Commons talk:Requests for rights/Archive 1

Archive 1

archiving?

Well, are fulfilled/rejected requests going to be archived somewhere or just removed? →Nagy 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Might as well archive them. Should we set it up for the bot? Rocket000 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a bot for that, just making two archive's one archive for done and one for notdone Huib talk 21:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Aw, I already had it ready. :) Yeah, that sounds good. Rocket000 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone throw some links to the archives on the appropriate pages? Thx!... note that I was trying to see if I could create a more automatic way of doing the requests (via editnotice and the rfp template) but I didn't sort it out... I see the rest of you lot got it working! Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I quickly made something at Commons:Rollback/Approved and Commons:Rollback/Denied. Subpages by month can be added there perhaps. I also created Category:Commons rollback feature which I've added to the pages related to rollback, just as a sort of central category. It was a bit of a bold idea really, so feel free to revert if it isn't appropriate. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Since any admin can grant it, I wonder if we should (at least) ask admins to record that they granted (or took away) the right even if it was a direct request? Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What about requiring a link to the request in the log? I guess I would have no problem with it either way. Although, I can see where a page for logging why we removed rights would be useful. Rocket000 (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, two years later, I think archiving by a bot would be the most convenient option. --Leyo 15:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Minimum requirements?

I think we should be a bit more restrict when granting rollback. While most of the applying users are trusted, I don't think all of them need the rollback tool as such. If they're doing work as reverting vandalism/using the undo tool, and have a need for it, the user in question can be granted rollback. Otherwise I think we're going to get a big rollbacker group, and most of them not using it. Thoughts? --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a big deal really. If they're active enough and are trusted, then there's no harm in granting the right. Chances are the person will need it at least a few times. Rollback is, in my opinion, no big deal in this regard. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Worth discussing for sure. To me if they are admins/rollbackers elsewhere & moderately active here it should be ok - the rights can be removed just as easily after all. Commons has always lacked RC watchers (which would probably be behind a number of the requests). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree with Herby also again it not a big deal ,if people need it they should get, when not should drop it --Mardetanha ^talk 14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also i think having a kinda minimum criteria would a good option too --Mardetanha ^talk 14:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mardetanha here, but well, currently it seems to boil down to kind of overflow as only a few will resign due to inactivity. Sure, last thing I want is an inactivity policy for rollbackers. Maybe we should just adopt a few specific restrictions? →Nagy 14:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with something (50 contribs not taking you back more than...?). But in the end I'd remove without hesitation if they don't edit for a period - it really is no big issue so long as it is not used wrongly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that all active users (+40 edit's a month) can have rollback, I don't think it is that big deal. Huib talk 17:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit much to ask. Edit count is not the primary issue. There is a difference between understanding the tool, and being trusted to use it. While we trust them for some things, that does not mean they will use this tool in accordance with the guideline (AGF - but this is why I would like to see at least some experience before being assigned rollback). That is why I want to see at least some vandalism reverting, before we just grant it. As noted; previous experience on some other can help your request, but Commons experience is the primary one. Having a lot of inactive users is not something I'd like to see. Same applies to status.

As to X edits - I'll have to say I'd expect at least some vandalism reverting (as noted above), before granting. I know RC is accessible to all users, so I don't see much problem just doing some vandalism reverting here too. After being here for a while (some weeks?), and moderately active - I'd be happy to grant rollback. --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kanonkas - no numbers please - folk just say "I've got that many so now give me...".

