Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by WikiRomaWiki

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by WikiRomaWiki (talk · contribs)

This content belongs to a globally-locked LTA sockpuppet. See Sockpuppet investigation on Commons, Wikidata, and enwiki. This user, through block evasion on IP addresses, has continued his campaign of forcing his work into every article possible, regardless of quality or worthiness of other files. See this IP and this IP and this IP ad nauseam. The only way to stop this abuse of forcing photos into articles is to delete the photos themselves and to w:WP:DENY recognition to the abusive sockpuppets. The reasoning is thus: the photos existing here are the attractive force which brings Orlando back to edit and abuse dozens of Wiki projects. Let us remove his incentive to abuse us any further.

Elizium23 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this 2020 RFC which decided that removing images by banned users does not qualify as a reason for removal. Many of these images are widely used on Wikipedia, which testifies to their quality. Yes, it would be nice if all the banned users went away, and if they read these deletion requests should really tone it down, but that has nothing to do with these images and the 2020 decision. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn, forse hai frainteso il risultato di quella RFC. Fondamentalmente non c'è consenso per entrambi i lati dell'argomentazione: Bloccare/bannare l'evasione/sockpuppetry da solo non è un motivo valido per eliminare i media o rifiutare una richiesta di annullamento dell'eliminazione. Pertanto, non hai un valido motivo (basato solo sull'evasione del divieto) per respingere questa richiesta di annullamento dell'eliminazione.
Proporrei che "l'evasione del divieto" non è il motivo per cui richiedo la cancellazione. Chiedo la cancellazione perché
1. Le immagini vengono abusate e forzate in centinaia di articoli, cross-wiki, per eclissare il lavoro valido e di alta qualità di altri utenti, inclusi partner WMF e musei,
2. Le immagini sono l'"esca" che riporta Orlando, ancora e ancora, ad abusare di noi e di ogni wiki che tocca.
Se fosse solo l'evasione da parte di Orlando di un divieto di caricare semplicemente foto di qualità e offrirle per il nostro uso, non sarei qui a chiedere la cancellazione.

Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forse @Krd commenterebbe gentilmente l'esito della suddetta RFC, in qualità di amministratore di chiusura. Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of these files are high quality and of use to both Commons and Wikipedia. Block the user and his sockpuppets by all means, but we should keep useful files. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't punish the images or our readers. Why was the person banned, who contributes such beautiful images? --RAN (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Treating ego-centrism with recognition is like extinguishing fire with gasoline. --A.Savin 17:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quelle chose étonnante de voir qualifiée d'égocentrique une personne qui donne généreusement de son temps et de son énergie pour enrichir notre chère encyclopédie sans jamais enfreindre aucun droit d'auteur et ce malgré l'acharnement qu'elle subit. C'est un fôné ? et alors ? faudrait arrêter d'être naïf : depuis plus de vingt ans que Wikipédia existe tout le monde est susceptible d'être le fôné de quelqu'un seuls les plus généreux se font taper sur les doigts les plus tordus ricanent. À ce compte là seule importe la qualité des articles et de leur illustration. La communauté s'est prononcée ici à ce sujet : « Block/ban evasion/sockpuppetry on its own is not a valid reason to delete media or reject a request for undeletion » et ça a été répété (vous allez rire) à de multiples reprises à Livioandronico himself : les images ne peuvent être supprimées de Commons (sauf violation du droit d'auteur ce qui n'est pas le cas) elles sont données irrévocablement. Des administrateurs qui supprimeraient des images n'enfreignant aucun droit d'auteur se mettraient en faute. Mandariine (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC) NB : l'auteur de ces multiples requêtes est bloqué indef sur :en[reply]
Keep Per Mandariine. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – No valid reason for deletion offered. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{speedy delete|G7}} I hereby withdraw this deletion request as a snow keep. Elizium23 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Elizium23 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]