Commons:Requests for rights

Shortcut: COM:RFR

Archives Approved requests Declined requests

Confirmed

See also: Confirmed users.

Autopatrol

See also: Autopatrolled users.

C1K98V

• C1K98V (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I'm active here for quite sometime. I admit we all make mistakes, I did quite too, and I do have regret for that. But apart from that, I too have done some work with files upload which is important for commons and we're missing. And I do feel that I fullfil the criteria above. Thank you. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 11:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose This user's many files were deleted speedily, including an explicit nude child image (speedied for child porn). Look at their categorization. Needs quite some time to be allowed to edit without supervision. --E4024 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: Yes I agree my uploads were deleted, not few, but more than hundred files. I accept I did upload all the files in which the explicit porn image where their. I was not aware at the beginning, but now I know what to upload and what not. I also know "Commons isn't censored, There is need for pornographic content too but not low quality stuff, and child porn." I had made mistakes and I do have regret making those mistakes. We all are human we all make mistakes, we do deserve a second change, I have been rectifying my mistake since July, you can a look here. I agree supervision is need, I was and still I am under supervision. But now and I'm not fragile or in a hurry, and so mistake has also been drastically decreased. Thanks. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Orizan

• Orizan (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I was wondering if I can have autopatrolled. Thank you. Orizan (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Luilui6666 (LinguaLibre project)

• Luilui6666 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I'am nominating Luilui6666 for autopatrolled. This user have produced 5000 audios files via the Wikimedia supported LinguaLibre.org webapps, but since this user started to contribute there, she is still only a autoconfirmed user with ratelimit at 380 files per 72 minutes. This limitations caused hundreds audios to be lost : when 800 audios are recorded, only 380 audios are accepted by Commons's upload mw:API:Upload, which then rejects the 420 other audios files recorded. This audio professional and lingualibre user, who is seriously contributing to Cantonese language, requires autopatrolled user-rights to contribute freely. Yug (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:CptViraj. Now that we have identified this weakness in LinguaLibre upload chain, it's likely we may ask this again in the futre. Yug (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser access

See also: Commons:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage.

Brainulator9

• Brainulator9 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I have AWB access on en.wiki, and I have a history of doing various repetitive tasks on Commons as well. This would make my life much easier. Thank you. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Patroller

See also: Patrol guideline.

Rollback

See also: Rollback guideline.

Template editor

See also: Template editor.

ZI Jony

• ZI Jony (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I have experience and created and edited templates and modules, template editor user right required to maintain them. I also involved with WLM & WLE team, where most of the templates are protected. I would also like to help out with requests in Category:Commons protected edit requests (template protected). Thank you. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Sounds good. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^{Overleg • CA} 06:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Granted. --- FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 16:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Filemover

See also: Renaming guideline.

Tm

• Tm (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

With 2 906 324 edits i think i could be called a somewhat experienced user, but i still see things that surprise me. Requesting the restate of my file mover rights as this right was unilaterally and without warning removed by Pi.1415926535 on supposed "bad file moves" and supposed unanswered queries of "multiple users" (it was two, on two distinct cases), when those were self evident. For context see User_talk:Tm#Map_renames. Thank you. Tm (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose A high edit count does not give anyone the privilege to misuse tools. Tm made a number of file moves against the file renaming guidelines, several of which added obvious errors in the filenames. He re-moved one file after being reverted by User:Veliensis; such wheel-warring is grounds for immediate revocation per COM:FRNOT. Those that I originally objected to were adding a flickr image number to files that I had overwritten with a full-resolution version from a non-flickr source - thus adding a completely meaningless number to the end of these filenames - without any reasoning given in the rename.

