Commons:License review/Requests

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

Requests for license reviewer rights[edit]

(Translate) (purge this page's cache)

2020s
2010s
2000s

Before requesting, please read Commons:License review and relevant pages such as Flickr files.

To become a reviewer, one needs to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons and the common practices of reviewing. A reviewer is required to know which Creative Commons licenses are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons. They should also be dedicated in license reviewing every so often and offer their help in the backlogs.

Post your request below and be prepared to respond to questions. The community may voice their opinions or ask a few questions to verify the user's knowledge. After a few days, a reviewer or administrator determines whether there are no severe objections to the candidate. If there are not, the user will close the request and add the candidate to the list of reviewers. If permissions are granted, you can add {{User reviewer}} (or one of its variants) to your user page and begin reviewing images.


Click the button to submit your request. Alternatively, copy the code below to the bottom of this page, and only replace "Reason" with the reason you are requesting this user right. Requests will be open for a minimum of two days (48 hours). 

=={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}==
{{subst:LRR|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason ~~~~}}

To close a request, please wrap the entire section excluding the section heading with {{Frh}} and {{Frf}}. If the request is successful, please leave this message {{subst:image-reviewerWelcome}}--~~~~ on the applicant's user talk page.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 5 days.

Takipoint123[edit]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Comments

 Info [1][2] You can also check the requests I have processed in the Korean Wikipedia for the Uploader user right.--Takipoint123 (💬) 09:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Strong oppose , sorry but very low amount of edits, and "Edits in the past 365 days
45" , no. show yourself in commons first. thanks. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 10:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I do understand the basis of your comment, I disagree respectfully for opposing on basis of edit count. I do have relevant experience regarding licenses and file uploads outside the Commons network and would be willing to help out the back log if given the chance to do so. If there is anything I can do to ease some of your (or anyone else's) concerns I would be more than willing to do so. Thank you :) Takipoint123 (💬) 11:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We expect people who have some special right(s) to have some commitment to Commons. That means to be quite active, that's why we require some recent contributions. So get a few thousands edits, and come back. Yann (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though I do wish to contribute to the review processes, I am more than willing to comply with Commons conventions. If need be, please close this thread if the request seems unfounded, since I wish I don't waste anyone's time :) Sorry for any inconveniences. Takipoint123 (💬) 11:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modern Primat may have been a bit strong worded but it is true that more activity is expected from people who want to obtain these special user rights. I am not opposing but rather expect you to take more action here! :-) Bedivere (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question: In general, Commons has three elevated levels of trust when it comes to dealing with image copyrights: autopatrolled status, patroller status, and license reviewer. Would you be willing to explain the differences between them, and your rationale for applying for license reviewer rather than either of the other two rights? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for the question. These three user rights are very important and similar in the context Commons wiki as they help reduce the workload and make Commons a more reliable source of free content.
However, there are several key differences:
  1. Autopatroll is generally the lowest clearance of the three user rights given that it does not allow the user to mark pages as "patrolled" but rather clear the workload for existing patrollers by marking their own edits only as "patrolled." Usually autopatrolled rights are given to trusted users to reduce the patrol backlog and other than marking their own edits as patrolled it does come with some perks like access to certain gadgets.
  2. Patrolled rights come with all user permissions given with autopatrolled, but with the key difference in that they can also mark other pages as "patrolled." Patrollers mark new pages and other unchecked edits to make sure they are not vandalism and are appropriate under Commons project.
  3. License reviewers also have the patrol and autopatrolled function, but they are generally given more emphasis and specialization in checking for the appropriate copyright tags from external websites (e.g. Flickr), rather than vandalism. They require more specialized knowledge regarding what files should, and should not be cleared into Commons. They also serve to give evidence on whether a file currently marked as non-free was ever free (if reviewed in advance).
Regarding my rationale on why I chose to apply for the license reviewer user right, I thought that it would best use my speciality before becoming an Administrator on KoWiki, where I was given the Uploader user right after being quized on basic license and copyright terms. I did work as an uploader there for a while, which is a user right unlike other wikis. I did find more interest in this narrower feild of checking copyright rather than patrolling for vandalism (which I would also love to do!) so I decided to apply for this user right.
Hope this answer satisfies you. Thank you! Takipoint123 (💬) 03:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
still  Oppose, per yann. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already saw your vote above. No need to vote twice. Bedivere (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I think this user could be a good asset. Their responses above are civil and okay. Bedivere (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    oh yeah? then we make all sysops in other wikis license rewiever here? just let them request it and see they are civil.
    if this user(dont get personal) got promoted becuase he got some userrights and several thound edit in other wiki; and not even got 200 edits here in commons wiki: im gonna make a topic about this in village pump. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 07:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    + because that will be unfair decision for anyone who got declined because of low activity on commons wiki. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 09:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Take it easy. It's not really a big deal and the worse thing that could happen is reversing their reviews and stripping them of the right Bedivere (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted for now, consensus is that this user has inadequate Commons experience. I promoted to patroller, however: patrolling also involves looking for copyright violations, which this user is experienced with. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robotje[edit]

