Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2019-09

Report concerning User:107.242.121.1

107.242.121.1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Creating nonsense translations DannyS712 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 94rain ^Talk 04:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/185.182.222.90

Hi. Please, delete his translations. Thanks, —Sgd. Hasley 14:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 94rain ^Talk 04:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Harmful" editing of my global CSS

I wanted to add those lines to my global CSS:

#siteNotice {

	display: none;
}

and it said:

Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Antivandalism

I don't find that harmful.

Will someone here allow me to add those lines, please? --Markus Prokott (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Just found out that this has nothing to do with my code lines. The error still shows up, if I remove the new code completely. What is this??? I saved an almost identical CSS (one selector plus one comma added) in the WP:DE and it was ok. --Markus Prokott (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Will send you an email, just a minute. Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Markus Prokott: Thanks for the notification about the false positive on the abusefilter. I have tweaked the filter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Blatand sockpuppet

Blatand sockpuppet (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: LTA. Sgd. Hasley 14:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Already done  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:83.30.84.176

83.30.84.176 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: LTA. Sgd. Hasley 17:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Done by Tegel --Alaa :)..! 18:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 18:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:49.199.148.21

49.199.148.21 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: creating problematic translations. Sgd. Hasley 13:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Mass deletion request

Please nuke the pages created by 49.199.148.21 as they are blatant vandalism. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Abuse filter 110 - Adding emoji unicode characters

Hi. Can I suggest that Special:AbuseFilter/110 be expanded to include a larger range of emoji? See w:Special:AbuseFilter/680 for an example added by Galobtter - using [🄀-🇿🌀-🙏🚀-🛳☀-☄☇-☿♃-♬♰-✒✙-✯✱-➿🤍-🧿] instead of [🌀-🙏🚀-🛳☀-☄☇-♬♰-✒✙-➿☎]. This would likely increase the filter's effectiveness. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You want to exclude ☎? Ruslik (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

☎ should be covered by the range 🤍-🧿, but if not then no, that was not my intention; 🄀-🇿🌀-🙏🚀-🛳☀-☄☇-☿♃-♬♰-✒✙-✯✱-➿🤍-🧿☎ would still include it --DannyS712 (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:223.188.124.58

223.188.124.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Vandalism. PD: Delete his translations. Sgd. Hasley 22:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

managed thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-predefined-summaries.js

Hi,

Please replace tipography by typography.

Thanks. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Done Special:Diff/19381007. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Protect my talk page

Continuous destructive editing after protection expiry. --Xiplus (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Done, protected for another half-year. Best, Vermont (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Errors in current central notices

Hi. The current central notices being displayed about read only windows all incorrectly link to phab:T227063 rather than the correct task. This is probably because they use the same banner that the prior task used (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/read_only_banner). I believe that the correct task is phab:T230783, given the times. Since the read only window has begun, this is urgent to fix. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, and...realized the window is over. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing it. Martin, your fix will be used tomorrow. :) Trizek (WMF) (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Send MassMessage about WLM

Hi, I, as a massmessage sender, would like to ask for permission to send a massmessage about Wiki Loves Monuments to a list of users without their opt-in, obtained from last years participants. --Ferdi2005 _(Posta) 18:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The list is here, the query is here--Ferdi2005 _(Posta) 19:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

And also, just for safety, I ask the permission Global message delivery/Targets/Puglia. They are subscribed to the Apulia category.--Ferdi2005 _(Posta) 19:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that it may be a better request to be made at Commons than here. Personally, I don't feel comfortable saying that it is okay to use the system to deliver messages to Commons users who have not subscribed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons admin said it's ok.--Ferdi2005 _(Posta) 14:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this a 100% commonswiki thing? If so, why is this even here at meta-wiki? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Because I have sender right on Metawiki...--Ferdi2005_[Mail] 21:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

So you are solely trying to bypass the local project process to mass message that same local project by funneling it through here? That seems a bit inappropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Which was my point. If it is okay to do it at Commons, do it at and from Commons.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Slowking4 sockpuppets