He refused to respond to queries by myself and Veliensis, and continued to make the same moves that were objected to. I removed the filemover right because it was clear that Tm had no intention of ceasing these disputed renames, using proper edit summaries for file moves, nor deigning to reply to anyone who questions his moves. After I revoked the right, he claimed that the moves were self-evident... and so there was no need to reply. Given that reply, and the history of edit warring and misusing tools that is evident from his block log, I do not believe that Tm should be trusted with the filemover right until he demonstrates an attitude change. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please point to a file that was i "made a number of file moves against the file renaming guidelines, several of which added obvious errors in the filenames". Adding a flickr file number is a mistake in files that, in renaming, had that number deleted like in the case of Veliensis? Please explain how this is "against the file renaming guidelines". Also i made the original maps uploads and that was the original name, from the Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center At the Boston Public Library flickr account. It was you that overwrote the file and also delete original information like the call number and scale info, as can be seen [before and after your overwrote, that lacks this crucial information. To someone that is complaining about my file moves that is really precious. Also marking almost your moves as "clarify subject" is as much "using proper edit summaries for file moves" as my edit sumaries and that is not a reason to remove anyone tools or do we now care to remove anyone tools that do not use "proper edit summaries"?

I know that you cant know all the history, but being an administrator does does not give anyone the privilege to misuse tools, as several of my blocks were a clear misuse of the blocking tool. And high edit count shows that the user is experienced- I did not misused, in any of those situations, the tools as you claim when you say that i have an "history of edit warring and misusing tools that is evident from his block log".

Reverting to 2014, my blocks can be seen to be, for the most part, an abuse of administrators, with several that have been removed or blocked for abuse of tools, in similar situations, as you did not made any research before you acuse me constantly blocked for edit warring, better to show you there is, again the list of my blocks and unblocks since 2014, instead of going all the way to 2010, as it is long ago (and i´ll admit that until 2014, maybe some blocks were partially or totally proper).(...)

Block in January 15 2014, made by an ex-administrator that blocked me and less than one hour later you unblocked me. The reason for my block and speedy unblock? His stubborness not to delete a file that was nominated by me to speedy deletion and to kept refusing the speedy deletion request. Anyway, after being blocked and unblocked by himself, the file was deleted anyway, after more user time wasted.

Block in June 13 2015 and unblocked less than a day latter. The reason? An administrator using his block hammer to win an discussion|. Why the unblock by the same administrator? Because the case came to the Village Pump and was unblocked because of what several users called conflit of interest and or administrator abuse

Block in November 16 2016, Again some bureacrat decided to follow his own rules, instead of Commons policies. Again unblocked, less than four hours latter, after several users and administrators complained of this abuse in my talk page and Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Block in May 2017, User_talk:Tm/Archive_8#Irrelevant_editing! An administrator gets involved and blocks, against policy and i´am unblocked a few hours latter for clear abuse of power.

Block in February 2018, User_talk:Tm/Archive_9#Blocked_by_stealth\Unblock_request, made by an ex-administrator removed, i think, for abuse of power, decides that abuse his administrator tools and my blocked was heavily contested by several users (more than two). Tm (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please retract yourself of the unfounded claim that i have "history of edit warring and misusing tools that is evident from his block log", as i pointed to all situations since 2014 and showed that all were reverted and unblocked.

I given that i do not have an history of abuse, why remove my filemover tools without any warning? No one is obliged to reply in his talkpage. If there is a dispute about a name why not use said file discussion page? Reinstate what was taken based in false premisses of abuse and an now shown untrue arguments of an history of abuse. Tm (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Also it seems i´am not be the only one making file renaming guidelines. Not only User:Pi.1415926535 deletes important information with his moves like when he deleted the Library of Congress Control Number 74693296 when he moved File:Highlandville, Massachusetts 1887. LOC 74693296.jpg to File:1887 bird's eye view map of Highlandville, Massachusetts.jpg, but he also delete important information like "Perspective map not drawn to scale. Hand colored. Bird's-eye-view. LC Panoramic maps (2nd ed.), 298.1 Available also through the Library of Congress Web site as a raster image. Includes illus. AACR2: 110" (that is hand-coloured, a 2 edition of this map, that is not drawn to scale), "Shelf ID G3764.N33A3 1887 .B3", "Location United States · Needham Heights · Massachusetts" and the fact that this map is part of the collection of "American Memory" and "Geography And Map Division". Cared to inform the original uploader of your supressions of information? What is more serious, the supression of important information or a dispute about what should be the proper filename Tm (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

