Commons talk:License review/requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive (Flickr review)
1, 2, 3


Hello fellow reviewers and admins. It is nice that we have been able to make "interviewing", or questioning, a common practice for license review requests. It gives more confidence to the person who votes on a candidate. However, it has come to my attention that we are making an increase in the number of questions being asked, and has been escalating since we have started this tradition. I suggest we all limit ourselves to one or two questions (and then more if the candidate needs more questioning) and avoid question spamming. Let's remind ourselves that this isn't an RFA :). Suggestions or feedback welcomed. --ZooFari 03:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I do agree. It is getting more and more like sitting for an examination... --Ben.MQ (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Questions make it easier for us since we don't have to scan all the user's contribs. But I have to admit, I asked too many. What should I do with a user with 70 edits? -- RE rillke questions? 08:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably just oppose. Correctly answering questions is not a substitute for demonstrating a commitment to constructive editing. A handful of edits and half a dozen open-book answers can be quickly put together by someone intent on doing damage. (And as unlikely as that sounds, I've seen people go to far greater lengths than that to wreak havoc.) Not that one should assume bad faith in any given instance, but license reviewers are supposed to be trusted users, and trust isn't built in a day. LX (talk, contribs) 09:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree, trust is based on the actions of the past. --Neozoon (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Previously questions weren't asked at all, and requests were decided entirely on candidates' record and experience. I don't have anything against asking a few questions, though I agree that they shouldn't be over relied upon. CT Cooper · talk 21:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I have limitations to my reliance on questions. If the question seems rather simple yet the candidate fails to answer correctly, I would assume the person did not read the guide page or is simply inexperienced. But that usually seems obvious at first glance judging on contributions and edit count. However, if a candidate who seems experienced does not know the answer to a non-obvious question (or answers wrong), I would just support as long as an explanation to the question is given for the candidate's future reference. That's my main belief of why the practice is beneficial, so that we can clarify to the candidate when needed. --ZooFari 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I just checked the archive and some of them seem like the inquisition. I remember promoting someone once who had no supports simply because he had no opposes. Things have changed. fr33kman 09:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed requests[edit]

I would actually suggest to keep the closed requests here for a few days before moving them to archive. Easier for people to check back on the status... --Ben.MQ (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: This page is not that active that hurrying is required. -- RE rillke questions? 20:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: OK, good. Before I am informed about this, I have archived this request. I have also read the discussion above, so I think this is somewhat necessary--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: sounds good. Warfieldian (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving closed requests[edit]

I'd suggest to always add the name of the user and the outcome when archiving (on both, this page and the archive). E.g. (User:ExampleUser (successful)). This will ease later look ups without scanning the whole revision history. -- RE rillke questions? 17:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Requests will be open for a minimum of two days[edit]

