Commons talk:Requests for rights

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Well, are fulfilled/rejected requests going to be archived somewhere or just removed? →Nagy 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Might as well archive them. Should we set it up for the bot? Rocket000 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need a bot for that, just making two archive's one archive for done and one for notdone Huib talk 21:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Aw, I already had it ready. :) Yeah, that sounds good. Rocket000 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone throw some links to the archives on the appropriate pages? Thx!... note that I was trying to see if I could create a more automatic way of doing the requests (via editnotice and the rfp template) but I didn't sort it out... I see the rest of you lot got it working! Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I quickly made something at Commons:Rollback/Approved and Commons:Rollback/Denied. Subpages by month can be added there perhaps. I also created Category:Commons rollback feature which I've added to the pages related to rollback, just as a sort of central category. It was a bit of a bold idea really, so feel free to revert if it isn't appropriate. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Since any admin can grant it, I wonder if we should (at least) ask admins to record that they granted (or took away) the right even if it was a direct request? Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What about requiring a link to the request in the log? I guess I would have no problem with it either way. Although, I can see where a page for logging why we removed rights would be useful. Rocket000 (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, two years later, I think archiving by a bot would be the most convenient option. --Leyo 15:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Minimum requirements?[edit]

I think we should be a bit more restrict when granting rollback. While most of the applying users are trusted, I don't think all of them need the rollback tool as such. If they're doing work as reverting vandalism/using the undo tool, and have a need for it, the user in question can be granted rollback. Otherwise I think we're going to get a big rollbacker group, and most of them not using it. Thoughts? --Kanonkas(talk) 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a big deal really. If they're active enough and are trusted, then there's no harm in granting the right. Chances are the person will need it at least a few times. Rollback is, in my opinion, no big deal in this regard. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Worth discussing for sure. To me if they are admins/rollbackers elsewhere & moderately active here it should be ok - the rights can be removed just as easily after all. Commons has always lacked RC watchers (which would probably be behind a number of the requests). --Herby talk thyme 14:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes i agree with Herby also again it not a big deal ,if people need it they should get, when not should drop it --Mardetanha talk 14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Also i think having a kinda minimum criteria would a good option too --Mardetanha talk 14:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mardetanha here, but well, currently it seems to boil down to kind of overflow as only a few will resign due to inactivity. Sure, last thing I want is an inactivity policy for rollbackers. Maybe we should just adopt a few specific restrictions? →Nagy 14:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy with something (50 contribs not taking you back more than...?). But in the end I'd remove without hesitation if they don't edit for a period - it really is no big issue so long as it is not used wrongly. --Herby talk thyme 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say that all active users (+40 edit's a month) can have rollback, I don't think it is that big deal. Huib talk 17:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a bit much to ask. Edit count is not the primary issue. There is a difference between understanding the tool, and being trusted to use it. While we trust them for some things, that does not mean they will use this tool in accordance with the guideline (AGF - but this is why I would like to see at least some experience before being assigned rollback). That is why I want to see at least some vandalism reverting, before we just grant it. As noted; previous experience on some other can help your request, but Commons experience is the primary one. Having a lot of inactive users is not something I'd like to see. Same applies to status.
As to X edits - I'll have to say I'd expect at least some vandalism reverting (as noted above), before granting. I know RC is accessible to all users, so I don't see much problem just doing some vandalism reverting here too. After being here for a while (some weeks?), and moderately active - I'd be happy to grant rollback. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kanonkas - no numbers please - folk just say "I've got that many so now give me...".
I'm less bothered by whether they deal with vandalim a lot though. I've have maybe 400 images on my watch list - if others have a few too & merely watch them it would help keep the vandalism to a really low level. --Herby talk thyme 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the last part - Yes, just a little bit is enough for me. However, if we start getting at a point where almost all kind of vandalism is being dealt with - we have a positive problem :) --Kanonkas(talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(←) Rollback is really really no big deal. I think our admins are competent enough to know if a user is experienced/trusted enough. As for requiring a need for it, well.. We don't have much vandalism here. And all the vandal fighters I know are admins anyway. I think if a Commons regular, with no history of edit-warring or anything, requests it for a reason like reverting their own mistakes I see no problem with giving it to them. Rocket000 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted above several times - It's not a big deal, and I do agree with that. However, I don't find it a big deal to discuss the minimum requirements - if you didn't mean so, I'm sorry. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm contributing to the discussion, aren't I? :) Rocket000 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if we make rules for rollback we make a big deal out of it. Rollback is a function so people can deal with vandalism in a more easy way. There are alternative way's and .js scripts to get the same result and everybody can get those. I think all people should be able to get rollback when the have shown that the are active on Commons and that the know what the rules are. When people show that aren't using rollback in a good way it can be revoked by every admin. I think we should do this one without a lot of rules, a administrator is elected by the communety and have there trust. So I believe that a admin can see if it is okay to give a user rollback or not. Please don't make a book full of rules around this. Remember it is wikiworld ;-) Huib talk 13:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my request, I don't actively seek out vandalism to rollback. Overall, Commons seems a much less vandalized place than, for example. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course. It just means that someone like me who isn't seeking it out isn't going to see a lot of it on a regular basis (thankfully!). I, and any other regular user, can do a rollback type of edit simply by going to the most recent edit prior to the vandal's edits and saving the old revision. Voila, an instant rollback-like edit. from what I understand about rollback after reading quite a bit about it before requesting the right, is that it reduces the number of clicks and it actually gentler on the servers than the manual edit method. Otherwise, there's no difference between the two types of edits (or using Twinkle or another script that all essentially do the same thing). Thus, as others have said, Rollback is no t a big deal. I don't see any use in removing it from people for lack of use. Just about the time it gets removed is probably the time someone will need to use it. Then, instead of being gentle to the servers, the person will have to do it the hard way. I don't think that the right should expire--it should just be removed if the person misuses it. If all of the so-called "trusted" users have rollback rights, then it just means that Commons is that much better protected. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree, but I also wouldn't care if some administrator(s) decide to remove it from users that haven't edited for a certain amount of time if they really want to. Rocket000 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes - people seem to forget that if it is "no big deal" to get it it really is no big deal not to have it. I know I'm odd but try requesting rights from a community on the basis that "I am active now but in a year or so I'll find other things to do & won't be around".... It really is no big deal in either direction. --Herby talk thyme 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That was part of my point. If I were to not use Rollback for a year or two, and then finally come across a time where it would be handy, but when I try to do it, discover the right had been taken away from me for inactivity—no big deal. There are other ways to accomplish the same thing. It might be a little more difficult (a few extra clicks) and a little extra strain on the servers. Of course, what's the effect on the servers of admins adding and removing Rollback rights from users? ;-) I think that people should have to pass a modest requirement to gain the right, and they should only lose that right if they misuse it or otherwise give cause to no longer trust them with the right. It's different from Admin rights where it is incumbent upon the person to "use it or lose it". --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 18:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Preload page[edit]


Please move MediaWiki:Preload/Commons:Rollback/Requests to MediaWiki:Preload/Commons:Requests for rights (as in url for new requests). --Kaganer (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done - Huib talk 20:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer on top of page[edit]

Guess this is a leftover from when only rollback was granted here: "Established and trustworthy Commons users, admins, and anyone with global rollback need not post here." I'm "established and trustworthy" (former admin here), and I also have GR. I still had to ask to have the "patroller" funtion enabled here. Somebody might want to update the wording there. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Think I've fixed it now. Thank you. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Kanonkas :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

dropping section=new&editintro&preload parameters[edit]

Because of section=new parameter we are unable to control the location of requests. So I propose to drop section=new&editintro&preload parameters out to prevent going wrong section. editintro will be replaced by editnotice. Please make your comment about this problem. Regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 05:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it doesn't work. ✓ DoneKrinkletalk 05:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Need help to approve Rights status for uploaded images[edit]

Hello all! I'm trying to upload a public image from an official state site. Actually there are 2 images uploaded:

File:Maksatikha Flag.jpg

The content is a depiction of the Flag and Coat-of-Arms of a Russian Federation entity (member). I'm sure all the official symbols should be free licensed and distributed, in case of non-vandalic purposes.
My intentions are clean, the images're supposed to be used in wikipedia articles.

So, if someone could help me with an advice how can I evade file deletion in this particular subject? --Diimaha 19 March 2010

I think no help needed by now, thanx for "PD-RU-exempt" tag writers --Diimaha 20 March 2010

Renaming images[edit]

There's a huge backlog at Category:Media requiring renaming. According to Commons:File renaming, this can be done by a class of "file movers", but the term is not further explained there. I see that people like Arriva436 are asking for and obtaining this ability here. Could someone explain

  • What "bits" are required to become a file mover (is it "tboverride"?)
  • What criteria might be required of people requesting the right?
  • What other rights necessarily come with file mover status (if any)?

I'm mostly interested in updating Commons:File renaming to send more users this way, but I'll also likely apply here for this right soon, once I know what I'm getting into. :) Wnt (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I cleared the end of this backlog (amongs them a lot of bs icons, rename requested in April) end Augustus.
Since then, we had dozens of ogg pronounciations words files rename requests from the same people. I assigned him filemover rights, so he can rename itself.
Now, the case is closed, as this last week I never see more than 6 pictures to rename :)--Dereckson (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with adding the request to the empty "Autopatrol" section[edit]

When I tried to add the new request to the empty "Autopatrol" section using the "add request" link, I had some problem: new request is added to the end of "Filemover" section. What did I do wrong? Yuri Che (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As a result, "add request" links are removed: Commons talk:Requests for rights#dropping section=new&editintro&preload parameters. Yuri Che (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Filemover rights[edit]

The approving of this right should be a bit stricter. At the Speedy Deletions, I see a lot of inappropriate moves, (those who make unnecessary name changes to the titles, and (without checking globalusage) request the resulting redirect be speedy deleted. We may also want to consider creating a venue do discuss de-filemover requests... Just saying. Rehman 05:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea. Every once in a while I inspect the file moves at the Delinker's command talk page and I have to say that a good majority are improperly named. Worse yet, I see many file movers making silly excuses "to harmonize" or to "have consistency" even though I see no evidence of that. Even some of our good movers do not follow the rules, and when that happens, others are encouraged to do so. I presume that thoughts like "oh it's just one file" or similar runs into mind? I admit I have felt reluctant not to warn some of these users either because I'm just lazy, or the user would give me one of those silly excuses, which would make me have to deal with the problem, which goes back to me being lazy.
As for making the granting of rights more stricter, I have no problem with that. The traffic is no longer high and it has already worked fine with the image-reviewer right. For de-filemover requests, we could just send those to the admin's board. But yes, I agree we need to take action, either by considering this suggestion or start issuing warnings. --ZooFari 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, is there some rules or guidelines for file renaming out there ? Yug (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised you're not aware of Commons:File renaming. Yeah, that's the guidelines for file renaming so make sure you read it when you can. --ZooFari 05:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just have to say that I have to agree here. I see many requests on the Delinker's command talk page stating "more descriptive" for renames that would definitely go under the "what should not be renamed" as just looking a bit better. I've turned down similar requests only to have them added by the user again and then approved by some other file mover. – Adrignola talk 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you informed such file movers about their (non-guideline according) moves? --Leyo 17:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Move Reviewer here[edit]

There seems to be less attention paid to Commons:License review/requests‎ and I believe it is because it is separated out from this page and the other major requests for permissions page Commons:Administrators. It would take some effort to relocated and sort the archives I know, but the fact that Reviewer requests aren't located here seems to me to be quite the inconsistency. – Adrignola talk 22:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Today I just cleaned up a bit at Commons:Flickr files/reviewers and Commons:Picasa Web Albums files/reviewers. I aggree it's inconsistent to request for rewiever rights elsewhere! axpdeHello! 14:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we can transclude here, but I have to disagree with merging the request page. For 1) this page is where it's admin's decision to give rights or not and 2) the current process is not actually broken. The requests page is not expected to have lots of traffic. The two or three persons including me are enough to avoid the unilateral hand-out of rights. And if no one comments, we can take that as no objections, and then it can be up to the closer's decision. Plus this has been efficient, in my own opinion, to limit the rate of people given the rights and to whom. Here I have to say the rights are handed out like flyers, which is a no no for the image-reviewer flag. The backlogs are usually never severe anyways. --ZooFari 01:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, any admin is able to set the flag. And this flag is one of several flags most of which can be requested at this page. All exacept one, that's unlogical. But I agree that we need some kind of criteria catalogue for each flag ... axpdeHello! 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Just an example: A user with only 50 edits on commons requested filemover right ... and was granted this! axpdeHello! 17:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done I transcluded the license review requests on this page, see here. Trijnsteltalk 13:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


I recently became an OTRS volunteer, but I still need the OTRS-member flag on Commons. -- King of ♠ 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You should request that flag at Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard‎. axpdeHello! 12:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

AWB access here?[edit]

Please see the proposal at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#AWB_backlog. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding AWB section, per Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_31#AWB_backlog. Rd232 (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Upload Wizard campaign editors[edit]

