Commons:Requests and votes

This project page in other languages:

Deutsch | English | español | +/−

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 CommonsEdit

How to comment and voteEdit

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.

Requests for Oversight rightsEdit

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 rightsEdit

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 bureaucratshipEdit

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

  • Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.



Scheduled to end: 11:53, (UTC)

Links for candidate: Kanonkas (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo)

Following the discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Kanonkas not active I request de-bureaucrat and de-admin of User:Kanonkas. While the user formally meets the requirements defined in Commons:Administrators/De-adminship which are 5 admin actions on Commons in the past 6 months, the user appears to be intentionally right at the very border of this limit.

  • He's made no contributions to Commons since June 2015 and only 56 contributions since November 2010. His last engagement with the wider community here was in February 2012 and since that time, a couple of posts on User:Natuur12's talk page in July 2014 is the total extent of his interaction with any Commons user at all.
  • He's uploaded nothing to Commons since 2009.
  • His admin log shows he has only performed 102 admin actions since November 2010 and these come in bursts lasting merely minutes and roughly six months apart. User:Stemoc notes that many of the actions are "blocking proxies which don't even edit on commons". This can only really be described as gaming the system to retain the admin bit.

The roles at Commons:Administrators and Commons:Bureaucrats expect "experienced and trusted members of the community", which appears to be no longer fulfilled by the user. --Krd 11:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


  •   Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin; see my comment at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Kanonkas_not_active --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin per the discussion at AN/U. Jee 12:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-crat and de-admin, this is not something I expect from a crat/admin. -- Poké95 13:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-crat and de-admin Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-crat and de-admin. I don't think formalities should substitute real participation. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I expect the user in question (who is clearly alive and have internet access every half year) to respond before proceeding to right removal. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-crat and de-admin. Six years of gaming the system. Unbecomming of an admin. Natuur12 (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-crat and de-admin - current (lack of) activity is insufficient to remain uptodate about what's going on here - Jcb (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I think that periods of inactivity are normal and expected, and we should be understanding of them. However, the ANU conversation seems to strongly indicate that the community believes there is a point at which an admin has 'functionally' already resigned their status as an actual 'administrator', and is merely seeking to simply retain the bit itself for no useful purpose. Kanonkas has passed well beyond that point, and advanced permissions are not something that the holder has an eternal 'right' to... we serve merely at the pleasure of the community, and the community appears displeased. Reventtalk 17:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • {{neutral}} mostly per Zhuyifei1999. My thoughts are not crystalised yet. I will wait for Kanonkas' response before making a full decision. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 17:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    Changing to a   Support. I share the same opinions as Revent. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support not enough activity to stay abreast with changes to policy and the goings on of the website. Also what Revent said above. Reguyla (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support While I do agree that this is gaming the policy/system, the matter of fact id that they have performed the minimum amount of needed admin actions...I'd rather see us change that policy to "allow" this de-bureaucrat-vote, and not let this vote change the policy...if that makes sence...(tJosve05a (c) 18:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per AN/U. Wrt Josve05a's point about policy, I disagree that on a Wiki we need policy to micromanage the community. The rules are there to document community consensus, not the other way around. The community can always make ad hoc decisions. -- Colin (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    Can one contradict the other? Seems arbitrary. -- Mentifisto 20:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Mentifisto: Administrators serve at the pleasure of the community... policies merely describe 'past' consensus, they are not 'law'. The community has the right to decide that they want to revoke admin rights because of a bad haircut, if there is a consensus to do so. The overall result of these various discussions seems to support the idea that editors who are no longer 'functionally' serving as administrators should have the rights removed, until they are once again active and working on areas where the community finds it useful for them to have the buttons. Reventtalk 22:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    How about those with no hair? -- Mentifisto 00:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, I agree with Revent. Trijnsteltalk 22:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin. Not active here and not really a trusted member of the community any more (It's hard for me to trust someone I've never run into even once in my 4+ years as an admin). I don't doubt Kanonkas is a great person, but the crat and admin bits are for use/service not status. lNeverCry 00:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - as per my earlier comments...not a fan of people with power abusing their rights and i hope this sets a precedent...--Stemoc 02:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin, somone loging in for years just to perform 6 actions every 6 months is just gaming the system to keep tools he obviously doesn't need. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin, Kanonkas clearly isn't active, they do not need the user rights. However, I think this highlights the need to have a better system for removing the bit from inactive admins/'crats. ColonialGrid (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin, Kanonkas hasn't been active since June 2015 so it's rather pointless them keeping the tools. –Davey2010Talk 21:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin. Yann (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support. Not even close to enough activity to justify bureaucrat or admin imo. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support. Following Krd's request. Marcus Cyron (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I know some folks do go through periods of inactivity and have to make the minimum number of actions to keep the rights sometimes... but for several years!? --Rschen7754 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support: de-bureaucrat and de-admin per above. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


