Thank you for this feedback about your feelings and the lack of
documentation of the process.
I raised independently with Steinsplitter on the IRC channel
#wikimedia-commons the issue of documentation two days ago and
subscribe to the Fae, Bawollf comments.
now contains the information we need, and when we usually process
I can confirm if the request would have immediately stated at creation
time this were intended for a GLAM workshop, I would have processed it
the same evening.
If you wish to know how we handle these (at least how I handle these),
I'm giving some indication about the workflow. As indicated by
Bawollf, our priority is to ensure the request is a legitimate one and
is not controversial.
As far as I'm concerned, the Wikimedia Commons community is the one
qualified for any configuration change related to Commons, and has
made implicitly clear they trust both GLAM institutions and
experienced, trusted users in good standing with the community to
make whitelist requests. This is so a simplified and straightforward
process, any other change requiring a formal consensus on the wiki.
The community has also made more or less clear they only want to
whitelist public domain sources.
So, my first step is to ensure the request is from a GLAM institute or
a trusted Commons user.
When I see a request from a trusted Commons users, I process it
immediately without any further question. So, despite they thought
they couldn't do anything, if they've added a comment in the bug "I'm
... and I endorse this request", it would have been useful as this
endorsement is a green light. As would have been useful any comment it
were from a GLAM institute.
If this information is missing, as it were here the case, I ask on IRC
on both #wikimedia-commons and #wikipedia-fr (this channel has several
very active trusted Commons users, not always reactive on the first)
if someone could endorse the request. IRC is one of our main way to
communicate for development and operations stuff.
If someone endorses the request, I state so and plan it for
deployment. If nobody answers or has reticence, I state so in the
ticket and wait for more feedback (for example, the remark about the
resolution of files came from a trusted Commons user).
Generally, the reply from Commons administrators contains opinion
about their own assertion of the copyright status of the files, in
accordance with community practices. I also state this opinion in the
To conclude, our main priority is to ensure our config changes reflect
the willingness of the community, which means for whitelist: (i) it
comes from a legit requester (GLAM partner or experienced trusted
Commons user) (ii) metadata contains enough information to assert
Please note this is generalised to any task or bug tracker: the more
context and information you give, the more elements the person reading
your task will have to be able to understand and act upon.
Disclaimer: this reply is made in my quality of Wikimedia volunteer
handling site requests. It occurs I'm also administrator on Wikimedia
Commons, but this is not in this quality I handle such request or give
this opinion. The only advantage I have on this matter as Wikimedia
Commons administrator is to be able to immediately after deployment
test if the upload by URL works.
Sébastien Santoro aka Dereckson