As a rough guideline, administrators usually require editors to have made more than 500 useful non-botlike edits, and to have been active in the last thirty days. Patrollers and License reviewers don't have to request this flag.
I've been on commons for years, and I have contributed on wikipedia in many languages. Many times, I just download files from wikipedia, fix lightning and colors, and then reupload them. It feels unnecessary to create a new file in such situations, and a waste of memory too. I am open if you have questions for me. Thank you. Dixy52 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly confused. You download files from Wikipedia in some unspecified language, "fix lightning (sic, I presume lightness) and colors" and then reupload them (apparently to Commons, or you'd be asking for this permission on the relevant Wikpedia). Could you clarify and give a couple of examples? - Jmabel ! talk21:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have made over 30,800 edits on Commons since 2016, mostly high-quality original photographs and documentation of Ugandan culture, events, and traditions. I regularly upload, categorize, and describe files. I am requesting autopatrol so that my contributions are automatically marked as patrolled, which will help reduce the maintenance backlog for the community and demonstrate my responsible editing ahead of future requests for additional rights. Thank you. Ssemmanda will (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Jeff G., the flooding of Commons was really a mistake that I did out of ignorance but after the guidance from the administrator, I stopped it. I actually gave me courage to learn more about the Commons policies like the Commons SPAM policy and I always warn my fellows from Uganda about it. It is something I regret and I will never do. Ssemmanda will (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As reference: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 101#Uploader flooding Commons. The self-presentation of mostly high-quality original photographs doesn't ring really true, as I personally noted a lack of quality related to framing and composition in the candidate's photography and their pattern of uploading uncurated collections. That said, Autopatrol may(!) be OK to grant (but I'm really sceptical about the requested filemover bit, below, and the intent of requesting additional rights). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Grand-Duc. Yes I admit that I made several mistakes before as a result of doing as I learn, that I agree was harmful to the platform. But I have become a more responsible and one of the most active editors in Uganda who can guide others.
@Ssemmanda will: use {{Rename}} while providing a sound rationale, preferentially with good evidence (like a link to some press issue for erroneous person names or a link to a database like Fishbase for organisms - you get the gist? I mean that you should provide citations like on Wikipedia for renamings), then other filemovers will take charge of correcting those names. In due time, when you've done that often enough, then you may become a filemover yourself. Grand-Duc (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I look at talk pages anyway. Applicant was blocked 2 years ago for uploading unfree files after warnings, and received a message six months ago to curate their uploads. For autopatroller status, en:WP:CIR as autopatrollers are trusted users. Abzeronow (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently been active at commons after I became interested in the history of Italian street signs. Here on commons, I mostly cleanup those files' descriptions. Most of my recent uploads have been small overwrites to fix minor errors or inconsistencies in these signs' SVGs (e.g., fixing a the background colour or enlarging an element).
The autopatrolled right would be especially useful to me in a few days, since on itwiki we're planning to fix the inconsistent colours and shapes of the 1990 and 1992 set of signs, which means I'd have to make many small overwrites to a couple dozen SVGs. I've resorted to COM:OWR a bunch of times for smaller tasks, but I'd appreciate if I didn't have to create a new request and wait for approval for future overwrites. Of course, I'm familiar with the policy on Overwriting existing files :) Thank you. FaviFake (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment barely 400 total edits on Commons, so it would be exceptional to grant this. But apparently quite active on other wikis.
