Open main menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

(Redirected from Commons:AN)

Shortcut: COM:AN

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.


Archives
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)


Note

  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • If appropriate, notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


CommonsDelinker down?Edit

Hi, Is the bot down? There are many requests waiting, and the last edit was on 06:30, 2 May 2019. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske, Magog the Ogre, Steinsplitter: Could you look into this? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki stalkingEdit

User:Fram, who is involved in an Arbcom against me on the English-Speaking Wikipedia, has crossed over and started mass-nominating images of mine (cinema props typical of what we have at Category:Film props and its subcategories). Fram claims to have noticed me putting them up on en:Middle-earth weapons and armour, an article on which he had never contributed before, and somehow helpfully come to help Commons fend off copyright violations; I see Fram's interloping as wiki-stalking and harassment. I request Fram that be asked to stay away from me, and vigilance against a possible influx of similar targeted and coordinated edits. Rama (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything that needs to be said can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sauron helmet-P5120122-white.jpg. Rama is the subject of an ArbCom case at enwiki, and I looked at his editing history on enwiki to see if he had posted anything about it (as his comments on it are rather sparse and have been debunked). Instead, I noticed their addition of some images on an enwiki article. Looking at these, I thought that they were likely copyright violations, removed them there, and then came here to note Commons of possible copyio uploads. There is nothing "coordinated" about these, Rama made the same claim on the file deletion page without any substance to that claim. Their only defense for the upload of these images is "we have other similar ones", which is hardly a policy-based rebuttal of the copyvio claim. Basically, these are models, licensed reproductions of copyrighted creations, which may not be posted as "own creation" simply by taking a photograph of them. I have in the past occasionally started other commons deletion request when noticing problematic images being used in enwiki articles, and in most cases these images have then been deleted here. I will not keep quiet about similar problems only because I notice them during an ArbCom request. Fram (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I am very willing to discuss whether and why some props are allowed and others are not, and I would gracefully submit to deletion requests in what I know to be a blurry case; but not coming from Fram. This is deliberate, targeted provocation, and it has to stop. Rama (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Fram you claim that everything is covered at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sauron helmet-P5120122-white.jpg but at no point do you explain why you think the copyright term is more than 16 years per section 75 of the New Zealand copyright act 1994 and the closest caselaw probably being Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth.Geni (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Everything about the statements by Rama. Of course not everything that can be said has been said, that would mean that my word on copyright is gospel, which is unlikely. The first line of Commons:Copyright rules is "Files uploaded to Commons should be free both in the country of origin (as defined by the Berne Convention) and in the United States of America,[...]"? If that is correct, then the status in NZ is not relevant if it is determined to be unacceptable in the USA. Secondly, the 16 years term only applies if it is utilitarian. Finally, some of the objects are less than 16 years old (the balsters are from 2005, the Narnia sword I mentioned below is from 2010, the Star Wars blaster from 2016). Fram (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No comment on the rest, but for future reference Fram, it is generally considered bad form to make ~20 different nominations resulting in ~20 different pings. If you need to nominate multiple files for deletion, please enable VisualFileChange under preferences. GMGtalk 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I use the standard tools. Is the VisualFileChange a version of VisualEditor? I refuse to use that peice of crap. Perhaps change the upload wizard to allow a "nominate multiple files" tab instead? Fram (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Fram: No, Visual Editor is a stand-alone gadget and has nothing to do with the Foundation's Visual Editor. It's more like a Commons version of Twinkle, and just like Twinkle, it's often difficult to do very much without it. But making dozens of individual deletion requests doesn't only spam the uploader with notifications, but it also means that sysops have to close multiple individual requests, rather than close a single request en masse. So it's just a bother for everyone involved. GMGtalk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Okay, thanks. Considering that some nominations have been closed, some have been commented on but left open, and some have not been commented on (last I looked), it was probably best in this case to have multiple nominations, since it seems that at least one admin here thinks that they don't all have the same status or possible outcome. Fram (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