I'm less bothered by whether they deal with vandalim a lot though. I've have maybe 400 images on my watch list - if others have a few too & merely watch them it would help keep the vandalism to a really low level. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the last part - Yes, just a little bit is enough for me. However, if we start getting at a point where almost all kind of vandalism is being dealt with - we have a positive problem :) --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(←) Rollback is really really no big deal. I think our admins are competent enough to know if a user is experienced/trusted enough. As for requiring a need for it, well.. We don't have much vandalism here. And all the vandal fighters I know are admins anyway. I think if a Commons regular, with no history of edit-warring or anything, requests it for a reason like reverting their own mistakes I see no problem with giving it to them. Rocket000 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted above several times - It's not a big deal, and I do agree with that. However, I don't find it a big deal to discuss the minimum requirements - if you didn't mean so, I'm sorry. --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm contributing to the discussion, aren't I? :) Rocket000 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if we make rules for rollback we make a big deal out of it. Rollback is a function so people can deal with vandalism in a more easy way. There are alternative way's and .js scripts to get the same result and everybody can get those. I think all people should be able to get rollback when the have shown that the are active on Commons and that the know what the rules are. When people show that aren't using rollback in a good way it can be revoked by every admin. I think we should do this one without a lot of rules, a administrator is elected by the communety and have there trust. So I believe that a admin can see if it is okay to give a user rollback or not. Please don't make a book full of rules around this. Remember it is wikiworld ;-) Huib talk 13:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my request, I don't actively seek out vandalism to rollback. Overall, Commons seems a much less vandalized place than en.wiki, for example. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course. It just means that someone like me who isn't seeking it out isn't going to see a lot of it on a regular basis (thankfully!). I, and any other regular user, can do a rollback type of edit simply by going to the most recent edit prior to the vandal's edits and saving the old revision. Voila, an instant rollback-like edit. from what I understand about rollback after reading quite a bit about it before requesting the right, is that it reduces the number of clicks and it actually gentler on the servers than the manual edit method. Otherwise, there's no difference between the two types of edits (or using Twinkle or another script that all essentially do the same thing). Thus, as others have said, Rollback is no t a big deal. I don't see any use in removing it from people for lack of use. Just about the time it gets removed is probably the time someone will need to use it. Then, instead of being gentle to the servers, the person will have to do it the hard way. I don't think that the right should expire--it should just be removed if the person misuses it. If all of the so-called "trusted" users have rollback rights, then it just means that Commons is that much better protected. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but I also wouldn't care if some administrator(s) decide to remove it from users that haven't edited for a certain amount of time if they really want to. Rocket000 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - people seem to forget that if it is "no big deal" to get it it really is no big deal not to have it. I know I'm odd but try requesting rights from a community on the basis that "I am active now but in a year or so I'll find other things to do & won't be around".... It really is no big deal in either direction. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That was part of my point. If I were to not use Rollback for a year or two, and then finally come across a time where it would be handy, but when I try to do it, discover the right had been taken away from me for inactivity—no big deal. There are other ways to accomplish the same thing. It might be a little more difficult (a few extra clicks) and a little extra strain on the servers. Of course, what's the effect on the servers of admins adding and removing Rollback rights from users? ;-) I think that people should have to pass a modest requirement to gain the right, and they should only lose that right if they misuse it or otherwise give cause to no longer trust them with the right. It's different from Admin rights where it is incumbent upon the person to "use it or lose it". --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 18:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Preload page

{{Editprotected}}

Please move MediaWiki:Preload/Commons:Rollback/Requests to MediaWiki:Preload/Commons:Requests for rights (as in url for new requests). --Kaganer (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - Huib talk 20:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer on top of page

Guess this is a leftover from when only rollback was granted here: "Established and trustworthy Commons users, admins, and anyone with global rollback need not post here." I'm "established and trustworthy" (former admin here), and I also have GR. I still had to ask to have the "patroller" funtion enabled here. Somebody might want to update the wording there. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Think I've fixed it now. Thank you. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kanonkas :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

dropping section=new&editintro&preload parameters

Because of section=new parameter we are unable to control the location of requests. So I propose to drop section=new&editintro&preload parameters out to prevent going wrong section. editintro will be replaced by editnotice. Please make your comment about this problem. Regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 05:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it doesn't work.  Done –Krinkle^talk 05:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Renaming images

There's a huge backlog at Category:Media requiring renaming. According to Commons:File renaming, this can be done by a class of "file movers", but the term is not further explained there. I see that people like Arriva436 are asking for and obtaining this ability here. Could someone explain

• What "bits" are required to become a file mover (is it "tboverride"?)
• What criteria might be required of people requesting the right?
• What other rights necessarily come with file mover status (if any)?

I'm mostly interested in updating Commons:File renaming to send more users this way, but I'll also likely apply here for this right soon, once I know what I'm getting into. :) Wnt (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I cleared the end of this backlog (amongs them a lot of bs icons, rename requested in April) end Augustus.

Since then, we had dozens of ogg pronounciations words files rename requests from the same people. I assigned him filemover rights, so he can rename itself.

