Requests for comment/Global ban for Livioandronico2013

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus to globally ban. No local blocks or global locks are overturned either. Those can be appealed following the normal processes. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:CentralAuth/Livioandronico2013

The user in question has been variously known as:

Livioandronico2013 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Livioandronico2013
Σπάρτακος (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — sockmaster on enwiki and sockmaster on Wikidata
Commonists (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)
WikiRomaWiki (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)
NikonZ7II (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)
Orlando Paride (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — possible real name, as a resident of Rome, Italy and native speaker of Italian.
etc.pp. --- see commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Livioandronico2013

Please see User:Elizium23/L'anatra romana for compiled background information.

In short, this contributor is a photographer who has uploaded approximately 3,000 high-quality photographs to Commons. The photos are typically popular buildings, locales, and artwork around Rome and other parts of Italy. The user was blocked on enwiki about 9 years ago, and blocked on Commons about 4 years ago.

The reasons were chiefly incivility and belligerence towards other users in discussions about image quality, etc. Then it became about ban evasion as Paride created more sock puppets every time.

Paride continued to upload the same type of photographs with his socks, and at some point began to shove them forcefully into every possible article in every project possible. Every language has been affected — English, Italian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Azerbaijani, Norman, Greek; you name it! Not to mention multiple languages of Wikivoyage as well! He used Wikidata effectively, to force his photos to appear in dozens of infoboxes at once.

While Paride forces his photos into the forefront, he has often erased other contributors' works from the articles. Whether or not his photos were of a higher quality, he unilaterally removes work by dozens or hundreds of good-faith editors, and freely-licensed works including those in the public domain. The works came from museums, libraries, amateurs, and highly-publicized partnerships between the WMF and repositories of quality artwork. This work is all being erased by Paride and his sockpuppet IPs on a daily basis because of his self-promotion.

Paride's main motive seems to be self-aggrandizing and self-promotion. Of course he does not seem to realize monetary gain from this. Inexplicable is his ability to use any ISP in Italy to evade IPv4 rangeblocks, consistently and rapidly changing addresses as he is identified and blocked every time.

Many global locks have been issued, many local blocks and bans enacted, and yet the hits keep on coming.

It is time for us to globally ban Orlando Paride ~~and all his work~~ from every project of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I have stopped campaigning for deletion of his photographs from Commons. ~~As unfortunate as it may be to lose properly-licensed, high-quality photographs, they are not irreplaceable, but good will is difficult to earn back once it is lost.~~

Paride has abused me, administrators, and other editors by his behaviour, cross-wiki, for over ten years now.

Thank you for your consideration. Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Support Quite a lot of cumulated time wasted on him by a lot of us here. And about his pictures: no they are not "superb". They are bad enough that I was able to spot one of his socks at a glance. But I've to say that these recent uploards are definitely what I would qualify as good pictures to illustrate an encyclopedia. There definitely was an improvement. - Benh (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. I want to add: a) Anyone who's calling for an "amnesty" may wish to note that the latest sockpuppet abuse (Special:CentralAuth/Merulana) was as recently as 2 months ago. b) This RfC is not about the pictures already uploaded, but may affect future socks and their uploads. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ɱ 15:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A user with 22 sockpuppets, who evades blocking by using at least 53 IP addresses, who nominates his own pictures for "Featured picture" and "Quality image" and uses his many sockpuppets to get double votes on them, does not deserve "amnesty", does he?. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This type of abuse is exactly why we have global bans. Nosferattus (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems local blocks have failed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support —viciarg⁴¹⁴ 09:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support . But please remember, we will ban account and the controller of the account, not their works. Lemonaka (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per A.Savin and Cote d'Azur, given that the ban affects only future socks and their uploads. --Aristeas (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support User is currently locked and user has a lot of sockpuppets. AlPaD (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's becoming harder to separate art from the artist these days, but the principles should be upholded. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gepardenforellenfischer (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