  • Robotje (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: Hello, I am Robotje and I have been active on Commons since 2006. With 3000+ uploaded files (mostly manually uploaded but also with a tool like CropTool) I think I've a pretty good understanding of what files are allowed on Commons. In the past, no doubt, I have made some mistakes with incompatible licenses but over those 17 years I learned more and more about the process here at Commons. Recently I have been mostly active on Commons and Wikidata but other Wikimedia projects like the English Wikipedia have my attention too. Since there is a huge number of files here at Commons that, sometimes already for years, need a licence review I am willing to help reducing the backlog. Initially I would like to focus on files with YouTube as source, and later on also from sources I am less familiar with like Flickr. If you have any questions, please let me know. - Robotje (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Scheduled to end: 18:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

  •  Question. I'm seeing lots of experience uploading files to Commons. That is good work, and I see no immediate issues with the licensing status of any recent uploads. However, I don't really see much in terms of patrolling for copyright violations in recently, so I don't have much to go off of in terms of your ability to patrol files uploaded by others. I'm not opposed (in principle) to granting the LR rights, and your contributions have been very valuable to Commons. However, I would like to see you demonstrate understanding of some of the more complex rules regarding copyrights, as well as license reviewing more generally. Would you please let me know what you would do when faced with files uploaded under the following circumstances?
    1. A user uploads a screenshot of Michael Smerconish from 00:00:00 of this YouTube video with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the YouTube video url as its source and crediting "CNN" as its author.
    2. A user uploads a photograph of Donald Trump from 4:27 of this YouTube video] with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the video url as its source and crediting "Robert Reich" as its author.
    3. A user uploads a photograph of Hikaru Nakamura from 2:27 of this YouTube video with {{YouTube}} license, noting the video url as its source and crediting "Mordimer's Chess Channel" as its author.
    4. A user uploads a photograph of Wolf Blitzer from 0:00 of this video with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the video url as its source and crediting "United States Senator Lindsey Graham" as its author.
    5. A user uploads a photograph of the Milad Tower from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "ArdalShah" as its author.
    6. A user uploads a photograph of Moses, Notre Dame from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "icfasntw" as its author.
    7. A user uploads this photograph from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Bill Baldridge" as its author.
    8. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Ron Frazier" as its author.
    9. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "David Orban" as its author.
    10. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Loco Steve" as its author.
Cheeers!
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Red-tailed hawk, here are my answers
  1. This is a interview put on YouTube by AlexDelPrete under the CC-BY 3.0 license so that part looks good. A link is provided to the original video on CNN and at the bottom of that page it says "© 2023 Cable News Network". So the uploader on YouTube is not the same as the real source. Therefor "CNN" as its author looks correct but the CC license on YouTube is not correctly applied.→ fail
  2. In this video of Robert Reich many photos and video clips are used. Some of them are old black-and-white (even 1930's) and others recent so it is very unlikely these are all his own work. Since the video clips are short that might be OK as fair use for publishing on YouTube but taking a screenshot of such a recent video clip and uploading it to Commons as a work of Robert Reich is not OK. → fail
  3. I am not convinced that the thumbnail picture of Hikaru Nakamura is a photo taken by the person/people behind the Mordimers Chess Channel. Since it is a thumbnail it might be OK as fair use for a video on YouTube but that is not enough for putting it on Commons. → fail
  4. Under the video it says "Senator Lindsey Graham appeared on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer where he discussed the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi." It is obvious this whole video is made by CNN and not that senator. It is unlikely that CNN has published this video under that free license. → fail
  5. ArdalShah claims to live in Iran and I checked several of the pictures he has on Flickr and these are also in Iran so there is no reason to doubt he is living there. This photograph was released on Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license and that license is mentioned on Commons:Flickr files as OK for uploading on Commons. On COM:FOP Iran it is mentioned that there is no Freedom of Panorama (FoP) in Iran. The main topic of this photograph is that tower (de minimis is not applicable here) so the image is not allowed on Commons. → fail