How is the Upload Wizard campaign editors userright assigned? Can someone clarify this at Commons:Upload Wizard campaign editors? Or if there is no specific place/process, should we make a heading here? Rd232 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We had a heading for this last year, see Commons:Requests for rights/Denied/Others/2011#Upload Wizard campaign editors. To quote the words of Multichill: "I'm not sure who added the option to request this right. As far as I know this hasn't been implemented yet on a technical level and on a community level. Asking on meta won't do you any good. Until we properly implement this only admins can manage these campaigns." (Though the developer NeilK disagreed with him.) See also bugzilla:31903. Trijnsteltalk 13:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Well it has been implemented now, as far as I can tell - it's one of the options at Special:Userrights. Rd232 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I know and it was implemented back then too iirc. So I don't know why he declined it... Trijnsteltalk 13:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest a similar process like our efficient bot-approval process. Um yes, this was actually a joke; but it would be good to have a page with details about new campaigns where we've space for discussion. At least for the people patrolling new files it could be useful to be notified. -- RE rillke questions? 15:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Something like Commons:License review/requests? (I transcluded that page to this one btw.) Trijnsteltalk 16:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Talk page of Commons:Upload campaigns? Rd232 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this page archive?[edit]

A few of the requests here are very old. Do we archive these or just delete the old requests? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

--Leyo 07:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --Sreejith K (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of word "promoted" or "not promoted"[edit]

Can I make a light-hearted suggestion? Can we avoid the use of words like "promoted" or "not promoted" on the requests page please? It only makes it seem like these rights make the user superior/'promoted' to other volunteers, when clearly that's not the case. Maybe a simple "Granted" or "Done" would suffice? Rehman 03:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO any word with ✓  or   symbol is sufficiently clear.
  • ✓ Done / ✓ Promoted / ✓ Granted / ✓ lalala
  •  Not done /  Not promoted /  Not granted /  Not lalala
Greetings, Alan (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
@Rehman: I understand your concerns but personally I don't really care which word is used. It all means the same. Trijnsteltalk 18:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I know... It's no big deal really, but it's just the little steps we need to take to avoid some people taking these flags as a big deal... Just some thoughts... Rehman 00:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the opening post. Also not a massive deal, but ✓ Granted /  Not granted, ✓ Assigned /  Not assigned, or similar would sound better to me - Nbound (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Or ✓ Approved /  Denied works as well, but the other combos that Nbound mentioned I'm fine with. Not a fan of promoted/not promoted verbage though. Dainomite (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


Aloha! Two questions:

  1. Shouldn't this page automatically archive (with section resolved only)?
  2. Do we really need to split between approved and declined requests?

I think instead of archiving by hand we could get the bot to do that work. Just my two cents. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

+1. Yann (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Do we need to have approved and declined sections? To keep it simple, we could just cut the archive to size and sort into autopatrolled, AWB, filemover, etc. no matter the out come. Any objections? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I moved all old requests to archives today. Yann (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Yann: OK now? I don't like the archive box creeping over into the next section. Maybe all archive boxes into the top section? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I highly doubt that archiving in this way is technically possible. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The boxes? Seriously? The design of the page is broken for me. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm (yellow).svg Ugly... Alan (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, very ugly in deed. Doesn't work to archive single sections separately? So all in one big pile? Thanks for cleanup Steiny! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Reverting all my stuff for now. I created a page to test this out a little here. @Yann, Steinsplitter, Alan: How is the new layout? Not really convincing either IMHO. How about something similar to what we have now, without the search option? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Composition of users with AP right[edit]

For info Commons:Village_pump#Tuning_of_the_AP_right--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Request of formatting[edit]

I am requesting that this page be formatted a bit more like the English Wikipedia, with a page such as Wikipedia:Requests for rights/Autopatrolled embedded using {{Wikipedia:Requests for rights/Autopatrolled}}. Not sure if this should go to the village pump, but I'll be sure to go there if asked. I am requesting this because 1. It won't be grouped up and mainly, 2. It would make coding a bot a lot easier. I am currently working on programming a bot that does what en:User:MusikBot/PermClerk does. DatGuy (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Hedwig in Washington, Alan, Steinsplitter, Yann because of the discussion above. DatGuy (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


As I am active for marathi (mr) version of Wikipedia what rights can I apply for as to become a link from Marathi Wikipedia to Commons --Tiven2240 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)