this one is claimed by Pi.1415926535 in my talk page to be "an beneficial rename"?. Original filename is "File:Rostock Ostsee (49832531778)" in german and the moved is "File:Rostock Stadthafen aerial photograph 2019-08-11 02.jpg" in english. Now is it possible to move an filename from german to english? Then Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_not_be_renamed policy is wrong when it says that "Files should NOT be renamed only to translate the filename to another language (...) Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages.". Is anyone saying that moving a filename from German to English is supported by policy?

I did not reverted Pi.1415926535 correct change of license, so his comment in my talkpage that "the files have an incorrect license on flickr" is irrelevant and tangential. Besides the reasons i said above, also Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_be_renamed? clearly says that files can be moved "At the original uploader’s request" as there was no "Unless there is a compelling reason not to".

It is irrelevant and tangential that "do not use edit summaries", as Pi.1415926535 claimed in my talkpage. Where is the policy that forces or advises strongly to it? Is it better to put almost all your moves as the blank and uniformative "clarify subject"?

"You refused to respond to two different objections", because, no one is forced to answer in his talkpage to keep tools or where is the policy that states this, when there is a clear reason not to a reply? Thats why there is administrators noticeboards, file discussion pages, category discussions, etc. Also should i respond to someone that moves to other language against what states the file moving policy? Or use a request by the original uploader? Tm (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Restoration of rights. The action by Pi.1415926535 in removing Tm's access to renames was controversial and not properly discussed. Based on my own discussion with Pi.1415926535, Pi.1415926535's understanding of COM:FR is highly controversial, the key example being Pi.1415926535's rename of one of my 400,000 Library of Congress uploads (refer to extensive report at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Independent opinions requests for the removal of FR rights for Tm). Pi.1415926535 argues that it is okay to remove unique photo identities from filenames, breaking harmonization with the rest of the batch upload for no good reason, and to translate filenames into English, which the official guideline explicitly prohibits. Pi.1415926535 was asked to raise their action for review with their admin colleagues, and has not done so. Tm's access to moves should be restored, and if Pi.1415926535 continues to argue that Tm's behaviour is unacceptable, fine, that case should be made by Pi.1415926535 at AN so that an independent administrator with firm and correct understanding of the renaming guideline can take responsibility for advising Tm, warning Tm or removing access. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment As I read COM:FR "clarify subject" is generlly not a valid reason to move. You can move if the filename is meaningless or ambiguous name and if you look at the examples the file names have to be very bad before they can be moved. A little prettier is no valid reason to move. Translating from German to English is also not a vald reason. About "harmonization" renames can be used if the file name is needed to make templates work eor if it is a part of a whole (for example pages in a book). Adding or removing ID's from a file name is also not a valid reason to move files.

I think this discussion is a bit confusing about who is moving and who is reverting. But I think that most of the moves listed in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Independent opinions requests for the removal of FR rights for Tm are moves I think should not have been made (unless they are a revert of a move the other way). If Tm agree to following COM:FR and only move files based on a NEED to and not NICE to I  Support giving back rights.

Personally I think that if someone have time to move files around then we give them the license reviewer right instead so they can help clear the backlog in Category:License review needed. (It's a joke) --MGA73 (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

To help make the case clearer, examine the file history of File:1887 bird's eye view map of Highlandville, Massachusetts (greyscale).jpg. This shows:

1. 2013, file was uploaded by Tm using a tool that automatically created a standard file name (File:Highlandville, Massachusetts (2673654759).jpg) based on Flickr title and Flickr photoID. Good, follows a standard process.
2. 2020‎-09-06, file overwritten by Pi with a higher resolution version. Good stuff, laudable.
3. (Same hour), Pi moves from original name to longer title File:1887 bird's eye view map of Highlandville, Massachusetts (greyscale).jpg, but has removed the FlickrID, apparently arbitrarily.
4. (5 hours later), Tm moves to the same descriptive name Pi chose, but re-added the original FlickrID, File:1887 bird's eye view map of Highlandville, Massachusetts (greyscale) (2673654759).jpg. Keep in mind that using the FlickrID alone one can track back on Flickr to the original source regardless of changes of title.
5. (6 hours later), Pi moves back to the name with no FlickrID in it, with the edit comment "rv nonsense rename", which seems bizarrely confrontational, as the descriptive title was theirs, all we are talking about is adding the FlickrID that was used on the original first upload.