~~Oppose~~ In my opinion he’s probably going to evade the ban anyway, so an amnesty would be the best solution. —-Populares rome (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid vote by indefblocked user. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is time for an amnesty, the user contributes amazing images, and volunteers time to upload, catalogue, and curate the images. Even Twitter offered amnesty to previously banned users. Everyone should be offered a "fresh start". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Richard Arthur Norton. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the above wall of text is an actionable criterium from WMFBAN mentioned? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: Local blocks have failed. So have global blocks and locks. -- Jeff G. ツ (please ping or talk to me) 00:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that whether I don't concur with the de facto global-locked situation is that if such copyvio-fan behaviors can just be a sturby reason to do so. Several newcommers may more or less did copyvio things in the past years, so for this case isn't global lock merciless on a high level? FWIW there's Dr. Bernd Gross where banned by Commons Oversighters, wouldn't that way be enough? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the user should be given another chance, as he is clearly capable of contributing amazing images. At the very least, his images should be kept as high quality and in many cases in-use. Ficaia (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty is called for after so much good work. The images are superb and are used in articles on Wikipedia's across the world, many of them are the page's main image. As for civility, the editor should really take into consideration that his fellow editors are real people who are volunteering their time and talents to the project and they should be enjoying their experience, yes? And vice versa. Let's welcome home an outcast who, when outcast, continued to give back to the worldwide community of readers and page viewers, thank them for continuing their good work, but say "No, bad user" for not playing well with other users and for removing other people's good images. When others attack, please don't defend as much as understand they may be frustrated with something about your attitude and give them the benefit of many doubts (and yes, vice versa). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His behaviour is very critical but all of this is not a reason for a global ban. And Elizium23, please stop your deletion requests for his photographs. "This content belongs to a globally-locked LTA sockpuppet" is not an acceptable reason for deletion. Chaddy (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This process is irreparably tainted by the nominator's misunderstanding of Commons policy when it comes to deletion of contributions by banned users. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more tainted by the opposition's interpretations of what I wrote above to construe some sort of end-run around Commons' decision. I've retracted all my deletion requests, I've read the policies, I'm aware that nobody wants to delete his work, and I'm abiding by that. What's the problem? Elizium23 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not arguing for "amnesty" or for any of the existing bans/blocks to be overturned, but I don't see how a global ban would be productive here. It seems Elizium23 is looking for a global ban to circumvent the decision by the Commons community not to delete Livio's past uploads. If any account is replacing images with lower quality images in a Wikipedia article, revert it. Revert any edit made by any sock on Wikipedia. The big open question is one for Commons: how to handle uploads of useful content by sockpuppets of blocked users. It's a thorny issue, but in this case (as with others), the decision has been to revert their edits but leave their uploads. For a global ban, we'd need to see clearer evidence of behavioral issues like attacks and harassment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about libeling me as racist? --A.Savin (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more evidence like that. You shouldn't have to put up with those kinds of comments, but also, what would a global ban do to stop them? We already block his socks on sight, right? The only difference is it would require deleting future uploads, too, as far as I can understand. Perhaps routinely deleting his uploads would dissuade him from bothering to create new accounts, but it's there that I think we need more evidence of abuse/harassment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not believe a global ban is warranted in this case. Abzeronow (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1989 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per King of Hearts: Yes, banning wont bring about deletion of past uploads, per policy — but that’s what this RfC is asking, and any support could be misconstrued for a motion to challenge that policy. Should this matter be raised in a differently worded RfC, focusing on the user’s misbehaviour with no attempts at grave-dancing (or no misunderstanding of Commons deletion policy — not sure what’s going on here), then I would likely support it. Tuvalkin (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean these statements: globally ban (…) all his work and unfortunate as it may be to lose properly-licensed, high-quality photographs. Tuvalkin (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose,when i was active on enwiki, there was a troll who would replace good images with his because his images carried his name and he was some sort of a professional photographer even when we complained to admins, they ignored it and infact protected him, and he would do it persistently even by logging out and replacing image and admins still ignored him, he was my low bar for this type of trolling, to date Livio never sought fame, or fortune or acknowledgement for his images, he didn't gain anything monetarily nor has he tried getting recognition as none of his images till he started using his real name were enforced on enwiki, I'm not a fan of people who intentionally remove other people's image and replace them with their own for selfish reasons but this one is a very lowbar, I see no issue, infact i hope he is unblocked and uses just one account and banned from replacing images on other wikis with his, if his images are good enough, someone might do it anyways..we must not try to get rid of 'real contributors' from the project, or we will be left with very low standard users who just mass upload from sites like flickr and never really contribute anything good to the project...--Ste moc 17:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Oppose, though I would love to support a ban on Commons and, when on other wikis, banning their usages of Special:Upload. While it's true this is a copyvio-fan, their non file-related edits don't give me up on judging as bad user. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Stemoc. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --PetarM (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Knoerz (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Global ban is somehow overreacting --Kriddl (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The behaviour of the user is far from the usual civility standards but I doubt that a global ban would be appropriate solution in this case. Per others. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Recusal edit

