Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1

Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 00:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Suspected related users

ApMalResbmou Tonuyz (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
Safoule 2558 LausldM (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
ALB 302 AOE woapsing (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
Deunm Sehhopa 8832 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
Ha Lunm Yutmncsoe (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
Shwim WIAIOP 226 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
Mama AXunLong08 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Rationale, discussion and results

Reason: Raised by m:Requests for comment/Blatant sockpuppetry in good faith, it looks like there may also have sleepers IDK before?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. There are over 650 of these sockpuppets, without a main account that the user is associated. The name "Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1" is a term that describes this user by the community (this name was never created by this user). 〈興華街〉📅❓ 09:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are a real lot of accounts with a real lot of uploads each. What is the exact behaviour pattern? What is the proposed action against the confirmed socks? --Krd 12:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Liauyu_Riuhwa#c-Elcobbola-2019-08-12T16:45:00.000Z-Rationale,_discussion_and_results. RoyZuo (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact behaviour pattern?

Extremely serious socking without a main account, even though there are no warnings to the user (except FoP-related deletion requests).
Using strange names in accounts.
Serious FoP-violation in respective countries/regions.
Systematic, but inconsistent categorization.
Creation of categories with bilingual names.
User pages only created as galleries.
Never replied in talk pages.
Intentionally removing sockpuppetry tags.
Indirect disclosure of personal information.

What is the proposed action against the confirmed socks?

Getting the user globally locked. And if new socks appear, immediately lock it. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 15:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no use by means of using the admins' noticeboard as this is now a difficult case. The best thing to do is to get the new accounts locked and contribs deleted just like what used to be done with MOHLEAOSONDWN 2300. If this was taken into account, he is deliberately evading blocks, and this is spamming. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 15:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are different instances of

Confirmed,

Likely and

It looks like a duck to me here. All blocked. --Krd 15:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: Thanks! See also Category:Sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm currently deleting all uploads of two dozens of the socks mentioned here or found directly connected. Is is real large amount of files, but the majority of them has FOP issues and it is impossible to evaluate them one by one or even crop them individually. The files can be restored by anybody without notice if the issues can be resolved. Krd 18:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: Thanks! Along the way, if you could identify the oldest account, that would help with naming. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to determine. Krd 06:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd what is this user's abuse for you using checkuser tool here, and then blocking them? can you give some links?

How has this case differed from Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Liauyu Riuhwa which was thrown out by @Elcobbola, and multiple community discussions that concluded without any punitive action taken against this user? RoyZuo (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned checkuser case is 5 years old, so this abuse, i.e. uploading unfree files after warnings, continues for more than 5 years with hundreds of socks. Krd 06:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd what do you mean by "unfree files"?

The latest community consensus Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/11#Derivative works (FOP etc.) is that such derivative works are neither discouraged nor prohibited.

Are you aware of a different community consensus on the matter of derivative works restricted on commons due to com:fop com:packaging etc., that justify a massive deletion by you a single user overriding community discussions and community consensus? If yes, please link.

And what's percentage of such files being unfree due to com:fop com:packaging etc. relative to the total number of files you nuked? Does it reach double digit (>=10%)? RoyZuo (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are above 50%. What consensus shall that be? Please provide a link. Krd 16:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that blanket deletion of HKTA ("Hong Kong Throwaway Account") uploads is inappropriate and unwarranted. I'm not even sure we can really say that HKTA has been warned about anything, unless the warning is left during an account's three-day activity period. DS (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd 50%? 2100 of the 4200+ you deleted this time? RoyZuo (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases"
Everyone knows these accounts are related. No one needs checkusers to confirm the relation between them.
This page is one of the many forum shopping attempts by the same user since Jan 2025. They finally succeeded here after commons community rejected:
In all discussions since many years ago, commons community has always been aware that these accounts are related, and has always decided to deal with them by:
1. not blocking any accounts
2. categorising uploads into Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1
3. starting deletion requests where appropriate
4. not mass deleting all uploads
As such, I ask @Krd to:
1. either, respect and follow the conclusions of the past discussions and community consensus, by unblocking these accounts and undeleting their uploads (so that other users familiar with copyright rules of those countries (I am willing to take as my responsibility) can correctly sort them),
2. or, find a new community consensus that justfify your blocks and mass deletions.

RoyZuo (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to unblock the accounts if this is community consensus (which I currentlys don't see). Restoring the files, which includes copyright violations, doesn't appear like an option to me. As said, if anybody else would like to do that, they are free to do, but I won't. Krd 06:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd commons community is fully aware that the accounts are related but there is no consensus to block even with that knowledge. You have unilaterally overrided the multiple community discussions and consensus to block them.
your unilateral mass deletions override multiple discussions in which users oppose deletion (including but not limited to: )

RoyZuo (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your proposal, taking into account that I cannot mass-restore the deleted files and accept that many of them are copyright violations? Krd 10:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already offered, that I would inspect all 4200+ you deleted this time, mark all that are actually incompatible with com:l for deletion, so the other uploads can be kept. RoyZuo (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd apprechiate that. So we put these files into a new category? (Which one would that be?) Do you have an estimate how long the review will take? Krd 11:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can finish every 200 in 10 minutes, so I can finish checking this entire batch (4200+) in maximally 200 minutes. I can do it today, now, 11:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC).

I plan to add all files for deletion to Category:Commons file maintenance - temporary holder. Once checking is finished, I will reply, and they can all be deleted.

For the other files that are to stay, I will also improve categorisation.

If everything is in order, I will create the temporary holder. RoyZuo (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 needing review Krd 14:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watching. Triaging files will start as soon as undeletion is completed. RoyZuo (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the undeletion process ends as of now? Even though here're 57 files that are not undeleted: special:diff/1010957904.

Nonetheless, I am now triaging files. When I am done I will reply again. RoyZuo (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd thank you very much. Of the 4160 you undeleted yesterday, I identified 304 to be deleted, which are now in Category:Commons file maintenance - temporary holder, because most of them are derivative works that do not meet exceptions like com:fop com:too.

For the other 3856 files, most of which are shots of cities and outdoor areas or items that are not protected by copyright, I will sort them into topical categories in the next few days if everything is in order. RoyZuo (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about File:GD 廣東 Guangdong 中山 Zhongshan Bus 035 遊車河 1415pm tour view 東區 Dong February 2025 R12S 53.jpg? Krd 05:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines case #4.

A picture of that shopping mall (only the semi-circular cylindrical part in the middle bearing the mall's name 创达仁汇 can be seen) is impossible without also capturing the posters.

So it's a borderline case, not a definite case for deletion.

All borderline cases should be best decided by the community in deletion requests (DR) or discussions. The 304 I identified are cases that most likely have no chance to survive DR. RoyZuo (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just checked these 57 files special:diff/1010957904, and identified 2 for deletion.

As such, in total I identified 306 of 4217 for deletion as of now. RoyZuo (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to start moving all files kept to topical categories by thur, 20 mar. RoyZuo (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]