Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/RoyZuo

Parties
Parties	Notifications
〈興華街〉📅❓ 13:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
RoyZuo (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	Special:Diff/28476679

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:0xDeadbeef User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:Civvì User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Superpes15 〈興華街〉📅❓ 13:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@U4C: User:0xDeadbeef User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:Civvì User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Superpes15: please notify the aforementioned user on Wikimedia Commons (on its user talk page as well as on the Village pump), as I am currently blocked there and cannot make edits regarding the case. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 14:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HingWahStreet

Description of the problem - (HingWahStreet)

RoyZuo, the user who is currently most active on Wikimedia Commons (see its CentralAuth), recently do all the actions to blatantly protect the interests of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1, by reverting multiple users' edits (including those of mine) that marked the accounts as sockpuppets, citing "previous consensus" as well as describing the anonymous user a "long term contributor", and even in a previous attempt tried to beautify the sockpuppetry issue by making a renaming request to call the socks as simply "accounts". These actions are accused to violate Section 3.3 Clause 2 of the UCoC by promoting vandalism by the anonymous user with massive uploads and over-categorization.

During an RFC about the anonymous user RoyZuo opened a discussion on the village pump asking everybody to stop involving with such relative issues, with some users pointed out that the sockpuppetry should be stopped, but during the discussion RoyZuo accused them of making accusations. Also a sockpuppet investigation was opened during the RFC, and after the checkuser found that the socks are related and get them all blocked RoyZuo deliberately cited the same excuse and challenged the checkuser to unblock all sock accounts and undelete all contributions.

As I saw that problem a week ago I began replacing the socks' user pages with a sockpuppet tag, just like some users did, but reverted by RoyZuo including the use of rollbacks. Then the user created another topic on the Village Pump asking opinions about whose user pages can be edited by others and as I see the topic as promoting a user's stance for the anonymous user I collapsed with a comment Intentional attempts to protect a user's [own] viewpoints regarding a major issue is not solving the problem, but it's worsening it. The situation then escalates to an edit war or something, and I and RoyZuo reported each other on the admins' noticeboard; then I ended up being blocked for one month, and a discussion on an interactive ban was also made. After the block, RoyZuo cited my previously operated accounts and even stated that the previous account was abandoned due to "real world events" and even disclosing my personal behavior using links found inside my user page, which I have to close all social media accounts and blank my user page; and finally, describing me as a "hyperactive user" and my discussions as "forum shopping attempts"(This is a clear violation of Section 3.1 Clause 5, sharing other contributors' private information... without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects, and Section 3.2 Clause 3 of the UCoC, Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want; and in turn, violating Section 4 Clause 2 of the Terms of Use: Soliciting personally identifiable information for the purposes of harassment, exploitation, or violation of privacy, or for any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation).

Given that RoyZuo currently have two indefinite blocks on two other projects also accused to have the same violation of multiple clauses regarding Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the UCoC; as well as Section 4 Clause 2 of the Terms of Use (see my comment here for a list of refs), I request that something shall be done to protect the users' interests on Wikimedia Commons, as well as the project's own integrity.

Previous attempts at a solution - (HingWahStreet)

c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 119#User uploading own pictures over multiple usernames
Requests for comment/Blatant sockpuppetry in good faith filed but closed with the reason Meta is not an appeals court.
After the aforementioned comment made by RoyZuo, I have sent an email to the Wikimedia T&S Team requiring assistance, which, as of today (March 31, 2025), haven't received a reply (cannot be disclosed due to included personal information, request me an email for the contents).

Replies - (HingWahStreet)

@RoyZuo: you are not allowed to cite any accounts (even they are related) and its behavior in detail to explicitly describe any user as a vandal, as this is a violation of Section 4 Clause 2 of the Terms of Use: Soliciting personally identifiable information for the purposes of harassment, exploitation, or violation of privacy, or for any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation.

RoyZuo

Previous attempts at a solution - RoyZuo

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

Initially I had no plan to respond to this yet another attempt by this account on their sole mission to harass contributors, but to save everyone's time:

(In some cases they were told to stop by various users.) Their previous attempts including but not limited to:
However, above are not their first attempts, because this account was related to other older problematic accounts:
1. it's established that this account is related to Yrellag (talk · contribs) by c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_120#c-Tvpuppy-20250321194700-RoyZuo-20250321191400, that is, this account managed to paste a long list that was identical to c:special:permalink/871161435#Anonymous_Users (which no one would know about. I had also forgotten about it even though I had "User talk:Yrellag" in my watchlist since 2 years ago.)
  There is more evidence such as editing patterns and camera model used in their uploads, which I will not elaborate here and you can find out following the links.
2. it's established that Yrellag (talk · contribs) is related to G6zLZz2cEPKdEXB (talk · contribs) by c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 19#Yrellag. Behavioural evidence such as c:special:diff/761522741 vs c:special:diff/763386105.
  in the same investigation, these accounts were also identified:
  1. Urbgen Soheili (talk · contribs)
  2. Taurusa Ram (talk · contribs)
  3. Matfey Eindridi (talk · contribs)
3. G6zLZz2cEPKdEXB was related to a series of large-scale pranks on Commons and Wikidata:
  1. c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 91#Duplicate categories with Greek alphabets
  2. d:Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2023/01#Junk_items._last_report.

My short summary: be careful of who you are dealing with here: a prankster, sockpuppeteer and single-purpose user.--RoyZuo (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had to repost everything above after this account deleted my comments again special:diff/28480761.

Sockpuppeteer deleting other users' comments on on-wiki public evidence. LOL.

This account was exactly blocked for repeatedly deleting reports on the account's behaviour on Commons. Now the account does the same thing here, which is exporting disputes cross-wiki?--RoyZuo (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

I am unsure just how much of this problem is a U4C appropriate problem. I do appreciate Hing making explicit the UCoC violations. I am going to think more about that and think more about this conversation and what it means about commons consensus about the underlying dispute here (HKTA) because I think both sides of this feel like they have community consensus behind them. But that circles back to how I'm not sure helping Commons with that is a U4C appropriate problem. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

Decline votes

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

Acknowledging that this request has been seen by the U4C. --Civvì (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]