          • At least similar images of identical objects should be nominated together. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fram: Since you are in conflict with Rama, it would be much better that you refrain from requesting deletion of his files, regardless of the potential copyright issues with them. In addition, some of the files you nominated are obviously utilitarian articles, and therefore OK. I closed these DRs. Copyright status of the Sauron helmet may be an issue, but it is not so obvious. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Which ones are utilitarian? These are film props, not actual useful items, and are not intended to be used, they are intended to be displayed. I note that you find it more important to protect the very easily hurt feelings of Rama than to applaud someone actually bringing copyright violations to your attention. If he introduces more copyvio's into enwiki, I will revert them there and nominate them for deletion here (note that I didn't go through his edit history to find some old violations, these are brand new edits he made, edits by an enwiki admin with a very shaky grasp of and little care for policy, and as witnessed by his comments here (and there) wery little care for factual comments about other editors. Fram (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I see that you for example closed the deletion request for File:Hadhafang-P5120138-black.jpg as a "no valid reason for deletion. Utilitarian article.". In what way is this a "utilitarian" article and not a model of an artistic design creation? Fram (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
AFAICT, this is a real sword, not a plastic copy. It can be used as a sword, therefore it is a utilitarian article whenever and for whatever purpose it was made. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not clear whether Fram's action could be construed as stalking/harassment or not but mass-nominating Rama's uploads here for deletion because they are a subject of an ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia is distasteful and should never be tolerated. Fram you have been around long enough to know that this sort of behavior is likely to irritate Rama. Please stay away from their uploads and allow other users to handle them. T CellsTalk 15:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I noticed them because of the arbcom case. I nominated them for deletion because they are or appeared to be copyright violations, and because they were used on enwiki. How other users would magically handle them is not clear, it's not as if every upload here gets checked for its copyvio status. Fram (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with people nominating copyvios for deletion in as much as they do that in good faith. I know how someone who is a subject of an ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia or other project would feel if a particular person adding evidence against them is mass-nominating their uploads for deletion on another project. If you haven't been a subject of an ArbCom case, you may not know how it feels. Let's be realistic, it's not fun making other people feeling bad or worse. T CellsTalk 21:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To think that photos of such objects could be considered as derivative works is not at all extraordinary in itself. And in the extand that someone think that they are potential derivative works, then a deletion request is fully appropriate. We can not blame someone because they don't know Help:VisualFileChange.js. Let's AGF. Furthermore a derivative work it is, and I disagree that Fram should not be allowed from making such nomination. On the contrary, if they act in good faith, then thank him. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
And do not assume Fram is acting badly, and with bad intentions, because if it's not true then it would be very unfair to him. And that is finally worse than a few DRs, and much more worse than what he is accused of. Let the DRs follow their course, and they will be closed by our administrators on the value of the copyright status, and not on the basis on "frustration, reaction, revenge" of a potential conflict of which we do not know nothing and of which it is not our problem. In my opinion, just talk about the files and copyrights. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
And I disagree with putting pressure on people for the comfort of experienced users, that's what comes closest to "harassment" in this story. To check someone's contributions have never been inappropriate, and furthermore the reason invoked is fully credible here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I struggle to see how File:Special effects sword for Narnia 2010-P5120205-white.jpg could be considered utilitarian, and don't see another reason why it wouldn't be a copyright violation. To upload this while other similar pictures are already under discussion is perhaps not very smart. Anyway, I'll not nominate this or others for deletion, but I do hope someone else will (or will explain to me how this is not a copyvio). Fram (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this dagger, which has no decoration, could have a copyright. A dagger is a utilitarian object, whoever made it for whatever purpose. The Sauron helmet may be an issue. Fire arms would be OK if they could be used as a fire arm. Otherwise, probably not. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "A dagger is a utilitarian object, whoever made it for whatever purpose." This simply isn't true. Questions of copyright do consider primary purpose (how else could it be determined whether an object is utilitarian or not?), and a bladed instrument genuinely intended to be sculptural (e.g., merely to sit on a mantel and look "pretty") is not the same as one intended to be employed as a weapon or cutlery. Indeed, this dagger, for example, is considered a sculptural work and has a copyright registration as VAu000490792. This dagger, copyright registration as VAu000490797, is another of many, many examples among U.S. Copyright Office registrations. Эlcobbola talk 19:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yann: are you looking at the same picture I am? The dagger is decorated on the handle, the hilt, and blade. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The derivatives of the cinematographic world brought back millions and even billions of dollars, I do not think it's exempt from copyright regulations, e.g. Marvel, Lord of the Ring, Disney, ect, ect... The first purprose of such objects is a visual function in a visual and artistic artwork, that is a film (film which is also their first publication). Their first function is therefore artistic. Plus the fact that there are a lot of benefits to be made, so a potential loss of profits for the potential rights holders. I will not risk my savings trying to make a profit by creating something from the photos in question. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Move requestEdit

