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. Find possible candidates.
I have made 500 + edits on Commons, uploaded 163 files and checked about 105 files. I think this is enough to prove that I am familiar with the local policy. I hope to get this right to reduce the backlog. Thank you. 海の向こうは敵だ！00:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What type of edits you want to make with AWB? Can you please provide some diffs of the edits you want to make with AWB? It would help us (admins) in handling this request. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done no evidence to support need for AWB. Apprehensive as user isn't trusted as autopatrolled either, which is recommended for doing tedius semi-automated edits. ~riley(talk)19:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Among the 100 or so files uploaded by commons, many of them lack a copyright label (although the existing ones can also be used) and several categories. I want to add them. However, it will be troublesome to manually add them one by one. I hope to use AWB to batch add them (and I will do the same in the future). In addition, I have AWB right on zhwiki. Thank you. 海の向こうは敵だ！00:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! In order to fight vandalism and help all the other patrollers I would like to be one. I have about 700 edits and have experienced marking files for speedy or casual deletion. Last year I got autopatrol rights and requested for patrol rights but I was declined. Thank you. Red-back spider (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a rough guideline, administrators usually require editors to have made between 1,000 and 1,500 useful, non-botlike edits or a large amount of justified renaming requests at the Commons before they will consider granting the filemover right.
Dear colleagues, what is the specific problem with my renames? I think that I have followed and understood the guidelines. However, these also have a certain discretionary scope, therefore there will always be different opinions about the admissibility of renames. A look at my user page, where according to Davey2010 almost daily errors are documented, does not say much. By the way, I don't see any daily errors there!
In the particular case Maria Adelheid habsburg toscana 1822 1855, which is criticized by Jura1, the new name is better, simply because the picture is called so, and the old name did not represent this. BTW the renaming request came from the user who uploaded the new version of the image. IMHO perfectly OK, because it is now a meaningful name, so Criterion 2. By the way, I like to follow rules without denying my own point of view, otherwise I would not be active on Wikipedia since 16 years and one of the basic principles of Wkipedia is AGF. --Fridolin freudenfett (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fridolin freudenfett: From my point of view, I leave messages on your user talk page, and there is zero response (reply or thanks ping). I will note that I haven't had to leave secondary commentary which would indicate that I haven't seen such actions again. The nom and the support are by experienced users, and I don't really see you either hearing or addressing their issues. So I expect you to reinforce that you have read and understand Commons:File renaming, and that you address their concerns they raise about your talk page. Remember that the assignation of rights is based on being able to demonstrate that you are following the consensus of community by a direct discussion, or by the developed consensus on the policy and guidance. If there is uncertainty, then ask questions and ensure that the community is agreeing to the change, that it is not personal choice—test and challenge. Do you understand that these users aren't seeing that? — billinghurstsDrewth00:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: Maybe it was impolite not to respond to your address and I'm sorry for not living up to your expectations. However, keep in mind that we are all volunteers here who generally follow the general rules, as I believe I did. Sometimes you have different interpretations and sometimes the rules are interpreted very narrowly. The many acknowledgements I have received speak for themselves, even if there were some renamings that were controversial. --Fridolin freudenfett (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fridolin freudenfett: I was not talking about my expectations, I was talking about events and perception. [I well understand busy life and volunteerism, that is not the issue being raised here for resolution. We get volunteerism, you are not alone in that space.] I am trying to find a solution to the raised request to remove your filemover rights. If there is no movement between the opposed parties then we have a binary solution where someone won't be happy. I am hoping for some conciliation and understanding and evidence of learning and collegiality ... a consensus to how the issues raised will be addressed. The complainants probably want to see what would be done differently by you if you retain your rights. I am not certain that they are seeing that as a clear statement. — billinghurstsDrewth03:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their Filemover right should indeed be revoked, Reading their talkpage I get the impression they either haven't read COM:File Renaming or don't understand it. We all make the odd mistake whilst renaming however judging by their talkpage they appear to make mistakes almost on a daily basis. –Davey2010Talk18:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The differences of view might primarily be on renames for #2. If Fridolin Freudenfett avoids renaming anything that doesn't fall into "no information at all", "only date", "only photographer or rights holder" or "no relation to file content", it would probably avoid most matters. Merely renaming because a filename is "better" should IMHO be avoided. If it helps, I can dig up more renames per #2, I think shouldn't have been done either. BTW, isn't the "original uploader" the person who uploaded the first version of a file? --- Jura1 (talk)12:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done File mover has been revoked per the dozen complaints on the user's talk page (current and archive 1) surrounding unnecessary and incorrect moves. Sufficient judgement to be trusted with flagmover has not been demonstrated and until the user's "discretionary scope" aligns with the Common's policies and guidelines on file renaming, this userright should not be regranted. ~riley(talk)20:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, take time to cool down or use your zero response approach to avoid making unnecessary and illmannered remarks. ~riley(talk)20:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More than 10k pictures uploaded to Commons. Lately I have been updating most of them via the iPhone Wiki Uploader app, which helps me to upload directly from the phone and also lets me have a log of which pictures I have already uploaded and which I have not. However, sometimes it is difficult to find the exact name for the photo from the phone, as I may not know correctly the name of the place, or when uploading several pictures of the same place, the app just puts some random numbers at the end of the name of each photo in the bulk (instead of 1, 2, 3 which would be better). Then, when I have more time (usually the same or the next day), I log into my computer, improve the description and recategorize those that can be improved. Also, I usually file naming requests to give them a more meaningful name, when I couldn't give one that was so meaningful with the app. After some complains from a couple of other users (see my User Discusion page), I do upload more consciously now, but I still need from time to time to correct the names of some pictures, as well as to correct the mistakes from some pictures I uploaded some months ago. I therefore ask for the filemover permission to do the file moving myself, and not bother other users who spend their precious time renaming my pictures. Also if I have some free time, I could help solve other users requests, to ease the backlog. Thank you. Robot8A (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, To participate in Lingua Libre, I had to create a new account (OVH fire in Strasbourg). Could you grant me the same rights as Eihel (me). Thank you in advance. —Eihel (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Confirmed users. 
Done ~riley (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done no evidence to support need for AWB. Apprehensive as user isn't trusted as autopatrolled either, which is recommended for doing tedius semi-automated edits. ~riley (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