Several accounts confirmed to be sockpuppets of User:Slowking4 on ENWP have been active on Meta: User:Nelliecustis, User:Marthadandridge, User:Henryshirley, User:Prose-proem, User:Marthacustis, User:Beatley, User:Sudowoodoo, User:Duckduckstop. Since the user has engaged in sockpuppeting here on Meta, I recommend blocking all of these accounts, as well as the main account. --Yair rand (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hm, it looks like these accounts have actually been editing on many wikis, including Commons and Wikidata. Where does one request global blocks for this kind of thing? --Yair rand (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Socks are not against WMF and broader community processes except where they breach other rules, eg. influence voting, problematic editing, etc. The rules around multiple accounts and where they are disruptive and/or sockpuppets are local rules for wikis, so please take your concerns to the respective wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

These have been blocked on ENWP and Commons for violations, but are not currently blocked here. How do Meta's local policies deal with sockpuppeting? --Yair rand (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm curious why we haven't had a community discussion about globally banning this user given their prolific cross wiki socking. I'd also note billinghurst that the meta sock puppetry page does not specify to circumvent community account blocks on meta. These accounts are explicitly used to circumvent blocks; they're being used to circumvent blocks on the English Wikipedia and Commons (now also Wikidata), while still participating in contests here. The user is specifically not using their main account because it would be promptly connected with their many socks and they would be promptly blocked across other local projects. They have also failed to disclose the connection with their main account in accordance with Sock puppetry for the same purpose. GMG^talk 12:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a global ban discussion might be worth having but - their home wiki seems to be en.wikisource where they are not blocked, so people might oppose based off that. --Rschen7754 18:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

    @Yair rand: We block problematic editors here at meta, and that is not about the type of account that they have. We don't import their dramas, nor other peoples vendettas. Some of these people are able to resolve their issues here at a wiki that is set up for the purpose of WMF wiki coordination. We understand that users get into issues at other wikis, and that some wikis are problematic, some argumentative, and some people will never function in those communities. We also know that some problematic users find good homes elsewhere. So we allow all those communities to manage their affairs. Of the accounts that were mentioned, 4 edits (2018), 4 edits (2018), 5 edits (2017), < 100 edits (2017), ~20 edits (2017), ~50 edits (2016), 4 edits (2016), 2 edits (2015/6). Do you truly think that meta admins should be blocking and prosecuting actions based on that behaviour at this time? If you see problematic behaviour at those accounts here, then please be specific.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

    I had thought that sockpuppeting itself would be considered problematic behaviour... --Yair rand (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

    Re a ban discussion. Not blocked at English Wikisource as they have valuable contributions, and usually have quite reasonable interactions. Maybe your community can look at what it is that has people at loggerheads, and how other communities are able to resolve issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Sorry billinghurst. Maybe I didn't explain properly. One of the issues with this user (see also en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Slowking4) is that they have a fascination with contests. So for example, this sock isn't editing meta by happenstance. They're editing meta specifically to facilitate their socking on another project where they are community banned.

We had the same dilemma on Commons ([1]). The master hadn't been blocked yet, but everyone knew they were using prolific undeclared socks to upload images on Commons for use in evading their ban on the English Wikipedia. They weren't legitimate alternative accounts on Commons, they were socks created to abuse Commons to avoid a ban elsewhere. We eventually decided to block all the socks and leave the master if they wanted to contribute productively. They didn't and eventually were indefinitely blocked in their own right there as well.

The problem is that by allowing these socks to participate in Meta, Meta is allowing and perhaps even facilitating block and ban evasion elsewhere. GMG^talk 01:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said, we don't block accounts for being socks, we block accounts for being problematic. What the meta community decides by consensus, will be implemented by meta administrators. What the global community decides by consensus will be implemented by stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I would support a block of the master and socks here, though I won't do it myself as I am likely involved. Most of the user's activity here is maintaining lists of "cancer" on other wiki-projects. We've worked hard to make Meta a more legitimate and welcoming place for trusted users from other projects over the last few years, and I think that allowing sockmasters to edit here unchecked is a wrong move from that perspective. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Ajraddatz. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment Blocking non-problematic accounts would be contrary to our practices, especially with relation to a primary account. Half the problems that wikis create for themselves is the attempted suppression of opinion which they don't like, with the response of users to create alternate accounts or anonymous edits to express opinions or to work in other areas. The suppression never fully works, and some people create a full-time career chasing sock accounts, where there are no winners.

Deal with bad faith as bad faith occurs. Stop thinking that certain people are inherently evil, inherently wrong, and that chasing them away is going to be 100% functional. Our experiences over many years shows that it is simply not the case; and we are more likely to end up with fanatics on both sides in a ridiculous war of attrition. Try and implement practical solutions to practical problems.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear exactly what practical solutions you would have us take. You surely can't expect any local project to overturn a community ban on an active sock master. There is also zero interest in overturning their block on Commons. What options remain other than a global ban? GMG^talk 00:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If you believe this, then I would encourage you to participate in relevant discussions on both of those wikis - or even unblock the user yourself, as you hold adminship at both of the wikis the user is indefinitely blocked from (and are thus part of those communities) - rather than trying to lecture said communities about your philosophy about multiple accounts. --Rschen7754 03:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

We are here on a meta admin page and I am responding to a request to accounts that have been inactive since 2018. Local users need to be dealt with according to local rules, and breaches of them, not those rules codified elsewhere, nor by means codified elsewhere. [Please don't try to muddy the waters, nothing there is aimed at any particular community or any particular action at any particular observation.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

To speak personally, I'm not trying to muddy anything. I'm actually trying to avoid a global ban discussion. I appreciate that they have contributed productively to en.source, and would like to see them use their legitimate contributions to return to the community at large. What I would prefer is to simply give the user a warning that any further socks will be blocked on Meta, as they were on Commons, that they are welcome to edit under their main account, but they are not welcome to abuse meta as a means of evading blocks and bans on other projects. GMG^talk 02:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Then you would be looking for a consensus to restrict their contributions to metawiki to be from their primary and designated account, and that edits from non-primary account should be considered problematic where their purpose is to conceal the identity of contributor, and that concealment is due to account bans at enwiki and commonswiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Maitre marabout sogbegnon

Maitre marabout sogbegnon (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Spam Envlh (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Done thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:49.199.99.223

49.199.99.223 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: creating nonsense translation pages ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. -- Tegel _(Talk) 11:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:37.49.40.225

37.49.40.225 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: LTA. Sgd. Hasley 14:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Done and other measures.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Block ip user Special:Contributions/151.251.254.16

Vandalism. Catherine Laurence 23:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Done Thanks for reporting, Vermont (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Thebestcommunicatorever

• Thebestcommunicatorever (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA). Seems to be here solely for vandalism. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete User:ПИС-да манда

It was created by an LTA. I tried to mark it for speedy deletion, but the edit filter stopped me. Could someone delete it? Nigos (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete

Please delete Translations:Help:Unified login/3/nv, Translations:Help:Unified login/5/nv and Translations:Grants:Project/Rapid/Apply/Page display title/de. Thanks, —Sgd. Hasley 13:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:78.42.240.73

78.42.240.73 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: LTA. Sgd. Hasley 18:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Done by Tegel --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Dindong369

Dindong369 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Ongoing global ban evasion; disruptive editing here on meta (already reported to SRG) DannyS712 (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Already global locked --DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for revdel

Please remove the username and revision text of revision 19422326. –apap04 ^{talk | contributions} 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Meta:OS next time. — regards, Revi 17:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel revisions on User talk:Nigos

Please revdel the revisions and racist usernames used to attack others on my talk page. They were apparenty made by Wikinger, a WMF-banned user. Thanks. Nigos (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please also semiprotect it. Nigos (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol

User Rémy Gerbet WMFr (talk · contribs) should be added to autopatrol group, please. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:184.168.27.69

184.168.27.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: another Wikinger sock. Sgd. Hasley 15:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks for reporting. Vermont (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:My Royal Yong

My Royal Yong (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: LTA. Sgd. Hasley 22:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for reporting. Vermont (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:12.119.116.14

The IP 12.119.116.14 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) is creating nonsense translation pages. – Ammarpad (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Did it? I can't find any edits from deleted contributions. Stryn (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Long-term harassment

I request that Historiadormundo be blocked for long-term harassment against me. You can look at all his contributions here on Meta and see that they all relate to me. He has written about me in such disrespectful manners that I have been forced to come here and request you to take action. I just cannot ignore it anymore. The last thing they've done is writing an "ultimatum" on my talk page and, after I rightfully removed it, they have put it up again. I don't want to tolerate their abuse anymore. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It seen has been blocked for 1 month. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Por favor solicito a la cumunidad que tome medidas con Cuatro Remos y termine su acoso

Estimado Solicito que Cuatro Remos Sea expulsado de Wikipedia por dos motivos:

• Su acoso constante que me han bloquequeado en: Wikidata, en Commons y Español , por su constante mentiras sobre mi actuar.
• Por su autopromoción escandalosa , que se puede ver aquí e infinitos articulo más

Donde solo ocupa esta enciclopedia como medios politicos y como para su autopromoción

Espero una favorable acogida , Saluda cordialmente

--Historiadormundo (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not Wikipedia, this is Meta-Wiki, and admins can only take action on stuff that has happened or happens here. So, your request to be "expelled from Wikipedia" is incorrect. You claim I have been harassing you on Wikidata, Commons and Spanish Wikipedia, but the only thing I did was reporting you for socking, which you were doing, and a CheckUser proved that on the Spanish Wikipedia and on Commons. Just after you were unblocked there, you continued your harassment and were blocked again. On Commons, your block is indefinite. You claim I have been self-promoting here and there, but that is just a fallacy. I don't know why you say I use Wikipedia for "political means" (what is that, by the way?). Since this request is not about Meta-Wiki, it will be probably closed. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Estimados: Esta difamación que acaba de hacer Cuatro Remos lo ha repetido una y otra vez.
Nunca me han hecho un Check User en Commons ni tampoco en español en forma objetiva y no tendenciosa.
Solicito a la comunida que me hagan Check User y vean mis contribuciones , donde se demuestra que todo lo que indica este Usuario es propaganda contra mi persona.
Ha abusado de la buena fe de otros y su propaganda en mi contra lo ha hecho en todas las wikis
Su autopromoción es realmente asombrosa , puede ver aqui otra más e infinitas más
Esperando que tomen medidas a fin que pueda colaborar con tranquilidad, los saluda afectuosamente--Historiadormundo (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

So... are you claiming that Bernard, who said you were a sockpuppeeter, acted in a "biased" way, as he based that on the proofs they found while checkuser-ing you? That is gross. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Solicito a la comunidad que me hagan un Check User en todas las Wikis , y podran ver con claridad que la propaganda de Cuatro Remos es completamente Falsa Aquí pueden ver un Check User en español sin propagandade Bernard
y tambien solicito a la comunidad que vean que hacen con todos los artículos de autopromoción y con todas las fotografias de autopromoción de este usuario, Un saludo afectuoso a todos--Historiadormundo (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been following this issue for some time, which is stemmed from editorial disagreement and subsequent edit warring on the Spanish Wikipedia. Local admins managed the issue there; Cuatro Remos was blocked for edit warring back in May for 2 weeks after edit warring, and Historiadormundo was blocked a little over two weeks ago for 6 months for edit warring as well as other issues. When it comes to Meta-Wiki, the only issue is harassment from Historiadormundo directed at Cuatro Remos, likely as Historiadormundo can no longer edit the Spanish Wikipedia. This is not to say Cuatro Remos is void of any problematic actions; they are blocked on two wikis at the moment, however not related to this incident. This issue concerns harassment, and when it comes to Meta-Wiki, it's quite obvious the harasser is Historiadormundo, who added unwelcome and bad faith messages to Cuatro Remos's talk page twice in the last two days, and then attempted for the nth time to have him blocked at WP:RFH and other places. As it appears evident that continuing to ask Historiadormundo to leave Cuatro Remos alone will not work, I am imposing a 1 month block on their account. Regards, Vermont (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Right decision. If people are unable to manage their own behaviour, then blocks are the tool to utilise. If they fail to learn, they will have longer holidays.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for Uploader Right

Hi! So I am working with the Foundation on the collaboration with the UNOHCHR for the Foundation. Unfortunately many of their assets have restrictions on them, including their logo (see rational at w:en:File:OHCHR_logo.svg (as part of the collaboration with them we are working with them to discuss a more open policy on things like their logo etc)). However, in the mean time I am going to need to upload that logo locally to indicate the partnership in onwiki documentation. Can I get the uploader right? Astinson (WMF) (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the main logo enough or do you expect to upload other variants of logo (and/or) their files? Also note that Meta has no Non-Free Use Rationale as required by the WMF Board (wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy) which makes fair use impossible. — regards, Revi 04:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@-revi: It's only the logo. If someone else could do it for me that would be great. As for the Non-Free content: is there not an exemption for official projects by one of the affiliates? Astinson (WMF) (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

[ service: fix ping to -revi —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC) ]

This is the copyrighted logo of an external organization, and a text statement on a page should be able to "indicate a partnership". That an affiliate has decided to create a project doesn't empower special fair-use ability. The parent UN logo's appear to be free use though, could you use them? (commons:File:Emblem of the United Nations.svg). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)