  • Why is this a vote? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 11:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    I don't understand the question. What do you suggest it to be? --Krd 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Krd: After asking ToAruShiroiNeko personally, I think this was 'why does this even need a vote'. Reventtalk 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    I do not see the point of this vote. If someone is inactive, just take away the access. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 23:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    cause "technically" (as per policy) due to him gaming the system, he is this had to be created to over write that policy because no crat could remove his right by claiming the user is "inactive per policy" (as he is not inactive) so they would be breaking policy by doing so....yes, hilarious...but again, I hope this sets a precedent for a discussion on changing the somewhat outdated policy in regards to this..--Stemoc 02:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Stemoc: To be honest, policy is a spectacularly terrible way to fix problems. We drafted a policy because a generic "inactive" was not good enough for some people. I myself almost hit the 6 month mark before due to my real world related issues. I too had to "game" the system to give myself a little more time. I think the arbitrary time restriction isn't needed. Bureaucrats judgement of "inactivity" is fine by me. If an inactive user decides to be active again, their access can be restored. The idea here is to not have ghost admins or bureaucrats. If someone is barely active despite a "reactivation" their subsequent requests would be denied. So in essense I favor common sense over written policy. It is much harder to "game" common sense. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Stemoc He isn't "active" per policy. He just avoids being declared "inactive" wrt the definition for automatic removal of rights. The fact that policy describes one automatic removal mechanism (a certain arbitrary degree of inactivity wrt admin actions) and one community removal (abuse of power) does not mean those are the only means of removal or that removal by some other measure (haircut quality) is "breaking policy". Our policy pages are largely incomplete and only document a few common situations. -- Colin (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I suppose that is the very existential purpose of selfies: to judge the fluff on top. -- Mentifisto 08:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I understand you are keen to make jokes, but surely you could make a better one of the fact that 12/14 edits made by your account since May 2015 are related to this case and of the two edits that were not, one was to tweak your style settings. Please take a moment to reflect on the wide selection of views from the community about what constitutes gaming the system, and how the quality of participation in this project should be pertinent, rather than just doing the bare minimum to keep the cool admin badge. Thanks -- (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Commons may be your wiki of focus, but it's not mine... it's mostly useful for crosswiki spam, and I'd rather act directly than tag... -- Mentifisto 18:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Requests for adminshipEdit

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.

Requests for license reviewer rightsEdit

Mr. Smart LIONEdit

  • Mr. Smart LION (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: I'm a huge fan of Bollywood Hungama images. I've been editing Category:Files from Bollywood Hungama and uploading images from Bollywood Hungama since 1 April 2015. I know that from my uploads, 14 files have been marked as copyright violations:( But now I'm 100% familiar with Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama. I know that only images in the "Parties & Events" directory of should be uploaded on Commons. Not only this, I also know that only those images should be uploaded on Commons, whose events are held in India. For example, File:Kalki Koechlin launches beautifulhomes.jpg. Before passing the license of the file, I will perform the following steps:-
  • The first step that I will do is to check whether the source link is provided or not.
  • If provided, I will click on it. I will make sure that the image is in the "Parties & Events" directory.
  • If it's in the "Parties & Events" directory, the next step which I will perform is to check whether the event is held in India or outside India. For example, File:Kalki Koechlin launches beautifulhomes.jpg. While searching, I came to know that the event is held in Mumbai.
  • The fourth and the last step which I will perform is to make a Google image search. If a higher resolution without watermarked image is found on Google, I won't pass the license. But while searching File:Kalki Koechlin launches beautifulhomes.jpg, there is no higher resolution image than this image.