Now, the case is closed, as this last week I never see more than 6 pictures to rename :)--Dereckson (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with adding the request to the empty "Autopatrol" section

When I tried to add the new request to the empty "Autopatrol" section using the "add request" link, I had some problem: new request is added to the end of "Filemover" section. What did I do wrong? Yuri Che (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As a result, "add request" links are removed: Commons talk:Requests for rights#dropping section=new&editintro&preload parameters. Yuri Che (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Filemover rights

The approving of this right should be a bit stricter. At the Speedy Deletions, I see a lot of inappropriate moves, (those who make unnecessary name changes to the titles, and (without checking globalusage) request the resulting redirect be speedy deleted. We may also want to consider creating a venue do discuss de-filemover requests... Just saying. Rehman 05:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea. Every once in a while I inspect the file moves at the Delinker's command talk page and I have to say that a good majority are improperly named. Worse yet, I see many file movers making silly excuses "to harmonize" or to "have consistency" even though I see no evidence of that. Even some of our good movers do not follow the rules, and when that happens, others are encouraged to do so. I presume that thoughts like "oh it's just one file" or similar runs into mind? I admit I have felt reluctant not to warn some of these users either because I'm just lazy, or the user would give me one of those silly excuses, which would make me have to deal with the problem, which goes back to me being lazy.

As for making the granting of rights more stricter, I have no problem with that. The traffic is no longer high and it has already worked fine with the image-reviewer right. For de-filemover requests, we could just send those to the admin's board. But yes, I agree we need to take action, either by considering this suggestion or start issuing warnings. --ZooFari 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, is there some rules or guidelines for file renaming out there ? Yug (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're not aware of Commons:File renaming. Yeah, that's the guidelines for file renaming so make sure you read it when you can. --ZooFari 05:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just have to say that I have to agree here. I see many requests on the Delinker's command talk page stating "more descriptive" for renames that would definitely go under the "what should not be renamed" as just looking a bit better. I've turned down similar requests only to have them added by the user again and then approved by some other file mover. – Adrignola talk 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you informed such file movers about their (non-guideline according) moves? --Leyo 17:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Move Reviewer here

There seems to be less attention paid to Commons:License review/requests‎ and I believe it is because it is separated out from this page and the other major requests for permissions page Commons:Administrators. It would take some effort to relocated and sort the archives I know, but the fact that Reviewer requests aren't located here seems to me to be quite the inconsistency. – Adrignola talk 22:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Today I just cleaned up a bit at Commons:Flickr files/reviewers and Commons:Picasa Web Albums files/reviewers. I aggree it's inconsistent to request for rewiever rights elsewhere! axp_de^Hello! 14:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can transclude here, but I have to disagree with merging the request page. For 1) this page is where it's admin's decision to give rights or not and 2) the current process is not actually broken. The requests page is not expected to have lots of traffic. The two or three persons including me are enough to avoid the unilateral hand-out of rights. And if no one comments, we can take that as no objections, and then it can be up to the closer's decision. Plus this has been efficient, in my own opinion, to limit the rate of people given the rights and to whom. Here I have to say the rights are handed out like flyers, which is a no no for the image-reviewer flag. The backlogs are usually never severe anyways. --ZooFari 01:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, any admin is able to set the flag. And this flag is one of several flags most of which can be requested at this page. All exacept one, that's unlogical. But I agree that we need some kind of criteria catalogue for each flag ... axp_de^Hello! 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just an example: A user with only 50 edits on commons requested filemover right ... and was granted this! axp_de^Hello! 17:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I transcluded the license review requests on this page, see here. Trijnstel_talk 13:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

I recently became an OTRS volunteer, but I still need the OTRS-member flag on Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You should request that flag at Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard‎. axp_de^Hello! 12:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

AWB access here?