Thanks for the reply! I'm active the most on enwiki, where I enjoy merging articles and clearing the PAM backlog (although I hang around the project and template namespaces a bit more than I would like!), and itwiki, where for now I'm mostly expanding the articles concerning the Italian highway code and street signage. Due to my line of work, I haven't needed any particular rights and therefore I haven't requested any. Of course, I'm extended-confirmed on enwiki, where I have made 13 thousand edits over 7 years, but on itwiki I don't have any, as the extended-confirmed user group doesn't exist there. FaviFake (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FaviFake, would you be willing to promise to never use AI on Commons again, or to get village pump consensus first and other users to review the result after? You were clear about your intentions and Abzeronow approved your request so I can't really blame you, but it's too easy to mess things up with AI. Some highlights in the image changed, though I'm not 100% sure if that happened due to compression artifacts, color profile conversion or the nature of generative AI. Even though I didn't spot any major hallucinations in this overwrite, your tools will change in the future. And in this case, you really didn't need AI at all. I've removed the hand and distracting object without AI. AI could be useful sometimes (w:watermarkremover.io is acceptable if it's output is carefully checked and corrected if needed), but it takes a pixel peeper to keep the beast in check. - Alexis Jazzping plz10:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz Thank for your response! The restriction you're proposing, a blanket ban on AI for all new uploads, seems a bit excessive to me in this context. For example, when I edit an SVG, I'm producing human-readable code where every change is immediately auditable. If I use AI to find which attribute controls the border thickness of a sign, what ends up in the file is something like stroke-width="2", there's nothing to hallucinate there. And I don't see why I should restrict myself to never uploading AI-generated images as entirely new files, since I'm just request the autopatrol right. So while I understand the concern for generative raster edits, extending it further that that seems unnecessary.What I'd genuinely agree to commit to is avoiding generative AI when overwriting existing raster files without prior discussion. I'd also keep disclosing my use of AI tools as I did in the case you mentioned, and keep checking the results, as I've always done. Committing to seek consensus at the village pump for every small AI-assisted edit I might want to make is frankly not something I'd want to agree to; I'd rather keep requesting an exception for all files I'd want to update.I'd also push back on you really didn't need AI at all. I don't have the skills or tools for manual in-painting, so I either had to choose to use AI or do nothing. The same is true of some of my Italian signage SVG contributions, where AI has saved me a lot of time and allowed me do things I otherwise wouldn't have been able to do. FaviFake (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FaviFake, okay, no generative raster edits when overwriting unless there's VP consensus, would that work? If you use AI to find the SVG element that controls something and the output towards Commons is merely stroke-width="2", I'd argue you're not really using AI on Commons. If you ask AI "how do I blur an area in Photoshop?" and you follow the instructions, you're also not really using AI on Commons. You're just using it to learn how to do the edit yourself. I don't have the skills or tools for manual in-painting w:GIMP is free and Gimp Lesson 5 | Using Clone and Heal is only 8 and a half minutes. - Alexis Jazzping plz15:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz No, I only said without prior discussion, not necessarily at the village pump, as it's not always the best venue to discuss changes to an image.Sure, that was just a simple example. Sometimes I might simply upload the entire response without modifying it, which very much sounds like using AI on commons. FaviFake (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FaviFake, granted, any place with reasonable visibility would be okay. Doesn't have to be the VP. Sometimes I might simply upload the entire response without modifying it, which very much sounds like "using AI on commons". And you should be extremely careful with that. You shouldn't do that without reviewing a non-AI diff to ensure the AI didn't change anything else. The AI may tell you it didn't change anything else, it may tell you it literally didn't change any other characters, that it's bit-for-bit identical outside the intended change, yada yada yada, and it can't be trusted. I'm leaning towards Oppose now due to the potential for AI overwrites. - Alexis Jazzping plz16:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz What...? I literally said that I would keep checking the results, as I have always done. I'm not sure where your assumption that I'd consider recklessly uploading AI output (especially to overwrite an existing file) without reviewing it comes from. I'm well aware of the flaws of generative artificial intelligence models, and I've been so transparent about my process precisely for this reason! We wouldn't even be having this discussion had I not explicitly disclosed my AI contributions as plainly as I did.To reiterate, I have never, and I would never, upload anything, AI-assisted or otherwise, without checking that the result is what I intended and that nothing unintended changed. That applies whether I'm making a small SVG tweak or a raster edit. I truly do not understand where your assumption is coming from. FaviFake (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FaviFake, what are your methods for checking the result? AI is creating so much work I'm extremely wary of it. You said Sometimes I might simply upload the entire response without modifying it, that explanation omitted the checking step, that got me worried. I'm glad you declare your AI use. I'm not an administrator, so my opinion here is nothing more than just that, an opinion. Considering your limited edit count, granting autopatroller would be exceptional. So your contributions maybe get scrutinized a bit more. If you hadn't declared your AI use, I probably still would have found the additional compression/reduced highlights in File:WikiCon Brasil 2022 - Credenciamento (61) (cropped).jpg. Btw, when you lack a particular skill, there may be people at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop who have that skill. - Alexis Jazzping plz17:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
what are your methods for checking the result? @Alexis Jazz I don't know, so far I've never had an AI modify an image so thoroughly that I couldn't simply copy and paste the relevant lines of code. That was just another example. To be clear, I almost never use AI in my uploads, most of them are just immediate fixes to the inconsistent colours and shapes in the images of Italian signs. (Which I've been waiting to perform for almost a month now...) I've been trying to explain my few AI-assisted edits because you specifically asked about them.AI is creating so much work I'm extremely wary of it. I would guess this work is not caused by editors uploading AI-generated vector files.that explanation omitted the checking step Yes, I wasn't attempting to illustrate my entire process, I was just responding to your comment.Considering your limited edit count, granting autopatroller would be exceptional. Not anymore! This request has remained open for so long that I now have 570 edits on Commons. The oldest open request here seems to be about 40 days old, so I'm hoping this one will be sorted out within a couple of weeks? FaviFake (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alexis Jazz, it would be preferable to not use AI when overwriting files. The trend on Wikimedia is towards more and more restrictions on AI, and we have a new guideline in COM:AIIP as well. And so I am feeling cautious about granting you this right because of the AI issue. If it were just a matter of replacing Italian traffic signs, I'd probably decide to grant, but I have to consider the whole picture (which is also why I have been taking my time in making a decision here). Abzeronow (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit struggling to understand what is actually standing in the way of this request.If it were just a matter of replacing Italian traffic signs, I'd probably decide to grant. Abzeronow, I have to admit I find this a bit confusing, because it is exactly a matter of replacing Italian traffic signs. That is the one and only thing I planned (and still plan) to use my heightened permissions for, as I said at the top of this request, it is what I have been waiting nearly a month to do, and I have not suggested anywhere that I would use this right for anything else.On the AI issue: I have used generative AI to overwrite a raster file exactly once in my entire editing history, to fix a small detail on one image i stumbled upon while reading an enwiki article. I disclosed it proactively and in full. It went through COM:OWR and there were no issues with it, even after I uploaded it. And on top of that, I have even committed to not doing it again without a prior discussion, for all raster images, and to keep reviewing every AI output as I've always done. So, what, precisely, is the AI issue you're referring to? I would also gently push back on the relevance of COM:AIIP here, since this request is, again, about SVG files. AIIP opens by stating that it applies only to images of identifiable people and to photographs of people that are subsequently altered by AI. Needless to say, italian road sign SVGs do not contain identifiable people. For raster files, I have committed multiple to not making any AI edits without prior discussion.Citing a general trend towards more restrictions on AI as a reason to deny a patrolling right to someone who just wants to fix road sign colours in SVG files seems like a non sequitur to me. What more can I do to resolve whatever it is that you and Alexis Jazz are concerned about? FaviFake (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abzeronow, If it were just a matter of replacing Italian traffic signs, I'd probably decide to grant If the autopatroller right was set to expire after, say, one month (unsure how much time FaviFake needs to update the traffic signs) and FaviFake would commit to only overwriting street signs during that period, I suppose that could work. Some time in the future (with more edits and experience under their belt) they could apply for autopatroller