The example shows that Pi is too involved to use their sysop privileges to remove Tm's rights over these files, and that it is Pi rather than Tm that appears confused about how we should apply the COM:FR official guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment related with File:1887 bird's eye view map of Highlandville, Massachusetts (greyscale).jpg On the same file as said by Fæ above, Pi also supressed important info like the fact that [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1887_bird%27s_eye_view_map_of_Highlandville,_Massachusetts_(greyscale).jpg&diff=449558584&oldid=449530846&diffmode=source he changed the publisher to be the author, and deleted scale info of the map and the call number. Tm (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment to MGA73. I followed COM:FR scrupulously. The files moved by Pi.1415926535 where uploaded by me and had clear filenames. It was the he that, besides suppressing fundamental information like control numbers, scale of maps, methods of drawing maps, collection of origin, library ids, made this moves to suppress the flickr id just because yes, like he did to maps sourced from Library of Congress, as pointed above. Also this same user, as pointed in my talkpage by Fæ, Pi.1415926535 moved File:Dépôt tram Lechmere.jpg to File:Trains in Lechmere Yard, September 2018.jpg to by his own words "clarify subject", and so violating Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_not_be_renamed? in the pointe 2 "Files should NOT be renamed only to translate the filename to another language (...). Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages." I had my tools taken by an involved administrator, against policy, but the same administrator commits a blatant violation of policy and keeps his tools? Tm (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose, for now. This case has some the background. Please also see the ongoing discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. This request is also more an appeal of the removal. As such, the requestor should address the concerns that lead to the removal. The concerns that lead to removal have been:

• The requester reverts renames without prior discussion; COM:FRNOT states that Warning: certain cases of wheel-warring—such as reversal of a preceding renaming which had a valid reason—may result in removal of the filemover privilege even for one infraction.
• The requester does not use edit summaries for moves, which is completely inacceptable as moves involve an advanced right
• The requester does move files to add secondary source information. If at all, file names should only contain primary source information.
• The requester was found unresponsive to his talk page. Response to queries about usage of advanced permissions is a critical requirement of having such permissions.

--Schlurcher (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As a file mover myself, were someone to remove identification numbers from my batch upload files without any established plan, consensus or discussion with me as the original uploader, I would feel free to move them back. My understanding is that this is exactly what Tm has done. In this case it seems someone who happens to have sysop rights was the person moving files in a way not supported by COM:FR, then has complained about Tm not discussing the correction of their moves before making the move. That is exactly the wrong way around, the burden to initiate discussion is on the person doing the move, not the person restoring the identification numbers that were arbitrarily removed. If there is a "sanction" here, it's against the wrong person.

Do you have in mind a specific example of Tm's moves where this was not the case? --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have explained already multiple times that I think that both actions were justified and supported by COM:FR, the first example is [1]. In such a case the involved parties should discuss and not feel free to move back. This was my first bullet point above. I also think the requestor should speak for her/him/them-selves and address the concerns raised above. This is my fourth bullet point above. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess this means that in response to my question, no you do not know of such a case.