Could someone move Commons talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/ぽのこ to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ぽのこ? Thanks, 153.229.239.14 22:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 16:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Photographs by Jaan KünnapEdit

The mountaineer and photographer Jaan Künnap likely is the Wikimedia user Kynnap.

Please, remove waste from his photos – see user_talk:Kynnap. I’m not sure a random sysop browsing Media missing permission as of 7 May 2019 may be trusted in this respect. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If not a single photo of his uploads was demonstrably published before, then which pretext for deletion may exist? Surely I know how many crooks upload stuff to Commons, but such treatment of our donors, on par with crooks, is a disrepute. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Strakhov (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

WritingPro1234Edit

Hi:

The new WritingPro1234 is uploading images in Commons and claim they are his/her own. All of them seem to be from websites and are subject to deletion. I wouldn't want to be drastic, so I would ask for an administrator to keep an eye on this user.

Pierre cb (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Their contribution reviewed. Not all are copyvio, but the user takes little care to copyright. They should be warned/blocked if they continue copyvio uploads. No further action needed IMO at the moment. Ankry (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Cross Wiki VandalismEdit

On 10 May 2019, the user RyanForTrump (talk · contribs) started vandalizing on Wikidata. First, the used the IP 67.215.244.186, then 73.93.154.213, then 50.227.116.133, and finally RyanForTrump. After edit warring and violations of d:Wikidata:Living people administrator Jasper Deng sanctioned the user by blocking them. The user posted multiple things that were inaccurate, libelous, and continued to engage in edit wars. After creating the fourth account they semi-protected Q63245258 or Michael Moates due to the vandals continued edit warring. It took three admins to get control of this mess. So now that user, RyanForTrump, is here on Wiki Commons uploading the same materials without any evidence. For example, File:Michael-Moates-as-Hannah-Thompson.jpg is some random candidate for Congress and the uploader claims its Moates. Now Wikidata has already removed these statements as they (wiki data admins) are libelous and without merit. So the same user came here to upload and vandalize the category Category:Michael Moates by uploading that and also voting on images that are copyrighted and are being requested to be deleted by the original poster. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Former Arizona State Senator and Senate Candidate Dr. Kelli Ward, D.O. and Michael Moates.jpg. This user has been sanctioned on Wikidata and admins might want to take a look here as the person continues to vandalize and make edits against the policy. It should be noted that they are clearly here to only make edits to anything related to Michael Moates and you can see this by looking at their history.

Related links

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARyanForTrump

2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B 06:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I blocked RyanForTrump. We don't need people with an agenda. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Process a deletion requestEdit

Could someone of you, please, fast process Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map Africa.jpg? I started it, but noticed later that this is a duplicate, more on the request page. — Speravir – 00:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
THX Strakhov and 4nn1l2. — Speravir – 01:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


The Black list user namesEdit

This is a list of page titles which are blocked from creation/editing on Wikimedia wikis. All blacks applicable for all Wikimedia wikis include Commons . Today i came to conclusion that some user names from Commons are in this Black list..This Black list is also applicable for Commons. If any admin respond ,i can give full picture

