 1965. How would you determine whether photos of the monument can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? -- King of ♥ 04:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Hello, thank you for your question. Freedom of panorama concept in the Unites States applies only to "architectual works" in public areas, where architectual work is defined as "design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings", and building as "humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions". Those definitions exclude monuments, statues and similar. Hence, it is necessary to assess if the monument is still protected by copyright, or if it is in the public domain. In the United States, works first published before 1964 (which means the monument you mentioned is in this group) are protected for 28 years after publication, unless the copyright owner filled for renewal between the 27th and 28th year of copyright term. According to what you wrote, the author died before they could fill for renewal. As such, the right to renewal is automatically vested in their heirs. [3]. If author's heirs did fill for a renewal, the monument is still copyrighted (and as such, inadmissible unless a release is sent to OTRS). If they did not (which is likely, but I cannot be 100% sure), the work is in public domain, and can stay at Commons. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Good answer, but incomplete. What else must the copyright holder have done to retain their copyright, besides registering and renewing with the Copyright Office? (Hint: At the very beginning.) -- King of ♥ 13:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Sorry. They would need to include a copyright notice, which was required prior 1989. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
          • You are right that pre-1989 works in general require a copyright notice, but the situation is a bit different for public art. Since 1978, placing a work in public view is no longer considered publication; the copyright holder must have authorized the sale or distribution of copies of the work to the public. So in the vast majority of cases, only pre-1978 public art can be public domain due to no notice, as most post-1978 public art is considered unpublished. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. -- King of ♥ 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the clarification. According to the page you linked, putting a monument in public area would be considered publishing prior to 1978, so I feel the copyright notice should be there for the monument to be covered. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Selfish question just for my own information. Is it "a thing" that there are statues erected prior to 1978 that have little copyright notices at the bottom somewhere? That seems somewhat counter-intuitive. GMGtalk 12:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)



MGA73 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 10:50, (UTC)

Hello. In 2009 I was successful in my RfA. I edited a lot for some years and I was very active in cleaning up files in wikis around the world. So I edited many wikis and was admin at Commons,,, and many other wikis. I was also OTRS and checkuser at A few years later I became inactive, and my admin status was removed in August 2016.

In 2020 I started editing again and I was thinking that I did not want to be admin this time. And that went fine for some time. I keep thinking oh I could have closed this DR or I could have deleted this copyvio or this file was transferred badly I could have deleted it and moved it correctly or I could have fixed this problem by splitting history. I was thinking of writing "You would be surprised if you knew how many files that are moved badly to Commons" but knowing Commons I also know that it is really a surprise at Commons.

In short. If you want me back I'm ready! MGA73 (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)



Shortcut: COM:LRR

Requests for license reviewer rights[edit]

Ainz Ooal Gown[edit]

Requests for permission to run a bot[edit]

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.

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bots/Archive.

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.

CH-Bot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: NoFWDaddress (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Applying this user rename request, limited to the File namespace to update the OTRS and (Flickr)review templates or any other relvant information using my previous two usernames (~800 edits)

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): As prefered by the Commons community

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes, to hide the ~800 edits from watchlists

Programming language(s): AWB

NoFWDaddress (d) 15:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


Requests for comment[edit]

Centralized discussion

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch