Elcobbola

If you've received notices or warnings from me, please ensure you've read them and the guidance and policies referenced therein before asking questions here. While I am genuinely happy to provide elaboration or clarification, a question suggesting guidance has not first been consulted, may not receive a response. Alternatively stated: questions from users who appear not to have read guidance already provided to them may not be answered--this is most often COM:L and COM:VRT. Please read them closely and critically. Please also note the following: Please include links to the pertinent page(s) and/or file(s); Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Comments that denigrate or otherwise are discourteous, fail to be civil, or to assume good faith may not receive a response. Newly registered and IP editors may leave messages on this page.

Special:CentralAuth/Nawazprincehai's local attachment request

w:en:User talk:Nawazprincehai has requested to have a local account on Commons, but their IP range is checkuserblock-ed by you. Mind taking a look and actioning as appropriate? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this process. Do I have the ability to attach accounts to the Commons? I currently have no reason to object to their attachment, but I have no intention of changing the range block per my comments at User talk:2401:4900:2EE4:3AF3:0:5A:2F:7301. Эlcobbola _talk 17:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you do. The special page is Special:CreateLocalAccount. (All admins have the technical ability to, but given that it's a checkuser block I wouldn't without your approval.) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This should be done. Thanks for explaining--old dog, new tricks. Эlcobbola _talk 18:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you! —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey…

Don’t you think there’s something wrong with the IPs here…? RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

And here… RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes. The 2603:7000:B8F0:960::::/64 is already blocked and the 2600:1017:B027:C884::::/64 hasn't edited in 3 days, so I'm unsure why you're asking. Эlcobbola _talk 17:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Unsure

Hi @Elcobbola. I'm unsure if I should file an SPI or not. I noticed spam from Gepind2024, who appears to be Gepind, a spammer blocked on en-wiki several years ago for spam. I deleted two of their uploads today at: File:Gepind Panganiban Requierme.jpg and File:Gepind P. Requierme.jpg pretty much for the same reason. They re-uploaded one (which I couldn't delete again? not sure why) They have been blocked on en-wiki per en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gepind2024. I'm not much into SPIs so I really don't want to waste a CUs time. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @TheAafi Please do not file a duplicative RFCU here, the result there can justify blocks here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TheAafi: Jeff is correct. Because SUL accounts are consistent across projects, CU findings are valid across projects and do not require additional checks absent some special circumstance. Even if there were not an x-wiki CU finding (which was actually itself a {{Duck}} finding--indeed per the following), additional things to note: 1) Gepind has not edited the Commons since 10 June 2019 and would thus be Stale (there would be no Gepind data to which to compare Gepind2024) and 2) even if not stale, this would be a case where a CU is not needed ({{Duck}})), as "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases." (COM:RFCU) Name similarity (Gepind v Gepind2024), highly esoteric topic, and effective recreation of content ([1][2]), in the aggregate, make the connection obvious (i.e., not a "difficult case" requiring CU tools to establish a connection.) Эlcobbola _talk 15:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elcobbola, this helps. Thanks for the detailed note. I was able to clear a lot of doubts. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Shirogane10 => User:Nanafuji ?

Hi. I saw that you blocked the first as a sock, and the second seems to be acting in the same space as the first, and has a knowledge of Italian. I don't know enough of the scenario to do more than I have currently done, which is 2 hr block and ask to follow instruction. Thanks if you can have a look.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmed. Thanks for letting me know. Эlcobbola _talk 14:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Undelete request

Can you please undelete Category:Anand Vihar Terminal–Dehradun Vande Bharat Express. There are images in Category:Anand Vihar Terminal - Dehradun Vande Bharat Express that need to be moved there. Thanks. --R'n'B (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories deleted as empty (C2) can be recreated at any time by good faith users when there are images to be so categorised; no additional process or permission from the deleting admin is needed. In this case, I'm not inclined to restore given a username issue and that the sock's choice of subcategories may or may not have been appropriate, so please simply recreate the category as desired. Эlcobbola _talk 21:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Overlapping SPI cases

Hi Elcobbola, I found your recent closure on Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jurisdrew. I heavily suspect (and others do too looking at the page) that this is the same case as Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hom Ling Zum. Should these be combined? Best, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis, I would not be inclined to do anything. If they are both Jurisdrew, combination expends additional community resources for no gained insight. If they are distinct LTAs, combination may obscure relevant history. Эlcobbola _talk 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: However, any username suspected of belonging to either user can be reported to m:srg for immediate action as global lock evasion.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Easy to blame ...

... when you are the only one who sees the full image. I cannot see images before they are restored, so I could not see that the photo with the .jpg-extension was actually the right one. And the admin you blamed has no insight into the ticket. We both tried to do our best under the given circumstances. :-/

Concerning the file description you reverted: According to the ticket, the license is cc-by-sa-4.0, not cc-0. And the author should be Louise Carrin, unless you have evidence that she is identical to the user Adelfilm.

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall blaming anyone for anything, and you are welcome to make (and should) whatever license updates are needed. Эlcobbola _talk 21:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Ask for files restoration

Hello, can you restore these two files (File:Buste de Madame Pommery.jpg, File:Dressoir Chemin d'automne.jpg) ? There is a subtlety in the display of the Musée de Reims. The copyright symbol is only used to give the name of the photographer (in any case, it has no legal value in France). The image is clearly marked as being in the public domain ("Domaine public" in [3] and [4]) unlike this example where this is not the case : [5] where a copyright owner is noted, and you can find the sentence « Cette œuvre est soumise à droits et son visuel ne peut pas être diffusé librement. » (This artwork have copyright and can’t be freely shared). Thank you ! Lucas Lévêque (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not evident that "Domaine public" refers to the photograph rather than the subject/work. In fact, it is contradicted by the photographer credit of "© Christian Devleeschauwer" where "©" means "copyright" (copyright and public domain are, of course, mutually exclusive). Could you point me to something that reconciles this contradiction? Alternatively, do you have a source that establishes Christian Devleeschauwer to be an employee of the museum? Эlcobbola _talk 17:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I know that it’s not evident. You can find in the EULA page here this phrase : « Les images des œuvres dans le domaine public sont libres de droit et d’utilisation, la mention de l’auteur du cliché est mentionnée » (Images of artworks in the public domain are free of rights and use, the author of the photo is mentioned.) So it’s just a mention, not copyright recognition. On the blog of the photograph he said « j’intègre la fonction publique » (I am joining the public service), who is the museum and the City of Reims (who owned the museum). Is that enought ? Thank you ! Lyokoï (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the terms "Les images des œuvres dans le domaine public sont libres de droit et d’utilisation, la mention de l’auteur du cliché est mentionnée" are not adequate. For example: 1) we do not know that their understanding of "free of use" is the same as ours (as one very common example, the Pexels license is described by Pexels to be free, but contains restrictions on derivatives that render it insufficiently free for our purposes; 2) relatedly, it is not a license (COM:L requires specific license); and 3) it does not address perpetual duration, which it explicitly must. As I'm sure you've noted, our hope is "Les prises de vue réalisées par Les Musées de la Ville de Reims sont libres de droits", which is why we want to establish Devleeschauwer as a museum employee. I might be persuaded by that link if there is supporting context, so perhaps you can help me: why would "©" (copyright) be used if employee works are public domain (mutually exclusive of copyright)? Why would Devleeschauwer as a person be credited instead of the museum/employer as here, for example? Эlcobbola _talk 16:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking the IP address

Hello, I hope you're well. We're hosting a photography contest called Wiki Loves Vizag 2024. We received a message on Instagram informing us that the IP address 2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 was disabled by Elcobbola. Could you kindly look into this matter? --iMahesh (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi iMahesh, this range has experienced significant disruption by multiple LTAs. As an example and reasonableness test, en.wiki has also blocked this /32 range until April 2026 and removed talk page access. The user will need to wait until the block expires or create an account on a sister project. Эlcobbola _talk 08:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert, I requested him to created an account via Mobile data and it worked. --iMahesh (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Tarapriya

Would you be willing to lift the block if the user explicitly promises to only upload photographs taken by himself? Trade (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

No. COM:BP asks an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. The credibility of such a promise ("if the user explicitly promises") would necessarily be tethered to those considerations, and thus would be meaningless in their absence. This user: 1) has zero unproblematic uploads (i.e., no evidence they have the capacity); 2) has derivate work copyvios (i.e., no evidence they would even understand what "photographs taken by himself" means); 3) despite having what is prohibited explained to them in great detail, nevertheless continued copyvios after the expiration of their previous block; and 4) even after their current block, has demonstrated they continue not to understand the issue. I cannot help those who do not read what is presented directly to them. Эlcobbola _talk 15:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons checkuser icon

Hello, I have noticed that you have reverted my image addition on Commons:Checkusers and that you specified that it was an "inappropriate image addition". Could you please explain why it was removed and when to add these images? Thank you! 2003 LN6 17:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Undeleting gov.md materials

Hello!

May I ask you to review the deleted files listed here User talk:Editor1722/Archive 1#Deleted content and undelete the ones that have gov.md as their source? As of today recently, the site has retroactively adopted a free license. Thank you! Gikü (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gikü, I will more specific information. At least some of those files are YouTube screenshots (i.e., not ones sourced to gov.md); please list the specific files you believe are now free, and please provide a link to gov.md site that identifies the same. Эlcobbola _talk 14:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think I'd be able to provide such a list, I don't remember remember the source for each of them. But I recall that some of them were official photos screenshotted from gov.md, for example it seems that I have reuploaded File:Rodica Iordanov 2022.png as File:Iordanca-Rodica Iordanov official photo, 2022.jpg. I suspect that other files coming from gov.md are File:Olesea Stamate 2022.png, File:Anatolie Nosatii 2023.png, File:Mircea Buga 2022.png, File:Evghenia Guțul 2023.png. Thank you for looking into it! Gikü (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Rodica Iordanov 2022.png is not the same image as File:Iordanca-Rodica Iordanov official photo, 2022.jpg. The former is a screenshot from a YouTube video, not a the portrait you've uploaded. In fact, all the files you've listed are YouTube screenshots. You can see the YouTube sources and "screenshot" deletion rationales for each in the file logs (visible to all, not just admins); for example: File:Olesea Stamate 2022.png log is here. Эlcobbola _talk 15:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Poor memory, then :( Thank you anyway! Sorry for taking your time. Gikü (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Piyushghadgep2

Hi, I'm coming to you because of an allegation at en.wiki that the above user is a sock of Faizanalivarya. Faizanalivarya was recently blocked by User:Yann for one week for uploading non-free images. In looking at a couple of the images uploaded by Piyushghadgep2, it looks to me like they are facially copyright violations as well. For example, File:Sahil Khan Wife 01.jpg is copied from Instagram. I was about to tag the image as a copyright violation, but I decided it would be more efficient to ask you to look at not only that image but the others, all of which are similar (and some mislabeled as to the subjects), and at the same time, if you're willing, to run a check of the two users to see if they are related. Also possible of course that they are meat puppets rather than sock puppets. Thanks for your help. Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

From what I can see, Piyushghadgep2 has exclusively edited, across all projects, in relation to only two subjects: w:Sahil Khan (Indian actor) and w:Negar Khan (Norwegian/Iranian actor in India). Faizanalivarya does not appear to have edited those subjects or topics (Indian showbusiness/Bollywood) and instead appears primarily focused on athletes from disparate countries and Pakistani institutions and people (journalists, politicians, etc. - I did not see actors). Commons uploads also appear quite different in terms of naming convention, information and description provided at upload, etc. The socking allegation on en.wiki appears to based on the purport that Faizanalivarya had a "real life" meeting with Sahil Khan, but the email purporting to evidence the same is in a queue to which I do not have access. In short, unless I've overlooked something, I don't currently see or have access to sufficient evidence. Commons CU @Krd: is very involved in VRT and may have access to that queue and may be able to look at this; if not, I'd be inclined to wait for the en.wiki SPI results and to handle Commons uploads based on copyright in the meantime. Эlcobbola _talk 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for such a detailed explanation, and it all sounds reasonable. Are you going to look at the uploads by Piyushghadgep2 on your own, or do they need to be tagged?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I've deleted them. Эlcobbola _talk 13:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)