Commons:License review/Requests

Shortcut: COM:LRR

Requests for license reviewer rights

(Translate) (purge this page's cache)

Archives 2020s 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2010s 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2000s 2009 2008 2007

Kindly read Commons:License review and relevant pages such as Flickr files before applying for the right.

To become a reviewer, you need 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 compatible with Wikimedia Commons and which are not, and be dedicated to license reviewing every so often and offer their assistance in clearing the backlogs. Relevant knowledge can be demonstrated by regularly participating in deletion requests or in New Files Patrolling.

Post your request below and be prepared to respond to questions. The community may voice their opinions or ask a few questions to verify your knowledge. A few days later (usually 48 hours), a reviewer or an administrator will determine the possible outcome of the request based on the input received from the community. The closing admin/reviewer will grant the right if there are no objections and add the applicant 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 ~~~~}}

• Note for Admins/Reviewers: 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 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 3 days. For the archive overview, see Commons:License review/Requests/Archive. The latest archive is located at Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2025.

SCP-2000

• SCP-2000 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reason: Hello, I am SCP-2000. I am rollbacker and autopatroller in Commons now. Also, I have been tried to review new users upload images during these months. I would like to request License review permission, so that I can mark images that meet Commons policies and reduce backlog. Thank you. SCP-2000 12:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Scheduled to end: 12:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC) (the earliest)
•  Oppose I hate to do this, but at this time I would feel that I have to monitor reviews of this user. It is ok to miss some point, but the short answers make me worry that we will have a flood of good videos nominated for deletion. The user is not very familiar with using archival sites (archive.org and archive.today) to check if the videos have been released under a free licence. When I upload videos I always ping archive.today in order to back it up. It is fine for a non-licence reviewer to not know about that, and it is trivial to become familiar with something like that, therefore it is a minor issue. The major deciding factor for my vote follows. Not accepting a licence of the video that you consider out of scope is also a problem for me, especially when the video is so clearly in scope that I would rush to nominate it for Media of the Day, if it were uploaded here. As it stands now we have a huge backlog of videos that need to be reviewed, but there are here, if they will get deleted that does not help, and also a reviewer bit is not needed for something like this. I honestly hope that SCP-2000 rethinks their approach and nominates themselves again at a future date (in the event if my vote will decide anything) or if the consensus will swing the other way will not hold this vote against me, but rather take it as a form of constructive criticism. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

•  Question · In which areas do you intend to take part in? (e.g: YouTube, Flickr, PixelBay) -- CptViraj (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @CptViraj: Flickr and YouTube. Also, if I see the new user upload image that meets Commons policies, I will mark as reviewed. Thank you for your question.--SCP-2000 04:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Question: Imagine someone did upload these images a) https://pixabay.com/de/photos/namibia-w%C3%BCste-sand-dune-dunen-4965457/ and b) https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e5/b7/9c/e5b79cb02e5f7ee363b42174db3ee6b3.jpg with these given links as sources and the correct authors. How would you decide? --Achim (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

a) I will accept this image. Although this image is in Adobe stock too, the uploader in Adobe stock and Pixabey are the same (same username). Moreover, this image in Pixabey has EXIF data.

SCP-2000, did you read {{Pixabay}}? --Achim (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

b) I will not accept this image and nominate deletion. This image seems not meet COM:SCOPE and the copyright status is unclear.

Well, there is absolutely no need to know that it depicts Lancelot who is in scope (ref 1, 2), but it is a contemporary painting. So we cannot keep it without OTRS and your decision is OK. --Achim (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Achim55: Thank you for your question. --SCP-2000 04:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
•  Question Let's say somebody uploads these four videos from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1I19CmeIpQ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9KTrLWO7cA , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-2puqqmycM , and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksQAnU9F97I . Would you please comment on your approach to them. Thanks for your nomination. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. I can't watch this video, so I can't comment this.
  2. I will not accept this video and nominate deletion. The non-free OS interface is appeared in the whole video ,and does not meet COM:DW and COM:DM.
  3. I will not accept this video. This video is not licensed under Creative Commons license. Also, the author is not affiliated, owned, or managed by the U.S. Military or the U.S. Government, so doesn't meet {{PD-USGov-Military}}.
  4. I will not accept this video. Although this video is licensed under Creative Commons license, it seem out of scope for me.
  • @Gone Postal: Thank you for your question. --SCP-2000 08:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)