Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Requests and votes

Shortcut
COM:VOTE
This project page in other languages:

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 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 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.

No current requests.



Requests for license reviewer rightsEdit

No current requests.


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.

UrbanecmBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Martin Urbanec (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: categorization en masse

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised (as operator, I only start the categorization and do not check each edit)

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): bot will edit when needed

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6 edits per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Pywikibot framework, Python

Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Bot has edited previously without previous approval but with lower amount of work. For now I'd like to categorise over 4000 of files (here [1]) and I think it would be better to do so with bot flag. The bot has bot flag at Czech Wikipedia, Czech Wikiversity and Wikidata. Operator is a sysop&bureaucrat at Czech Wikipedia. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Edited --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

AliciaFagervingWMSE-bot (talk · contribs)Edit

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

Uploading freely licensed images from (primarily GLAM) collaborations with Wikimedia Sverige.

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Image uploads

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): ~ 3/min

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python / pywikibot

The particular task the bot account will be used for is uploading freely licensed images from the Swedish National Heritage Board. This will be a continuation of the most recent upload by AndreCostaWMSE-bot, using the same codebase and category structure, incl. maintenance categories.

Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Is there a reason why this is better than creating a generic WMSE upload account which can be run by WMSE on defined projects? As an observation, you don't need a bot flag on an upload account like this. -- (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

BartBotje (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Bj.schoenmakers (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: Uploading nature related images from plantennamen.info, waarneming.nl waarnemingen.be and observation.org (and other sites in the future in aid of the dutch nature wikiproject Dutch)

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic when manually initiated

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time runs at the discretion of the operator

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): avg. 10 per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Perl using: MediaWiki::Bot and MediaWiki::API

Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

This bot already has a botflag for the Dutch wikipedia. I want to be able to use it for uploading image batches and as a back-end for a tool i'm creating, allowing users of waarneming.nl, waarnemingen.be and observado.org (sites for nature observations) to publish media to commons using the correct copyright/attribution etc.

  •   Support. For plantennamen we have a valid OTRS-ticket (ticket:2017031610007597). Bot owner knows what he is doing and the pics at the sites mentioned are great. Natuur12 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Please make a few test edits. --Krd 06:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, did a few test-uploads in Category:Images from plantennamen.info
    Please enclose author name in language tag. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Please make dates complaint with {{ISOdate}} in the {{Information}} template to allow for multilingual dates. Example: |date=Tue Apr 25 01:16:25 2017 changed to |date=2017-04-25 01:16:25~riley (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Why doesn't plantennamen have the author's name anywhere? It makes your template statement "This permission only extends to photos taken by Maarten van der Veer at this link." very hard to interpret, because I can't see who any of the photos are by. --99of9 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • There is a slight problem with the ticket. Most likely outcome: we will have too delete the test uploads from plantennamen. I will leave some detailed notes at the ticket in some days too explain what went wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I nuked the uploads from Plantennamen. It turns out that this person didn't take at least a significant amount of the photographs himself. This was only found out after an extensive check off the test uploads. Most uploads contained consistent EXIF but some didn't. Perhaps we can still hoste some off the files in the future but not this day and given the situation not any day soon. Natuur12 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Always ask at least one question :). Thanks for investigating Natuur12. --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to see test uploads from the other sites. --99of9 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I did some test uploads from waarneming.nl, waarnemingen.be and observations.org :
Natrix natrix (Colubridae) (European Grass Snake), Biebrza NP, Poland.jpg
Alces alces (Cervidae) (Eurasian elk), Biebrza NP, Poland.jpg
Eysarcoris venustissimus (Pentatomidae) (Woundwort Shieldbug) - (imago), Elst (Gld), the Netherlands - 2.jpg
Eysarcoris venustissimus (Pentatomidae) (Woundwort Shieldbug) - (imago), Elst (Gld), the Netherlands.jpg
Harmonia axyridis f. succinea (Coccinellidae) - (imago), Elst (Gld), the Netherlands.jpg
Diurnea fagella (Chimabachidae) - (imago), Elst (Gld), the Netherlands.jpg
Lophophanes cristatus (Paridae) (European Crested Tit) - (adult), Oberengadin, Switzerland.jpg
Pseudoips prasinana (Nolidae) (Green Silver-lines) - (imago), Zemst, Belgium.jpg
Bombylius major (Bombyliidae) (Dark-edged Bee-fly) - (imago), Arnhem, the Netherlands.jpg
Ommatoiulus sabulosus (Julidae) (Striped Millipede), Molenhoek, the Netherlands.jpg

Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The latest upload contains {{LicenseReview}}. Ca we assume that the bot checked the license before the upload, can we consider this reviewed? --Krd 15:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Bj.schoenmakers: ? --Krd 05:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The tool can only be used to upload files with license CC0, BY-SA and BY .. this is checked at upload-time and timestamped using a url-copy at archive.org (since users are allowed to change their copyright/license settings), Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
      So if this is already checked at upload time, do we need {{LicenseReview}} or can we consider this already reviewed by the bot during upload? --Krd 12:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      @Bj.schoenmakers: ? --Krd 05:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
      Yes, the copyright/license is checked by the bot during upload, do you want me to remove the {{LicenseReview}} template ? (or is it autopatrolled or something ?) Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
      Yes, I'd say if it was already reviewed by the bot it does not require additional human review. It should be replaced by the template version which says review is complete. --Krd 17:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    @Krd: this may be controversial (2014 discussion). I was not allowed to do this for my uploads even though I could prove that using the FlickrAPI meant I had automatically confirmed the license and there was no true value by having the standard Flickr bot do exactly the same thing again. I would support a definition of what is required for bots to skip license review, but this may need a community consensus beyond an individual bot discussion. -- (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why does the account need a bot flag? -- (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Requests for commentEdit