m:Title blacklist/Log

(Caverdom (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

@Caverdom: So should we ban billinghurst, -revi and PlyrStar93? Face-devil-grin.svg - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That is not my meaning ,Some user names are against user name policy and also these user names are in above black list : For example
"HBC AIV helperbot5" a Bot commented on user Bonadea like this :
"7 reports remaining. Commenting on 'Bonadea': User is in the category: Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues7 reports remaining. Commenting on 'Bonadea': User is in the category: Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues".Bonadea name included in this list because of Religious user names are prohibited in all wikis .Bonadea is an user name of Roman religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=894350413&oldid=894350412.
The user name Bonadea is in above block list (Caverdom (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC))
@Caverdom: Bona Dea ([bɔ.na ˈde.a] 'Good Goddess') was a goddess in ancient Roman religion. She was associated with chastity and fertility in Roman women, healing, and the protection of the state and people of Rome.
What, you're not allowed to call yourself Bona Dea? What about Thor? Cupid? Apollo? What a load of bollocks. The bot in that report is actually linking to the policy on Simple. I see no such limitations on w:Wikipedia:Username policy. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that I'm here anyway: on enwiki, we have a troll who is since months trying to get Bonadea there in trouble for her "religious" username. I note that Caverdom is a brand new user here, and their focus is exactly the same. I don't know if Commons has had anti-Bonadea trolling already, but it may be something to take into account... Fram (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=889413937
 Please see above link ..Bot mentioned B3onadea as againest user name policy , the B3onadea is LTA and disruptive eidtor blocked.


Please see following link: Cruizir and Bonadea were blocked and admin saved them in above "Blacked list"

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Title_blacklist&diff=18052597&oldid=18052591https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Title_blacklist&diff=18052597&oldid=18052591
I am not particular about the above mentioned users, i am talking about many users in the mentioned "Black list" are blocked in some wikies and live in some other wikis.

The religious names not allowed in wikies :Bot another comment on "Jesus"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=889417365&oldid=889417105
    The following religious names wer blocked.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jesus100
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jesus12
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jesus_christ010
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jesuslover696969]]
If admin permit i can give many users who are blocked in other wiki and live in this wiki,because lack of information


Bot comment on Romanreligion :

     https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=893804202

Bot comment on Jainism: note

     https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=893774426

(Caverdom (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC))


I am not taking about particular user ,Jainisms an user was blocked , Buddhism an user blocked .Bot not accepting any religious user names . I am not talking about only religion problem. Many users blocked in other wikis with various reasons and entered in above "Black list" and still alive in Commons i can give the list if you permit

(Caverdom (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

Those "Jesus" blocks are about a decade old. I wonder if such blocks would still be enforced today, "Jesus" is just a name. Not very popular in English-speaking parts of the world, but for example the Spanish "Jesús" isn't strange. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Very best example

     https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/checkuser

The user "checkuser" blocked and entered in to "Black list" years back , but alive in some other wiki. Almost all users enters in above "Black list" are blocked.But some users alive due to some reasons.


My aim to start this discussion is not to target any user , the user names which are in "Black List" are mostly blocked , But some blocked in other wikis and live in this commons wiki, so please block these remaining users .

{Caverdom (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC))


User:Alexis Jazz thanq for your participate in this discussion. just i given an information,Decision is at Commons.

(Caverdom (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

The "bot" on enwiki doesn't determine that usernames are possibly against some policy, this is done by users. In the case of B3onadea, it was done by a long-term-abuse sockpuppet who was blocked soon afterwards.[1] The examples used in that "report" were the same you use here (Jesus100, Jesus12). The "title blacklist" you link above is not a list of usernames forbidden for religious reasons, but a list of mainspace titles forbidden because they have been used for vandalism, harassment, ..., including lots of harassment of Bonadea. basically, this whole report is one big lie intended to cause trouble for Bonadea. If I were an admin here, I would simply block you for real crosswiki harassment. Fram (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Fram, really i dont know who is Bonadea , just now i search for this Bonadea, i can provide some interesting information:Administrator has given warning this Bonadea.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FGBHJ 
  https://pa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%A8%B5%E0%A8%B0%E0%A8%A4%E0%A9%8B%E0%A8%82%E0%A8%95%E0%A8%BE%E0%A8%B0:Bonadea&action=history


(Caverdom (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

Thank you for giving that link to enwiki, saves me the trouble of linking to some more of your many troll accounts harassing Bonadea. Are there any Commons admins awake? Fram (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: you seem to have dealt with this troll sock before? See e.g. also here. Fram (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No Fram, you are mistaken me . I started this discussion for "the user names which are in "Black List" are mostly blocked , But some blocked in other wikis and live in this commons wiki, so please block these remaining users" .I dont knoe who is jesus ,Who is checkuser , Who is Cruizir , We discussed all about this users, But i have no link with this. Thanq (Caverdom (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I will make the same comment here as I made at m:Wikimedia Forum where the user made similar comments under a different name. There is a global blacklist for user names and page names, and there is a page for local blacklist for page names. This is known to administrators here, there are no surprises, and no changes to process.