  6. The image was uploaded on Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license and "icfasntw" is indeed mentioned as the author of the photograph. So that looks good. According to the English Wikipedia page you linked it was made by the Croatian artist Josip Turkalj and "Owned by the University of Notre Dame and commissioned in 1962, ..." Here the 1962 year is also mentioned. Turkalj (1924-2007) was at that time working in the USA at the same university as where the statue is now standing outside. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Artworks and sculptures images are basically not allowed for sculptures in the USA. However you can read there also "... any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978)." Since 2015 File:Moses, Notre Dame.jpg is on Commons and that is an indication the exception about a copyright notice is not applicable here. So uploading to Commons seems to be OK. I might consider leaving a thank-you note on Flickr for the uploader there (icfasntw) but at this moment I have no experience with Flickr so I would first need to look into how to do that.→ pass
  7. The photograph is no longer available on Flickr (clicking on the link gives a 404 error) so the review fails. As a courtesy to the uploader on Commons I could try to find it. At the moment of reviewing the image is surely still available on Commons (in your question you did not provide one) so I might be able to quickly check if I can find it between the photos of him on Flickr. If so, it also needs the correct free CC license. I just randomly checked the license state of several photographs of him that are still there and none of them had been released under a free CC license. → fail
  8. I am not convinced that this picture is really about a piece of art created by Ron Frazier himself. Here you can see another image of him on Flickr with the description "The Mighty Zeppelin. Graff Zeppelin ... from my collection of internet sourced material" and released under the same CC license. After searching images on Google [3] I found this page with the same picture.→ fail
  9. The image has the description "Eric Drexler on Wikipedia - before" and was uploaded on Flickr in November 2007. It looks very much like the English Wikipedia article en:K. Eric Drexler at that time. That article was created in 2001 and in November 2007 already many wikipedians had edited that article. As you mentioned it was uploaded on Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting "David Orban" as its author. Until 2009 the license for Wikipedia was GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) and later on CC-BY-SA 4.0 was added. So not only the wrong license was used in 2007, the author is not (only) David Orban but many wikipedians.→ fail (one might argue that after adjusting the license and author it would be OK for Commons but without these corrections the review for sure fails)
  10. The description on Flickr is "Boris Johnson visits Leake Street London ... A brilliant mural of Bo Jo has popped up in Leake Street Waterloo.. Mi6 are currently in pursuit of Street Artist Irony" To me that seems to be a mural by an anonymous artist photographed by Loco Steve. Since he was most likely not the artist who made the mural and that mural is the main topic of the photo, uploading to Commons is not allowed. → fail
I hope the average file in the backlog is easier than the 10 of your test. - Robotje (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. Thank you for doing this, and I have confidence that you will perform well. (With respect to #9, one could adjust the license to {{Wikipedia screenshot}} and it would be fine, as you indicate in your aside.) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support per above Bedivere (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support , but i wanna say something... besides most of my answers are correct too, i felt like these questions are hard(6 is kinda hard, 9 is hard) . if you asked same questions to me in my request i would got declined xd. thats why i dont review some files, that i dont sure about. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9 is hard, but it's by design. I like it because it ties together a bunch of Commons policies that relate to license reviewing and copyright, as well as the particulars of Creative Commons licenses. As such, it really allows the LR candidate to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding within the area of license reviewing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
have you considered becoming sysop straightaway? RZuo (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pointing out to me that becoming a sysop (admin) at Commons is also an option. For now I am willing to help reducing the backlog of files that need a licence review. I don't see becoming a license reviewer as a 'career path' to one day joining the admins here. Future will tell if that might happen later on. - Robotje (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests&oldid=792401240"