Commons talk:License review policy

Make this a official policy

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non admin closure) Stale and no clear consensus.Riley Huntley (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Hi, Some stuff has been discussed a lot of times (for example at Commons talk:License review), and the outcome was always the same. But there was always lack of clarity by non-involved users. I think it is time to create a official policy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Voting

•  Support as nom. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Natuur12 (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral It should indicate when it approves or not to a new reviewer. Alan ^(talk) 15:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alan: What you mean exactly? If it is uncontroversial you can [edit] directly :). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Are we voting on whether three bullet points should be policy? I think we need more than that to make a policy. It should state briefly why licence review is required and its purpose. It should also state the competences and expected actions of a licence reviewer. What circumstances a review could be challenged, and what circumstances a reviewer might have their rights revoked, etc. It doesn't need to repeat the guidance on the other page, but should contain enough policy that when there are disagreements, we have a page that says: this is what the community requires and expects. All we have at the moment are some statements of fact about the process of becoming a reviewer, about who (technically) could be a reviewer, and one example (out of several I assume) why a review might be challenged or reverted. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too vague:
  1. The first bullet point says that licence reviewers and admins are authorised to 'confirm licenses'. What does this mean? Is it different to adding a licence review template, since licence reviewing also is mentioned in the bullet point? Is it a blockable offence if a user who is neither a licence reviewer or admin writes in a DR that the user confirms the licence?
  2. The third bullet point states that users wishing to become a licence reviewer should post a request at COM:LRR, but gives no guidance on how the closing user should close the discussion. A policy which describes how to request a user right should also describe how to evaluate the request for the user right as the policy otherwise is likely to cause conflicts between request closers and users whose requests were declined.
  3. The page does not describe how Commons would act, should there be a deletion request questioning the copyright status of a file whose licence has been reviewed.

I think that these issues should be clarified before making the page into a policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I think any 'official policy' on this should specifically note that LRs can't review their own uploads (unless they are an approved bot). This was decided years ago, but is buried in the text at COM:LR. Revent (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral I concur with Colin, more content is needed if this is going to be an official policy. Currently, it views as a disambiguation. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.