Please see the proposal at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#AWB_backlog. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding AWB section, per Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_31#AWB_backlog. Rd232 (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Upload Wizard campaign editors

How is the Upload Wizard campaign editors userright assigned? Can someone clarify this at Commons:Upload Wizard campaign editors? Or if there is no specific place/process, should we make a heading here? Rd232 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We had a heading for this last year, see Commons:Requests for rights/Denied/Others/2011#Upload Wizard campaign editors. To quote the words of Multichill: "I'm not sure who added the option to request this right. As far as I know this hasn't been implemented yet on a technical level and on a community level. Asking on meta won't do you any good. Until we properly implement this only admins can manage these campaigns." (Though the developer NeilK disagreed with him.) See also bugzilla:31903. Trijnstel_talk 13:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it has been implemented now, as far as I can tell - it's one of the options at Special:Userrights. Rd232 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I know and it was implemented back then too iirc. So I don't know why he declined it... Trijnstel_talk 13:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a similar process like our efficient bot-approval process. Um yes, this was actually a joke; but it would be good to have a page with details about new campaigns where we've space for discussion. At least for the people patrolling new files it could be useful to be notified. -- RE rillke questions? 15:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Something like Commons:License review/requests? (I transcluded that page to this one btw.) Trijnstel_talk 16:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page of Commons:Upload campaigns? Rd232 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this page archive?

A few of the requests here are very old. Do we archive these or just delete the old requests? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Commons:Requests for rights/Approved
• Commons:Requests for rights/Denied

--Leyo 07:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Sreejith K (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of word "promoted" or "not promoted"

Can I make a light-hearted suggestion? Can we avoid the use of words like "promoted" or "not promoted" on the requests page please? It only makes it seem like these rights make the user superior/'promoted' to other volunteers, when clearly that's not the case. Maybe a simple "Granted" or "Done" would suffice? Rehman 03:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO any word with   or   symbol is sufficiently clear.

•  Done /  Promoted /  Granted /  lalala
•  Not done /  Not promoted /  Not granted /  Not lalala

Greetings, Alan ^(talk) 12:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Rehman: I understand your concerns but personally I don't really care which word is used. It all means the same. Trijnstel_talk 18:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I know... It's no big deal really, but it's just the little steps we need to take to avoid some people taking these flags as a big deal... Just some thoughts... Rehman 00:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the opening post. Also not a massive deal, but  Granted /  Not granted,  Assigned /  Not assigned, or similar would sound better to me - Nbound (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Or  Approved /  Denied works as well, but the other combos that Nbound mentioned I'm fine with. Not a fan of promoted/not promoted verbage though. Dainomite (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Aloha! Two questions:

1. Shouldn't this page automatically archive (with section resolved only)?
2. Do we really need to split between approved and declined requests?

I think instead of archiving by hand we could get the bot to do that work. Just my two cents. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

+1. Yann (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Do we need to have approved and declined sections? To keep it simple, we could just cut the archive to size and sort into autopatrolled, AWB, filemover, etc. no matter the out come. Any objections? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I moved all old requests to archives today. Yann (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Yann: OK now? I don't like the archive box creeping over into the next section. Maybe all archive boxes into the top section? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I highly doubt that archiving in this way is technically possible. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The boxes? Seriously? The design of the page is broken for me. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugly... Alan ^(talk) 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, very ugly in deed. Doesn't work to archive single sections separately? So all in one big pile? Thanks for cleanup Steiny! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverting all my stuff for now. I created a page to test this out a little here. @Yann, Steinsplitter, and Alan: How is the new layout? Not really convincing either IMHO. How about something similar to what we have now, without the search option? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Composition of users with AP right

For info Commons:Village_pump#Tuning_of_the_AP_right--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Request of formatting

I am requesting that this page be formatted a bit more like the English Wikipedia, with a page such as Wikipedia:Requests for rights/Autopatrolled embedded using {{Wikipedia:Requests for rights/Autopatrolled}}. Not sure if this should go to the village pump, but I'll be sure to go there if asked. I am requesting this because 1. It won't be grouped up and mainly, 2. It would make coding a bot a lot easier. I am currently working on programming a bot that does what en:User:MusikBot/PermClerk does. DatGuy (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Hedwig in Washington, Alan, Steinsplitter, and Yann because of the discussion above. DatGuy (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Inquiry

As I am active for marathi (mr) version of Wikipedia what rights can I apply for as to become a link from Marathi Wikipedia to Commons --Tiven2240 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to rename account creator group to batch uploaders

Hello, there is currently a VP proposal open that needs more communtiy input that is relevant to this page, please take a look and input your opinion. ~riley (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help to approve Rights status for uploaded images

Hello all! I'm trying to upload a public image from an official state site. Actually there are 2 images uploaded:

File:Maksatikha Flag.jpg

File:Maksatikha_CoatOfArms.jpg

The content is a depiction of the Flag and Coat-of-Arms of a Russian Federation entity (member). I'm sure all the official symbols should be free licensed and distributed, in case of non-vandalic purposes.
My intentions are clean, the images're supposed to be used in wikipedia articles.