again. - Alexis Jazzping plz16:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I could temporarily grant for 3 months, if issues present themselves, I could just not grant them permanently and if FaviFake goes good work in the meantime, I could easily make the rights permanent. Abzeronow (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FaviFake, I would guess this work is not caused by editors uploading AI-generated vector files. I never worried about this before you said it. It's easy to imagine some user (not you specifically) asking AI "please correct the color in this SVG" and AI does it, but it also quietly rounds the corners or makes little changes to the font. User just uploads the output SVG verbatim to Commons. This will be very difficult to detect and that's very worrisome. - Alexis Jazzping plz08:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While editing the English Wikipedia, I sometimes see images used in infoboxes that would look better if whitespace or non-essential background elements were cropped. I would like to be able to use CropTool to make minor improvements to such images, which I believe would fall under COM:CROP. Thank you for your consideration. GoingBatty (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: you've had an account here for 15 years, but you've barely made 500 edits, which would make this an exceptional grant of this right. Further, the reference to "non-essential background elements" suggests that you may not be familiar with COM:OVERWRITE. Typically, if their are background elements in someone else's photo that you don't want, the correct procedure is to create a crop as a derivative work under a distinct filename. Can you give a couple of examples of what you want to do? Because my immediate thought is that you want to do things you actually shouldn't do. - Jmabel ! talk21:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Hi there! I hope you'll consider my numerous edits on the English Wikipedia of my intent to improve the encyclopedia, as well as my previous use of CropTool before the restriction was put in place. Here are some examples of the edits I'd like to make.
@Jmabel: Hi there! Thank you for your reply. Is the Dobell image somehow tagged with the GLAM info, or are you sharing personal knowledge that isn't on the file? (I'm also wondering how a photograph dated 15 November 1956 could be taken by a person who died in 1953, but I understand that's not relevant to this request.) GoingBatty (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: Re the Dobell image, look at the page. It's listed as a photo from a particular collection in the State Library of New South Wales. That almost always means that we should have the exact reproduction of what is in the files of that GLAM. The only exception I can think of is that some GLAMs add a strip on the bottom (or sometimes elsewhere) outside of the image itself with something like the "Property of Museum of History and Industry, Seattle" that was stripped by a bot from File:A Scott Bullitt, Seattle, ca 1925 (MOHAI 3505).jpg. We consider that a watermark, and since it can be stripped without affecting the work itself, we do that.
And, yes, the attribution on that Dobell image is very weird. I would not be surprised if the copyright rationale were consequently wrong. - Jmabel ! talk17:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Ah, I was thinking of a WikiProject GLAM event, not the use of GLAM as a general acronym. Sorry it took me too long to understand.
I am looking to update the remaining few Lion and Sun emblem and flag files on Commons to use the standardised design used on the main flag file and outlined by Iran Flag Project. I created the page on the Lion and Sun flag and contribute to various Iran-related topics on Wikipedia, with almost 2 thousand global edits. @Abzeronow because he was involved with my situation two months ago. Thank you! ConflictFan (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User seems sufficiently knowledgeable about our policies and generally well-behaved, I see no pressing need to patrol this user. I do want to note they seem possibly more knowledgeable than one would expect from a user with 1599 edits who registered in January 2025. Maybe they learn quickly, maybe this isn't their first account. If this isn't their first account, I have no knowledge of any other account they might have had. I'm only judging based on the contributions I see and I COM:AGF. Dabmasterars, if this is in fact your first account, consider this a compliment. Thank you. - Alexis Jazzping plz16:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose: Bulk editing and metadata standardization of my own photographic contributions (150+ high-quality uploads).
Details: I need to update the Author field to use my official creator template {{Creator:JJxFile}} and organize professional assignment images (Mobile World Congress, La Caja de Concreto) into proper categories. I am a member of Wikimedia España and a professional photographer (Sony Pro Support).
@JJxFile Have you looked into COM:VFC? That might help and doesn't require a permission to use. Also, I'd advise that you don't use LLMs to talk for you - it's better talking to an imperfect human than a machine. HurricaneZetaC17:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @HurricaneZeta, Sorry for the earlier my English is limited.