If you have an issue with a specific entry that I, or others, have made then please start a removal discussion at the respective talk page to the blacklisting. If you think that you can start some trouble, about authority, or requisites, best of luck to you. We won't play your games, we will just apply more solutions to the problems we face.

@Fram: I think that this is more a checkuser issue, and think it should be reported there. I would suggest that we let the user just leave better evidence that CUs can use to identify and block this user, though am happy to block them if they wander out of Commons: namespace and start causing problems.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • This is the globally locked user Nsmutte. Block, lock, hat and carry on. GMGtalk 10:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Elcobbola: Thanks. You may wish to note m:SRCU where a xwiki CU was rejected, and note the additional usernames I added for record keeping rather than a meta RfCU. Please discuss this with your fellow CUs, both local and xwiki, as it seems to be escalating.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    SRCU is for projects that do not have local CUs; it was rejected because the filer didn't bother to read the instructions. Nsmutte is well known to CUs. m:SRG and w:WP:RBI are all that is needed. Эlcobbola talk 10:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Elcobbola: Hey! I did read the instructions! SRG is, afaik, to request global locks for confirmed abusers. As I don't know Nsmutte, I had no real proof Caverdom would be related. Caverdom doesn't have an enwiki account attached, the known Nsmutte socks have no Commons account attached. How could local enwiki/Commons CUs confirm that? I thought m:Requests for CheckUser information was only for abuse on Meta so the logical place for my request seemed to be m:Steward requests/Checkuser. I knew it wasn't the right place, but it seemed the closest. I also explained why local CUs likely wouldn't be able to handle it. Actually, it's now still not quite clear to me if/how/where these requests can be made. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    If you read them, you must have seen, and chosen to ignore, the very first sentence ("This page is for requesting CheckUser information on a wiki with no local CheckUsers") and the third bullet under "before making a request" ("Make sure there are no local checkusers or policies") and went ahead with a request you knew was in the wrong venue anyway. I don't know why you think that's better. Эlcobbola talk 14:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    There was no "right" venue, and as far as I understand, there may not exist one. There is afaik no local CU that can check both enwiki and Commons accounts. (unless a local CU happens to be a CU on both projects, maybe, but even in that case I'm not sure that would work) What was I supposed to do? Go to checkuser request here, be told "Nsmutte socks don't have Commons accounts, get lost", go to enwiki checkuser, be told "Caverdom doesn't have an enwiki account, get lost", go to m:SRG, be told "you have no evidence those accounts are related, get lost", go to m:Meta:Requests for CheckUser information, be told "users have no contributions on meta, get lost".. Gee.. Like.. what do you expect? Maybe next time I'll just think "These people don't know where they want their reports and will just shout at me for trying. Screw it." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not terribly important. This user rarely if ever uses the same account cross-wiki. They instead register a new account for each isolated attempt to garner sympathy from local admins who are unaware of their identity (e.g., [2]). CUs aren't even really needed, since the user is blindingly obvious to anyone familiar with them. GMGtalk 14:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove EXIF dataEdit

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bencemac (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remove File:SS Montcalm.jpg's author name from EXIF per ticket:2019051510008796. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Removed @Bencemac: Please reply to the ticket. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Bencemac (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: note that wiping the metadata entirely may also remove color profiles. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I uploaded a new version of the original file in which only three fields of Metadata containing private information have been removed; all other data are intact. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio via OTRSEdit

Hello! Please remove the watermark of this picture and delete that version. Per ticket:2019051410009466, the sender wants to remove the file but I believe that the painting is PD per Commons:2D copying. Please confirm that I am right. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)