So, if someone could help me with an advice how can I evade file deletion in this particular subject? --Diimaha 19 March 2010

I think no help needed by now, thanx for "PD-RU-exempt" tag writers --Diimaha 20 March 2010

Administrator request

I want to request for an administrator. auc2104 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

auc2104: Please specify if you would like to

• Get help by an administrator

or

• Become an administrator yourself?

~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The requesting user has been globally blocked and can't respond to that question anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Rename

I uploaded File:Royal Portrush Golf Club 6th hole.png, but it should have been called File:Royal Portrush Golf Club 5th hole.png. Please change Jopal22 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jopal22: This is the wrong place, and but I renamed it. Next time, just add {{Rename}} in the file description. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Show "assign permission" hyperlink to only admins

Resolved Masum Reza^📞 20:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This hyperlink is currently visible to all users and can be misleading for non-admins. It serves no purpose for a non admin. I believe it should only be visible to admins. To do that it just needs to be wrapped with a adminonly class. Any thoughts on the matter? Masum Reza^📞 15:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed. -- Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think there is one problem. License reviewers can also edit user rights. Would it be possible to show this hyperlink to only license reviewers and admins? Masum Reza^📞 17:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Good idea but I don’t think it’s necessary. There are some users that might want to check the contributions of the listed user so that can vote accordingly. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 18:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  @大诺史: What does assign permissions hyperlink (Special:UserRights page) have anything to do with checking contributions? I am only talking about the "assign permission" hyperlink here. Masum Reza^📞 18:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Masumrezarock100: Actually, I just realised I said some stupid, ignore me😂 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 00:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the template and made the hyperlink to appear only to admins. See Template:Rfr/sandbox. Masum Reza^📞 19:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@~riley: Are you seeing the assign permissions hyperlink? Just wanted to confirm. Masum Reza^📞 03:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am seeing it. Thanks for this! ~riley (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. It's been a while since this discussion had been opened. No one opposed so I am being bold here and closing this. Please reopen if necessary. Masum Reza^📞 04:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Masumrezarock100: Uh... Now am seeing double.. (assign permissions) (assign permissions) ~riley (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• @ZI Jony: I don't mean to say "you broke it, now fix it" but... Much thank! ~riley (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• @~riley: You are seeing double assign permissions hyperlinks because ZI Jony made edits to {{User5}}, {{UL2.0}}, and {{Rfr}}. He might want to explain what he is doing. Masum Reza^📞 19:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

All is well with the world, by the time I had commented, everything had been sorted out minus the cleanup needed on COM:RFR. His changes were logical; he moved the assigns permissions change to the parent template. ~riley (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: The text was always {{Subst}} on RFR, so I've fixed that. By using the template {{User5}} "assign permissions" will appear for admins. @~riley: Thanks for your confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZI Jony (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A change in the tmbox of the Confirmed section

Can we add "As a strict guideline, an account needs to be below 4 days old for confirmed to be given" in the aforementioned tmbox? Calvinkulit • t • c 11:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait, is that a guideline? And why would a person request confirmed rights when they already have auto-confirmed? Besides number of requests for confirmed rights are relatively low. Masum Reza^📞 12:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary imoh - the expectation is that common sense prevails. Admins will use the judgement to determine if confirmed is appropriate. ~riley (talk)

Also abuse filter sometimes delays auto-promotion of new users. This "strict" guideline of yours, won't apply then. Masum Reza^📞 14:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

One would use Special:AbuseFilter/tools to restore autoconfirmed rather than set confirmed, in that case --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand, but in the past, there was a surge of autoconfirmed people applying for confirmed. Calvinkulit • t • c 06:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

Majora used to archive closed requests but he wasn't active much lately. I archived all recent closed requests as they were making the page bigger and bigger day by day. If I did it wrong, I apologize in advance. Feel free to revert my edits. I think we need to set up auto-archiving here like enwiki's PERM which is archived by MusikBot. Masum Reza^📞 14:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you did it right, Masumrezarock100. Sorry this page has gotten rather low on my "to-do" list lately. I'll try to keep up with it more frequently. The way we archive requests in such a segregated format might be hard for any current bot to handle. --Majora (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: could we either move autopatrolled to the bottom of the page or create subpages for requestable rights? (at least for autopatrol, like Commons:Requests for rights/Autopatrol)