Comment I don't express opinion about a possible termination of the user in question. But I see no possible advantage for the project from the deletion of all that user's media. -- Blackcat 21:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is possible that the user really is as problematic as the application claims. The application just doesn't show it. The applicant ultimately owes the evidence, a few links to something, but all in all it's a "trust me or look it up yourself". You can't make such important requests like that. In addition, the images were published under a free license. Deleting them in one go with the accused, even though there is no external abuse (warnings for improper use, for example) is not possible at all. It gives the impression that personal bills are to be settled here. The application also ends with the applicant first naming himself as the injured party, not the Wikimedia projects. All of this leaves a very bland aftertaste. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cannot support because of User:Elizium23's admission that this is part of his campaign to get Livioandronico2013's pictures removed from Commons. This is at least the third different venue in the last 10 days where Elizium pursued this campaign, including one where they closed discussion because it wasn't going their way. Livioandronico2013's conduct has been bad, but this feels to me like an out-of-control prosecution. - Jmabel (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Elizium, but once again; this RfC doesn't affect past uploads. I don't know any single banned user, even WMF banned, where past uploads were deleted "just because they're by this user". --A.Savin (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Closed discussion because it wasn't going his way" is a weird way to say "Elizium23 closely examined Commons policies and took on board all the comments from people who said he was wrong and so Elizium23 decided to close a discussion that would not bear fruit."

Yes Jmabel, even I'm worn out by this shit. There's clearly no good resolution for this. It seems pointless for me to pursue it any more. I've documented everything and I've handed it all to admins on a silver platter. If policy and technical issues prevent admins from taking further action then that is not my problem and it's not an issue for me to solve by hammering away again and again. Elizium23 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they are already global locked, more accounts can become lock evasion and just locked away. Lemonaka (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to recuse myself from this discussion. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion edit

Here is another example of verbal abuse:

Hey Colin pensi realmente che io sia sparito buffone? 5 secondi e cambio nick e ip. Non ti preoccupare che l'unico ladro qui sei tu. Io qui ho foto quality,featured ecc....Fai il figo con i tuoi amici ma a me non puoi toccarmi fallito "Hey Colin, do you really think I'm gone, you fool? 5 seconds and I change nick and IP (address). Don't fret that the only thief here is you. I have here quality photos, featured etc .... Be cool with your friends but you can't touch me, you loser" —Cote d'Azur (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd interpret that as a general threat to harm the project, this alone should be enough for a global ban. —viciarg⁴¹⁴ 09:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What use is it? Orlando's well-aware that no admin can catch him, no community will revert him, and Commons wouldn't dare delete his uploads. He'll do what he wants regardless of our disapproval or support. It's an absolutely ideal power trip, and I should probably go to the press instead of keeping it on-wiki anymore. It'd make a good headline, right Orlando? "Commons votes to keep troll who stuffs his own ballot boxes." "Photographer trolled the entire WMF and dozens of Wikis with THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK [changing IPv4 addresses]" "Wiki admins can't block troll fast enough before he uploads 5 dozen more iconic photos that everyone wants to have" Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He is laughing at this site, as well he should. And to all the people who want to give him an "amnesty": It's kind of like arguing that someone who conducted a long campaign of harassment for which they were punished under the law is OK because he didn't harass you personally. FPC became so much more peaceful after he was blocked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning this: While Paride forces his photos into the forefront, he has often erased other contributors' works from the articles. Very concerning — unlike images in articles, which can be readily replaced and put back repeatedly, text contributions are easy to irreparably ruin after a few subsequent edits. Can you provide diffs of this, please? Tuvalkin (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is Andronico who replaces good pictures with his less than good ones. He uses his sockpuppets or IPs to do this. Here is an example in which User:NikonZ7II, a sockpuppet of his, does the replacement.

And here is a incomplete list of Andronico's IPs:

While we are talking, he is pushing his pics at Wikidata under this *new* IP address: User contributions for 193.146.182.154 —Cote d'Azur (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification edit

Elizium23, pursuant to the global ban policy, have you notified this user on all wikis where they are active, and the community on all wikis where they have edited? This is especially pertinent given the concerns that this is an attempt to circumvent local Commons decisionmaking.

Additionally, please note that a global ban does not ban someone's work from Wikimedia projects. It is a revocation of editing, and other interactive, accesses. Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not apply. Thx. Elizium23 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]