Can we please stick to this principle? I've seen a lot of requests closed sooner than that lately by several different users. LX (talk, contribs) 20:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think we need to wait for two days for OTRS members. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I support this procedure. The last occasions may be triggered by the listing at COM:RFR. The right may be assigned before but the request should be kept open for 2 days so users could comment or ask questions during this time. -- Rillke(q?) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. I was surprised as well to see so many requests which were closed much sooner. Trijnsteltalk 23:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it makes little sense to have a community vetting process where many don't have a chance to review the candidates even if they want to. On OTRS candidates, I see it as all or nothing - if they are trusted enough to become license reviewers without delay, then they might as well bypass this process and become reviewers automatically. If that isn't the case, they should be dealt with like any other candidate. CT Cooper · talk 21:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do stick to two days. There is no need for hurry. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Another 24 hour promotion today, is the consensus established here and previously on a two day waiting period going to be observed or not? CT Cooper · talk 21:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And it continues. Of the eight nominations started during the last 30 days, one (1) stayed open for 48 hours or more (4 hours and 6 minutes more, to be precise). There are evidently several users who do not believe the documented procedures should apply. That's fine. You're entitled to that opinion. But instead of making up new, undocumented rules as you go, please specify what you think the procedure should be like so that we can agree on how things should be done. Aside from simply not giving enough time for people to comment, the current state of affairs undermines the credibility of the license review process. How can we expect people to trust that license reviewers follow the documented procedures for license review if we don't even follow our own procedures for how license reviewers are appointed? LX (talk, contribs) 18:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How do u define 2 days... if we agree with 48h that's ok if we just say aprx 2 days then 4 h earlier is acceptable.--Sanandros (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
First, you're understating the magnitude of the problem. On average, the nominations during the last month were closed after less than 34 hours, with the median being 10½ hours short of the supposed minimum. Secondly, the term minimum is a lower bound, which by definition does not allow for approximations falling below it. LX (talk, contribs) 09:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I take a wild guess and say that either the people doing this either aren't reading this discussion or aren't thinking about the time limit when approving? Perhaps an edit notice saying "Please ensure that you've waited 48 hours after the request was filed." is in order? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that might get the necessary attention. CT Cooper · talk 21:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Or you just place a red box next to the aproval button...--Sanandros (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I did notify Armbrust and Morning Sunshine of this discussion on their user talk pages, and both have been active since, so if they're not reading this discussion, it's only because they're not reading their user talk pages either. I'd already talked to Sven Manguard about it, and Sreejithk2000 has already commented above, so that covers everyone who closed nominations in less than 48 hours during the last month. LX (talk, contribs) 07:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know it would be a problem. But as it is, I won't do it again. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I did it once and I got tripped up because License Review is the only process on the page that has a built in waiting period. The issue here is that you've got it on a page full of things that have no time cushion to them, so it's rather easy to get tripped up. Personally I think that the best option would be to put a timer on each request, like what is done at RfAs. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to COM:RFR when talking about this page? If so, we could simply add a note below the heading License reviewer there. -- Rillke(q?) 11:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

As there have again been several (very) early closes recently, are there any objections to making an editnotice reality? I'd suggest using the following code:

<div class="adminonly licensereviewer" style="display:none;">{{fmbox|type=editnotice|image=[[File:Cmbox deletion.png|40px|link=]]|text=Please do not use the "snowball clause" to promote users before the stated ''Scheduled to end'' date.}}</div>

Which renders as:

BTW, this page should have never been transcluded on COM:RFR in the first place, and is no longer since I have "moved" it to COM:VOTE.    FDMS  4    17:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No objections from me. It would be helpful to alert passing admins and asking users to wait 48 hours to give all parties a chance to comment is not unreasonable and reflects prior consensus. CT Cooper · talk 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, it's not like 48 hours is a long wait. I haven't even had the chance to vote on some of the recent requests because they've been closed so quickly. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Lewis Hulbert. The last few requests seem to me to have opened and closed between the times I login (which is pretty much everyday). Also, I hope you don't mind but I think this should be a separate section to distinguish it from discussion in 2012. Green Giant (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think adding a line that snowball closures are forbidden to the page is enough. Edit notice seems a bit... :/ hm... --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Armbrust, you stated above that "I won't do it again", and yet you did. Would you care to explain? LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the history of this, it seems likely there would be a consensus (even though most 'snow' closes seem like they would end up as approved in the long run) to revert such closes, and remove the userright until the time limit actually ran out. Comments? Revent (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that we warn people who speedy close often and even revoce their flags if they continue this behaviour. Natuur12 (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Natuur12. Imho snowball clause is fine when someone with 10 edits requests the right with the reason "hi, i like to help!" (to speedy close as not done - avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy) but not for standard promotions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, that's why the editnotice says "promote" and not "close". @Revent: Only admins can revert promotions, and I guess there is a high inhibition threshold when it comes to reverting something that would have to be redone ~24 hours later. That's why I think that an editnotice only visible to users who can close requests is the best solution.    FDMS  4    12:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Support the complete ban on snow closes only. The case with the 10 edits mentioned by Steinsplitter isn't really a snow close, it's rather a notnow closure. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 08:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:License review policy[edit]

Hi, Some stuff has been discussed a lot of times, and the outcome was always the same. But there was always lack of clarity by non-involved users. I think it is tame to create a officially policy. I created a draft at Commons:License review policy.
Please vote/discuss here
Best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)