There is a major backlog in Category:Charts and Category:Example category with a need to sort the pages into more specific categories. AWB would be very useful due to the large amount of pages (almost 2,000 in first category). I have past experience with AWB through use with Chinese Wikipedia, and do not have any issues or complaints of misuse from others. Thank you. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a rough guideline, administrators usually require editors to have made at least 1,000 useful, non-botlike edits or a large number of justified renaming requests at Commons before they will consider granting the filemover right.
Hello, I am requesting the filemover right for my bot account, Sakib Bot. My main account MS Sakib already holds filemover rights and is an experienced contributor with over 24,000 uploads. My bot account also has over 50,000 uploads. I actively upload SVG glyphs of open-source fonts (OFL, GPL) using both accounts. Due to the high volume of uploads, I frequently encounter situations where bulk renaming is necessary to correct naming conventions or fix errors. Specific Case: Recently, I uploaded 1,000+ files to Category:Linux Libertine Mono SVG Glyphs. I inadvertently included "Monospaced" in the filenames instead of the standard "Mono".
Current Name: Latin Capital Letter Z in Linux Libertine Monospaced - U+005A.svg
Target Name: Latin Capital Letter Z in Linux Libertine Mono - U+005A.svg
Performing over 1,000 renames via my main account is inefficient and hits API rate limits quickly. I intend to use Sakib Bot to handle this bulk renaming task and similar maintenance tasks for my own uploads in the future. Using the bot account will allow for smoother processing.
@Tausheef Hassan "Mono" implies "Monospaced". However, standard font names usually just state "Mono"; though I missed this detail before uploading. For example, see this: Libertinus Mono. Filenames should be concise and understandable, rather than overly descriptive. ≈ MS Sakib 📩·📝08:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Inertia6084 Yes, I can easily rename 1,000+ files from my main account using python script and would be perfectly happy to proceed that way. Even if the API rate limit is hit, it is not a major issue; the renaming will continue in the background while I work on other tasks.
I had initially considered using the bot account for this kind of bulk work because it improves efficiency, avoids API limitations, and helps prevent flooding the recent changes. Since my bot already has bulk upload permission, bulk mistakes could also be corrected more easily in bulk. However, if the Filemover right is not granted to the bot, I am fully comfortable proceeding from my main account. ≈ MS Sakib 📩·📝16:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, after waiting for more than a month, I have started performing this specific batch rename from my main account. However, the possibility of adding the Filemover right to the bot account could be considered for future needs. ≈ MS Sakib 📩·📝01:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Abakar B Yes, Yes. I would like to rename the photos taken in Chad so they can be used everywhere if we want to talk about Chad and Chadians, and see them again for the rest of the world.
I am a contributor to Wikimedia Commons for several years, mainly uploading photos from Wikimedia projects and my personal collection (travel). I would like to use this permission to make minor improvements to images that lack a descriptive title and description on Wikimedia Commons. I believe this permission would be useful for improving image descriptions on Wikimedia Commons.
@Harouna674, thank you for applying. Can you give us some examples of the renaming requests you've made so far across different criterions. That will help the reviewing admin decide your understanding of Filemove guidelines. Shaan SenguptaTalk03:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Trzęsacz, thank you for applying. Can you give us some examples of the rename requests you have made so far across different criterions, bcoz the RenameLink filter shows none. That will help the reviewing admin decide whether you understand our FM policies or not. Shaan SenguptaTalk07:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Trzęsacz, All I tried to do was help you with the exact situation I faced when I applied for this right. I can see that you've made some requests just before this reply, all manually without any script/gadget. Exactly how I used to do it. Anyways, ...... Shaan SenguptaTalk18:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any file rename requests in your last 1500 edits. So may I know if you have emailed a file mover or admin to request file renaming? Jianhui67T★C06:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request reconsideration of the file mover right. Some time has passed since its removal (February), and I have reflected on the concerns raised regarding my application of FR2. I understand that the criterion should be applied conservatively. Since then, I have continued contributing normally and requesting renames when appropriate. I would appreciate your consideration. Thank you. heylenny (talk/edits) 00:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm requesting Patroller rights, I realized after my last request that I need this first before I can apply for the Temporary account IP viewer, I already hold rollback and autopatrol rights here, I'm very active in fighting cross-wiki LTA and I need the patroller tools to be more effective and meet the prerequisites for the Temporary IP viewer later. Thanks! --Aws💬 Talk03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have been actively and passionately contributing to Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons. Today, I am fighting for something close to my heart: protecting new Togolese contributors.