I have a form to ease requesting rights. Copy this into your common.js (should be a gadget if we use this.. not sure if/how the duplication could be avoided, but that doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me):

document.getElementById("nom_user_confirmed").innerHTML = "<form name=\"nomuser\" class=\"createbox\" action=\"/w/index.php\" method=\"get\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/Confirmed\" name=\"title\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"edit\" name=\"action\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/preload\" name=\"preload\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"new\" name=\"section\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"true\" name=\"nosummary\"><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Username\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Reason\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"submit\" name=\"request\" class=\"mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive createboxButton\" value=\"Nominate\"></form>";
document.getElementById("nom_user_autopatrol").innerHTML = "<form name=\"nomuser\" class=\"createbox\" action=\"/w/index.php\" method=\"get\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/Autopatrol\" name=\"title\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"edit\" name=\"action\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/preload\" name=\"preload\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"new\" name=\"section\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"true\" name=\"nosummary\"><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Username\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Reason\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"submit\" name=\"request\" class=\"mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive createboxButton\" value=\"Nominate\"></form>";
document.getElementById("nom_user_AWB").innerHTML = "<form name=\"nomuser\" class=\"createbox\" action=\"/w/index.php\" method=\"get\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/AutoWikiBrowser\" name=\"title\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"edit\" name=\"action\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/preload\" name=\"preload\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"new\" name=\"section\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"true\" name=\"nosummary\"><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Username\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Reason\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"submit\" name=\"request\" class=\"mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive createboxButton\" value=\"Nominate\"></form>";
document.getElementById("nom_user_patroller").innerHTML = "<form name=\"nomuser\" class=\"createbox\" action=\"/w/index.php\" method=\"get\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/Patroller\" name=\"title\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"edit\" name=\"action\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/preload\" name=\"preload\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"new\" name=\"section\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"true\" name=\"nosummary\"><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Username\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Reason\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"submit\" name=\"request\" class=\"mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive createboxButton\" value=\"Nominate\"></form>";
document.getElementById("nom_user_rollback").innerHTML = "<form name=\"nomuser\" class=\"createbox\" action=\"/w/index.php\" method=\"get\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/Rollback\" name=\"title\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"edit\" name=\"action\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/preload\" name=\"preload\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"new\" name=\"section\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"true\" name=\"nosummary\"><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Username\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Reason\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"submit\" name=\"request\" class=\"mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive createboxButton\" value=\"Nominate\"></form>";
document.getElementById("nom_user_filemover").innerHTML = "<form name=\"nomuser\" class=\"createbox\" action=\"/w/index.php\" method=\"get\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/Filemover\" name=\"title\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"edit\" name=\"action\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/preload\" name=\"preload\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"new\" name=\"section\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"true\" name=\"nosummary\"><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Username\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Reason\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"submit\" name=\"request\" class=\"mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive createboxButton\" value=\"Nominate\"></form>";
document.getElementById("nom_user_template-editor").innerHTML = "<form name=\"nomuser\" class=\"createbox\" action=\"/w/index.php\" method=\"get\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/Template editor\" name=\"title\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"edit\" name=\"action\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/preload\" name=\"preload\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"new\" name=\"section\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"true\" name=\"nosummary\"><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Username\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Reason\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"submit\" name=\"request\" class=\"mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive createboxButton\" value=\"Nominate\"></form>";
document.getElementById("nom_user_uwcampaign").innerHTML = "<form name=\"nomuser\" class=\"createbox\" action=\"/w/index.php\" method=\"get\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/Upload Wizard campaign editors\" name=\"title\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"edit\" name=\"action\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"Commons:Requests for rights/preload\" name=\"preload\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"new\" name=\"section\"><input type=\"hidden\" value=\"true\" name=\"nosummary\"><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Username\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"text\" name=\"preloadparams[]\" class=\"mw-inputbox-input mw-ui-input mw-ui-input-inline createboxInput\" value=\"\" placeholder=\"Reason\" size=\"50\" dir=\"ltr\"><br><input type=\"submit\" name=\"request\" class=\"mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive createboxButton\" value=\"Nominate\"></form>";