Pass/Fail: So all the above mentioned steps have been successful for the file and I will   Pass the license of the file. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 04:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Scheduled to end: 04:30, (UTC) or later
  •   Question: Are there any files you would not review? Also, do you think you filed this request correctly? (If not, please fix it.)    FDMS  4    04:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I can't review my own uploads. It's mentioned here. And as for filling this request correctly, I think I haven't mentioned that I earlier also requested the right but didn't got it. See here. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 05:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I only upload images from Bollywood Hungama and not interested to upload images from anywhere. And I think you might have checked my contributions. So why are you asking questions about other websites. I'm neither interested in Flickr or any other such websites nor I'll pass the license review of files from these such websites. If you see me passing license review of files from Flickr or any other such websites (not including Bollywood Hungama), just withdraw my image license review right. I'm only interested in Bollywood Hungama. So ask me questions regarding Bollywood Hungama. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 09:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Kinda oppose. Despite the big backlog (8,994 files currently) of Category:Files from Bollywood Hungama, I don't think the request should be accepted. "License reviewer" is a flag that shows we trust the users for licensing purposes in a general way (and is not specific to one backlog - per the first lines of this very page). I am not keen to give the flag when the users can't show a global understanding of licensing on Commons. Also, no motivation was provided in the request and the answer, even when I specifically asked for it. --Scoopfinder(d) 10:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
For motivation, I had earlier mentioned in my previous request that I would love to help with Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama. And why a user should know the licensing rules for all websites like Flickr or Picasa or any such other websites, when a user isn't interested in those? Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 10:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I would also like to add that I've read the upper paragraphs of this page and there is no mention that a user before requesting this right should know the licensing rules for all websites. And as for a global understanding of licensing on Commons, I clearly now know about licensing rules of Bollywood Hungama. and I've shown it above. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 11:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose. I know you're not interested in clearing other backlogs (like Flickr), and I know that you can focus on one backlog (I focus on Flickr), but you should have answered Scoopfinder's question above. License review is more than just Bollywood Hungama. A LR should atleast know about FOP and DW (I'm not going to say what they mean though, otherwise you would have know the answer to the questions above due to me, which should be based on your understanding). If you would answer Scoopfinder's question above (correctly), I would be happy to move to support. Oh, and since you said above that you only want to answer questions about Bollywood Hungama, then here it is. Please say whether you would pass or fail each of these situations and explain your answers.
    1. Image from the Bollywood website, taken by a Bollywood photographer, not a photograph in a Bollywood party, attributed to the Bollywood Hungama's website, and provided with a direct link to the source on Bollywood Hungama's site.
    2. Photograph in a Bollywood event, image from the Bollywood website, not taken by a Bollywood photographer, attributed to Bollywood Hungama, and provided with a direct link to the source on Bollywood Hungama's site.
    3. Taken by a Bollywood photographer, image from the Bollywood website, photograph in a Bollywood event, attributed to the Bollywood Hungama's website, and provided with a direct link to the source on Bollywood Hungama's site.
    Thanks, Poké95 11:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Pokefan95 (except for the openness to move to support part). For the record, what's wrong with the way this request was filed is that the candidate either choose to ignore or didn't notice in the first place the SHOUTY INSTRUCTION IN CAPITAL LETTERS to add new requests at the bottom of this page, which isn't really something that demonstrates a very diligent attitude.    FDMS  4    12:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Here are my answers to Pokéfan95's questions:-
I would also like to tell you about the full forms of FOP and DW, which Pokéfan95's had added above and said that he wouldn't tell what they stand for. I searched Commons a lot and finally came to know their full form. FOP stands for Freedom Of Panorama and DW stands for Derivative Works! Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 13:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
After reading COM:FLICKR, I now also can answer Scoopfinder's questions. Here are my answers:-
  • The first can be uploaded on Commons, because it is published under the CC-BY-SA license.
  • The second cannot be uploaded on Commons, because it is published under CC-BY-NC-ND license, so it's not OK.
  • The third can also be uploaded on Commons, because they are published under the license CC BY-SA 4.0 which is allowed on Commons.
  • According to COM:FOP#Spain, the fourth one can also be uploaded on Commons.
That's all. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 15:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Smart LION. Thank you for replying to the question. There is several mistakes in your answer and this comfort me in my decision to oppose to this nomination. I am sorry, but there is several other ways to help Commons and participate. --Scoopfinder(d) 15:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment – one more thing: There are several copyright violations on your userpages both on Commons and Wikipedia (hint: {{Crystal Clear}}).    FDMS  4    15:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Requests for permission to run a botEdit

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.

BulbaBot 5Edit

Operator: Pokéfan95 (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:

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, supervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One-time run for Judgefloro's, daily for UW category

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Delay 1 second between edits

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): AWB

For test run, please grant my bot AWB status (bot) first. Thanks, Poké95 03:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


Requests for commentEdit