With respect to your view about not "feeling free to move back", this runs counter to basic policies of how reverts are handled and the principle of Bold, Revert, Discuss. By those policies, the default position is always to default back to the original filename reference as per the original upload. The only difference here is that one party was an administrator who could permanently remove the move right from the person they were in a disagreement with, and so that's what they did rather than discussing their own bad moves. It's very simple. --Fæ (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I have linked to the thread that gives the examples... . Again, I agree with your principle with a minor correction: Bold, Revert + Discuss. I am missing the discuss here. The requestor can adress this if he/she/they wish/es to. I will then reconsider my position. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I’m not an acritical Tm fan, especially when it comes to things like crops and filenames — but in this case I don’t harbour any doubts:  Support. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Info per COM:VP#Removing reference and identification numbers from file names set by their uploader, the consensus is to support this reading of COM:FR:

Verifiable references or unique identification numbers in file names created at the time of original upload, should never be removed without a consensus, and if part of a batch upload project, or part of standard naming using an upload tool, the entire project should retain its "harmonious" naming standard to enable easier searching, verification and necessary housekeeping.

Where Tm was restoring identification numbers as per original upload names, this was never a controversial use of move rights. The controversial move was to remove the identification the first place, which was never discussed or part of any agreed plan of corrections. --Fæ (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Whereas I agree with your statement, I have explained in the same thread I think that this has no relevance here, the circumstances of removal of rights were different. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has given such an example, you were asked to do so, and appear unable to find such evidence. The circumstances of renames are precisely that discussed on the VP as linked above. --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

These example were given on the other threads that you opened already. There are actually a couple of examples following this style: 1) Edit to higher resolution from a different source [2] 2) Update description to new source [3] 3) Remove the now ambiguous identifyer from filename [4] 4) Re-adding a now ambiguous identifyer by Tm [5] without edit summary --Schlurcher (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You are making very little sense. "ambiguous identifyer" is actually a very specific identifier which can validate copyright, and was used by the uploader at the time of upload to identify the photograph, adds traceability, and consensus has already demonstrated should not be removed without discussion with the burden on the person trying to remove it, not on the uploader. Again, Pi's incorrect actions are not Tm's fault, please stop trying to paint a case that makes bystanders guilty of something. --Fæ (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's fine that we disagree here. That's most natural if there are different valid reasons for renaming and a decision has to be made which of the reasons takes preference. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You have pasted this list of "examples", however they appear random as they are about Pi's inappropriate actions, and may have nothing to do with Tm, for instance File:North Weymouth station, 1889 (14757979941).jpg. If anything they prove the opposite to the point you were attempting to make, that somehow Pi blanking out valid references as used by the uploader to name their files, is somehow, for some freaky reason, all Tm's fault, presumably because administrators can never be held properly to account for their actions, or ever be reverted even when they are contravening consensus and official guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I have not checked every example. I take that as a point to improve on and have corrected the list above accordingly. I have no intention to discuss Pi's actions here. I will focus on Tm's request here. There are now 16 examples relevant to this discussion. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Support. First, moving file is a very basic task, no need to regard it as a graal. Second, with 3 million edits and Commons' atmosphere, yes you will get hastily blocked by few quick-blocking admins barely or not respecting due process and guidelines. This is business as usual. Should we wait 10 years and 2 millions more zero conflicts edit before trusting that user again ? No. We need work to be done, let grant the tool to do it per common sense. The community is still here to check these pages moves, request correction when 1/1000 move is an error, hold that user accountable, revert it and block *when necessary*. Prevent work before hand because we want 0.00% error is not the wiki way. Let contributors contribute. Yug (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Upload Wizard campaign editors

See also: Upload Wizard campaign editors.

Tanyasingh

• Tanyasingh (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

me, @nagarpedian (talk · contribs) and @nagrika5 (talk · contribs) want to start a campaign, where we invites others to add pictures from small cities, and add those to small indian city pages on wikipedia. this is under Wikipedia Indian Cities, not an independent project yet. Is this the right place to seek permission? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanyasingh (talk • contribs)

@Tanyasingh: You're already autoconfirmed, probably you want something else, can you please elaborate what type of permission you want? -- CptViraj (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved to correct section from #Confirmed per explanation by user. -- CptViraj (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

..And thank you for that, @CptViraj:! Tanyasingh (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Translation administrator, GW Toolset user and Account creator

See also: GWToolset users, Translation administrators and Account creators.