and look at User:Alexis Reggae/Sandbox Commons:Requests for rights/Autopatrol User:Alexis Reggae/Requests for rights autopatrol. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Creating pages like Commons:Requests for rights/Autopatrol would probably also solve the archiving issues. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Lemme test a little.. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems to work fine. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It's basically all set up.. just uncomment some stuff, create a gadget and we're ready to go I think. (maybe change the section header level, not sure how archivebot handles that) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of further segregating the request pages into different pages that then have to be watched separately. I don't mind archiving this page. I really don't. I just have to remember to look at it more often. --Majora (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: if watching multiple pages is too much trouble, is there still a need to have sections for the various rights? And if yes, can autopatrol be moved to the bottom? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The sections help for organization purposes and for quickly seeing what the person is applying for. Since each right has variant requirements the sections help. Is there any reason you want autopatrol at the bottom? --Majora (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Wooh, the script is written in pure HTML! But that would not look good in mobile. I think I can prepare a OOUI version (like forms in Mediawiki contributions page). By the way, I think POST request instead of GET would be better. Before that I think we should reach consensus. Masum Reza^📞 21:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: I told you I suck at scripting! - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: autopatrol is by far the most frequently requested right, and the most common to be requested for another user. The other rights would generally not be requested by a user more than once. (apart from patrol, but that's a recent development) The thing is, when autopatrol is at the bottom, I can make new requests using a form and section=new. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if we did away with sections we would put the requested right in the section header. (e.g. ==Rollback for Majora==) The information could be provided above the edit window, for example [1]. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: what do you say? Is it acceptable to move autopatrol to the bottom? The copypasting of the username over {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} is a bit of a pain (have to go back-and-forth because I have to copy-paste two things and the pasting over {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has to be very exact) and more error-prone than just a form. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, we create a separate page for autopatrol but leave all the others here. That way you'd have to watchlist two pages. Archiving autopatrol could be done by a bot in that case. (only approved/declined would not be separated, but really.. when do we even look at these archives?) Note: I'd personally still be in favor of "Rollback for Majora"-like titles, put the requirements for each right in the editintro and at the top of the page for all rights. And bot-archive everything from there on. But I guess that won't happen. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

While I am only one admin and therefore cannot speak for the entire admin crop, I cannot imagine many, if any, of us want another page to have to watchlist. Things get lost already in mine as it is so adding another one, even if it is only for one right is simply not something I desire. As for putting it to the bottom, I don't generally "work" this page. I archive it, which again I don't have a problem with, and I watch it to see if some requests are being left for longer periods of time then is normal. But I rarely actually assign rights. I'm not sure I should be the best one to answer whether it should be reorganized. I'm fine with the status quo to be honest. I don't really see anything broken with the current process and I generally lean to the side of, "if it's not broken don't fix it". --Majora (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: the precision copy-pasting is a mental hurdle, at least for me, to nominate more users for autopatrol. It just doesn't work in a streamlined manner, it's tedious. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Proposal seems appropriate here to get consensus - We get too many requests to be doing this by hand when we could be using a bot. For us to use a bot, we would need to move to subpages which imoh is logical at this point anyways. ~riley (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  As I said previously I don't plan on going anywhere. At least not intentionally. I may take a week off here an there for vacations but seeing as during my last vacation I was reading noticeboards anyways it is not like that would matter all that much. I can always archive things provided I have an internet connection since that doesn't require admin access and I can use my public computer sock for that. --Majora (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  I personally find archiving these pages quite tedious. I wouldn't mind someone setting up a bot to do it. But as long as Majora is willing to play bot I see no pressing need for it. Especially since we don't get so many requests that the pages overflow, just because they were not archived for a few weeks. (Although I see a tendency of our edit-count-crowd to nominate other people outside of autopatrol recently, which could become a problem in the future.) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Archiving rules

• User:UserRightsBot will archive requests on this page.
• Will wait for at least 12 hours from the last comment time (reads last signature time) before archiving. Will not archive, if not not granted/denied.
• To deactivate the bot just remove/replace/change <!-- User:UserRightsBot - ON --> (present at the bottom of the page).
• Code @ https://github.com/eatcha-wikimedia/commons-rfr-archive-bot

// Eatcha (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)