In T228542#5356900, @MarcoAurelio wrote:

There's a bit of discussion on Meta about whether this should be approved or not based on the results of an RfC. May I advice ops to wait before the status is clarified? Thanks.

it is duplicate of this task

I do not have a file to upload now. But usually when I want to add film cover art etc. I cannot add because of this error.

I see your point but trust me from my past experience opening uploading for everyone will make the project house of copyrighted files in the long-term. but if you really really need this I think you need to have community approval for this and if you don't have a community over there just open a discussion on the village pump

I want to upload a fair usage file to Turkish Wikiquote (Vikisöz). But I'm getting the following error.

Thanks indeed, I am working with files. sadly one clueless admin deleted files without prior notification, so I am trying to get them back,

In T173377#3605088, @brion wrote:

Ok, my batch conversions have completed -- files are all converted to .webm and small enough to upload. (They're long and high resolution, but they compress well because they're interviews with relatively little motion.)
I'll start the uploads later this week and ping you for the detail updates. :)

hello, I was traveling and I know back home, if you could upload videos with same file name as they are in folder I can manage everything on commons.
and for the source please add part of kheshte kham seriies, I am creating a source template on commons.

I would like to support this request as well, it is very helpful

in the macbook

Is this a local sitenotice or a CentralNotice controlled from meta?

it is local sitenotice

ّI am a local crat, I think this is a valid request to perform, it would be great if someone could do this for us

In T137337#2452020, @fgiunchedi wrote:

there were indeed many exim queued messages around the time this issue was reported, are the delays still present?

In T137337#2372774, @Quiddity wrote:

@Mardetanha Would you be able to find out what domain the editors are using as their email provider? (e.g. Yahoo.com, Gmail.com, Mail.ru, etc. Not their personal address prefixes.)
Some of the other bug reports seem to indicate that these issues are only related to a few specific email providers, and it would be helpful to know if that is the case here. Thanks.

In T126870#2025835, @Dereckson wrote:

What problem do you exactly have with new IP page creations?
For example, it could be a spambots, human vandalism or low quality content issue.
From the list of these problems, we could see if less restrictive solutions could be tested before to take a drastic measure like this.

In T126870#2025519, @JEumerus wrote:

My impression from other tasks along these lines is that shutting off anon page creation is not generally done even when there is consensus for this as it violates fundamental principles of Wikimedia, c.f Limits to configuration changes, T47066: Disable anonymous page creation at tr.wikipedia and T44894: Please restrict anonymous users from creating new pages at sw.wikipedia.
Also, does the request cover both talk and non-talk pages or just non-talk pages?

Thanks, as far as I know it is not something community wanted, I will ask another crat to check this as well

In T107651#1500620, @Huji wrote:

The counter argument here is a privacy one:
If the system shows to sysops that User:A and User:B are created by the same IP, and activities of User:A later reveal he was a sock of User:Trolll, all sysops will already know for sure that User:B and User:Troll use the same IP. Now if the IP of User:Troll is already publicly known (e.g. as a result of a previous check that also involved anonymous users); this means all sysops will know the IP for User:B.
This is not desirable if User:B was an unrelated user who happened to have used the same IP (IP sharing is pretty common across the world). In particular, the fact that sysops (who are NOT among the groups approved for accessing personal information) will gain this knowledge can be problematic.
To my understanding, it is WMF's policy that users who are privileged with access to personal information are first identified by the Foundation (by sending a copy of their photo ID). This process is currently done only for oversighters and checkusers. Unless a similar process is established for sysops, it would be against our current practice to establish a procedure (read: create and enable a software feature) that would expose that group (sysops) to personal information.
Now, I know MW is not just about Wikimedia projects, but as a member of the OC I had to the devil's advocate.

As local crat, I confirm this request