These newcomers arrive with enthusiasm, but are too often unfairly treated as vandals, punished before even getting the chance to learn. It is painful to witness, especially since no member of our Togolese community currently holds this right.
I know the rules, I respect the founding principles, and I commit to exercising this role with rigor and compassion, to guide, protect, and help our community grow.
Layéniba - thanks for volunteering, but the patroller right only gives you the ability to mark new files and revisions by users without autopatrol as patrolled. I just want to make sure that you know what this right does, since I don't see how it's connected to your rationale. HurricaneZetaC21:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this clarification. I initially did not know that this right was limited exclusively to Wikimedia Commons. I thought I could also use it on Wikipedia in order to prevent our newcomers from being reprimanded by other patrollers!
Nevertheless, as you may notice, copyright is very strict and severe in Togo, and we often do not have enough time to teach everything to newcomers before they start contributing. The consequence is that these newcomers face warnings and blocks that discourage them. Having this right would allow me to follow them closely.
I am not sure how this right will allow @you "to follow them closely" or protect them from warnings and blocks. Bcoz warnings and blocks are made only when there is an issue with the users contributions. All this right does is give users a button to mark other users edits as patrolled. If you want to help them, you can easily do so without this flag. Shaan SenguptaTalk04:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am an active contributor who regularly monitors recent changes on Commons. I often encounter vandalism and unconstructive edits, and the rollback right will help me revert them quickly and efficiently. I understand its proper use and will use it responsibly. Thank you. Cca Raheem (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Filters mw-undo and twinkle show zero edits to me. Maybe you do the work manually, mw-manual-revert also doesn't show any anti vandalism work. Can you point us to such edits which can demonstrate that you indeed regularly monitor recent changes and are involved in anti-vandalism work on Commons. Maybe I am missing something. Also if you have really done all the work until now manually without using already available tools like undo and twinkle, I doubt you will need rollback. Then I see similar request on Wikidata which was somehow successful despite mw-undo showing no edits even there. Shaan SenguptaTalk09:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am mainly requesting Template editor rights in order to translate protected templates that use the {{LangSwitch}} i18n method into Danish. I understand the liabilities that editing heavily used templates can have, and that for such templates I always need to test using the sandbox before implementing changes. My main issue is that Danish is missing a lot of translations, and improvements are badly needed. And many translations that need special syntax and context for grammatical gender rules to be correct. Furthermore there are too many templates needing localization in order to manually request changes for each one of them. I've made sure to thoroughly study and understand templates, proper usage, parser- and string functions, magic words, localization methods, lua modules etc. I however completely understand if the right cannot be given at this time. Thank you. ᛅᛒᛁᛘᚢᛋ (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Abemos“show that they have experience editing templates” rather means “add links to their RFR that lead to examples of successful edit requests on protected templates”. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For a rough advice, do not seek this flag if you have not made about 500 useful edits on Wikimedia Commons unless you associate with any Wikimedia affiliate, or campaigns such as Wiki Loves Earth.
See also: Confirmed users. 
_02.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment barely 400 total edits on Commons, so it would be exceptional to grant this. But apparently quite active on other wikis.
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose now due to the potential for AI overwrites. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Support - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Done Abzeronow (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Question @MS Sakib: