Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Tiptoety (removal)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tiptoety

Withdrawn by nominator. Vote count at the time with 14 to remove and 23 to retain. NW (Talk) 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links for Tiptoety: Tiptoety (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Hello,

I am requesting to revoke Tiptoety's oversight rights, there is clear abuse of his recent actions that he did take on images.

Tiptoety decided to oversight complete file pages and files so people can't see them anymore, requests from other wikis to move the files to there are not possible now.

A few files that we found:

And I'm sure there are more when you check his logs. (Those files are not showing up in deletion logs so they are kind of hard to find)

According to the policy on Meta, Oversight can be used in four cases:

  1. Removal of non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public, or of public individuals who have not made that personal information public.
  2. Removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
  3. Removal of copyright violations on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
  4. Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. A blatant attack is one obviously intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone.

None of those files meet any criteria for oversighting.

I'm requesting the oversight tools to be removed after misuse of this tool. Huib talk 19:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw by Abigor

I'm going to withdraw this request to remove the oversight bit.

This request caused a discussion here and some people seem to change it in a popularity vote by canvassing. I've raised this issue here because I believe that the policy is clear on the oversight usage but it isn't. I think the discussion should move to MetaWiki and make it clear in the policy if all revisions can be removed by oversight including the log entry or that only the bad revision is oversighted and the rest deleted in a normal way.

This weekend was a bad weekend for Commons, we lost a lot of good users and we lost maybe even the "trust" in our function (hosting images for all wikis). We should be calm and let the peace return here on Commons. I do not believe this vote will help Commons recovering.

But I do hope that there will be a discussion internal with the oversighters and that they will evaluate what happened and will come to a conclusion how to handle this the next time.

About me I guess I was too emotional when I made this request, I still believe that we should try more options before starting a request for revoking oversight rights. I am sorry for all involved that I made the wrong decision at the wrong moment.Huib talk 12:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the other oversighters

I, User:Raymond, have reverted Tiptoety's oversight actions with exception of one image what could be a border case of illegal material. Raymond 17:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement follows Raymond 19:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Remove - Sumurai8 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove LeinaD dyskusja 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove unbelievable. --S[1] 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove based on the files that are still in google's cache, and on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature to ask for removal. What has been done prior to this to attempt to resolve the problem? Also, what to oversight is a judgment call. I haven't checked everything he did but the one I did check, I would have oversighted too. So....  Keep. Certainly for now, and possibly even after explanation given. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Premature. This needs discussion first. I would think that someone with oversight access would have the discretion to remove images that are questionable as to the person's age to consent (which I assume is the issue here.) Surely it is better to remove first and then reverse if there is an error. So unless I'm missing something, Keep. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't have access to the details surrounding the oversights, but we don't remove an admin's tools if they messed up on a few deletions (that is, we don't know if these were incorrectly oversighted but if they were one instance of poor judgment doesn't mean we should call for his head to be chopped off). Killiondude (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not talking about admin actions, we are talking about a user with OverSight, OS is a very big tool and should be used carefully. Poor judgement should be enough reason to remove. Huib talk 20:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read this carefully: One day of poor judgment (if these were done in poor judgement, which we would need another oversightor or Tiptoety to confirm in the case that we don't know all the details surrounding the files) does not mean we should revoke his oversight access. I never said poor judgment should not be a reason to remove the tools. I said one instance. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Lar: I am waiting first for the statement by Tiptoety. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I endorse my vote after having read the statement. I concur that sexual content images of possible minors ought to be oversighted. We need to be on the safe side. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, given that these were removed solely because they were apparent child porn or other oversightable content, something which we definitely do not need coming back. There's no reason to believe that Tiptoety is showing bad judgment, let alone persistent bad judgment. It looks to me as if this is motivated primarily by a desire to wheel-war the deletions, which I hope it is not as that would be grounds for removal of privileges. Guy 21:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it is very sneeky to keep something under wraps saying it is child porn. In this case, we are lucky that anybody can see that it is not. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sneaky? That's rather a polemical thing to say. Can you try a different way to make your point? ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so; the questionable thing is to call an upload "child porn" when it clearly is not. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly is not? Have you seen the model's proof of age? No? Then it isn't clearly not. We err on the side of safety. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can delete, oversight and scratch out every topless image on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Some we have good documentation for. Some there's no reasonable doubt. We err on the side of caution but we don't oversight everything. There is reasonable doubt about these. ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intention was not to heat up anything, I am personally a strong believer in COM:MELLOW. I was simply acting in good faith to remove what I perceived as child porn. If the community feels I should not be doing so, then I would be more then happy to let the other oversighters deal with such issues in the future. Tiptoety talk 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Has anyone asked Tiptoety about the background for this (or informed him about this request)? Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see no definitive proof that there was an oversight, that the oversight was done by User:Tiptoety, or that the material in question did not fall under the meta policy criteria. For all I know they could all have been images with the phone number of private individuals. I suggest another oversighter provides a statement illustrating the details of the case after examining the material and logs, however, as a general statement, I feel that oversight is a tool for very specific uses only, as detailed in the oversight policy. The actions taken by it are reviewable only by a very number of people, and should be used only in extraordinary cases that fall under those very specific guidelines. If those images, as the initiator of this procedure alleges (and I assume he might have had occasion to review the material prior to the oversighting and hence that would be the base of this procedure) do not fall within the strict and very detailed guidelines, then the whole basis of the position is undermined and should force a reappraisal of soundness the oversighter who made those actions. Snowolf (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given was:
(Commons is not an amateur porn site (possible child porn)) (view/restore)
Huib talk 20:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note that in some cases of my recent deletion activity I oversighted things that I thought were egregious... if we have an image of someone that almost certainly is underage in a compromising position, and the facial features are visible, and there is no proof of permission, no proof of age, no proof of identity, I think oversighting the image itself is appropriate and in a few cases I did just that. I was asked on IRC to look into this, and I can take a look if desired, if folk will contact me about what they want looked at. I did look at File:Self-kicking_breasts.jpg and I confirm that Tiptoety did oversight details. I support oversighting the image as it has identifiable features. In my view this falls within clause 1 "removal of ... identities". Distinguishable features are "identities". ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not in the category "non-public information", see here (same as #2). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That another site has what may potentially be an infringing picture is of no relevance. On THIS site, there is insufficient evidence that the subject gave permission and is of age to do so. That oversight was open and shut as far as I am concerned. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a plain and clear deletion case, it doesn't go according to oversight policy. Huib talk 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are misinterpreting oversight policy. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar under what point should it have been oversighted? 1, 2, 3 or 4? I see a file that could have been deleted and made invisible for normal user, I do not see any reason for the oversight, because we don't know here age for sure we cant say she is a minor and we cant oversight as a "guess" about stuff. Huib talk 20:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We err on the side of safety. That oversight was open and shut as far as I am concerned. I believe you are misinterpreting oversight policy. Sorry to repeat myself but I've already explained this. I've now looked at all 4 images you cite. One wasn't oversighted at all that I can see. Two were oversighted in open and shut cases. One I probably wouldn't have oversighted, as there are no facial features visible, but I'm not seeing the issue here. We oversighters err on the side of safety and we review each other's work. I've asked on the list that the other oversighters review this further. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely different issue. Oversight illegal images would be fine. If we need to add that to #3 to clarify it, then we should. However, deleting images that are not illegal just so they can't be moved to other wikis is totally outside of the very restrictive Oversight policy. Cbrown1023 talk 23:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean, sorry. As I said, my review of the cases cited found 1 that cwas not oversighted (revision deleted) at all and 2 out of the other three cases were ones where there was enough reasonable doubt about the age and consent of the model that prudence dictated erring on the side of caution. I'm not sure what this has to do with other wikis. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather premature to vote (be it remove or keep) until Tiptoety has had chance to explain these actions. I also think it was premature, and not very collegial, to file this request for removal without consulting Tiptoety first. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoety: Hi all. I was rather shocked to come home and find this request, but given the current climate surrounding the issue of nudity I do not fault those who chose to initiate it. As for the oversights themselves, yes, I did oversight the images (not that I ever think that was disputed). As for the reasoning, the images appeared to be clear cases of child porn something that the foundation takes seriously and something that I stated at my request for oversight rights that I would suppress should I come find images that depict it. For those who feel I suppressed the images because I did not want them to be reuploaded or used on other projects, you are wrong. I suppressed them in accordance with the oversight policy on removing illegal material (see Lar's comment(s) above). Could I be wrong? Possibly. And if someone would have raised the issue on my talk page, I would have been more then happy to take a second look at it, and ask for all the other oversighters opinions. Had someone provided me with evidence against the images being child porn, I would have undone my actions. But, skipping all lines of communication and going directly to a request for removal of my rights is a bit hasty. Please, assume good faith. Tiptoety talk 02:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless young woman.jpg that you initiated, you should be aware that this is not child porn by any means - it is not porn, and this is not a child. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a file I suppressed, nor is that the same model in all of the files I did. Tiptoety talk 07:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is from the same Flickr-pro account as two of the (identical) files mentioned above. Seems to be the same model. I have also seen the reclining girl. Not porn. Impossible to estimate age, but old enough to have a bling-bling navel piercing. If you really thought a minor might be exploited in these images - did you report the crime? To the police? Or even to Flickr? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly haven't attempted to view the files on Flickr or archived on google because I'm tired of looking at a bunch of naked people due to all this mess on Commons. Just wanted to say that you can get a piercing as young as 14 or 15 (legally) in the US, depending on which region you live in. So that's a nonargument. Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If any of those images are on flickr then flickr should be notified and they will be taken down as clearly in violation of their Terms of Service. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Tiptoety had been honestly convinced that these were criminal images, he should have reported this to authorities, because oversight hindered other admins from doing that. But fortunately we know what image this was, and nothing hinders you or anybody else from reporting this if you believe the child porn allegation. The account says that subject is based in Seattle, so you ought to contact local law enforcement too (but take into account that Seattle is not a conservative jurisdiction). Anyway, as long as there is no instruction for oversighters to remove child pornography from view of other admins without authorization by the Foundation councel, Tiptoety's action was out of line. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoety is the last user I would ever chide at about contacting law enforcement. Keegan (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, Tiptoety claimed to a police officer, grounded, a police cadet. Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oversighter's duties are on Wikimedia only. Claiming that "honest" must do anything like the above is not within our standards, policies, or traditions, nor is there any evidence to verify what you have claimed. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that Flickr should be notified. Why don't you just do that then? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never said I didn't. Multiple people can submit abuse claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets say that the actions are according to the policy we still have a problem here, The file was maybe out of line and should have been oversighted maybe but deletion the deletionlog entry or oversigthing all revisions aren't according to the policy, that should have been a normal deletion. So we have still 18 revisions and 2 log entries oversighted against policy. Huib talk 13:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a case of possible child porn, it is in my opinion preferable to hide all traces including the logs. There are multiple jurisdictions (including Germany) who put all those in conflict with the law who have just viewed such an image — including admins who decided to delete it. An oversighting of such a log entry helps to protect admins and other users from possible penal actions and is in the interest of us all. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scaremongering. There is no risk whatsoever in looking at these images. In fact, I am prepared to reupload the image that I can see on Flickr to demonstrate that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen these images and hence I do not know whether they are or possible could be child porn. And this is not the point here as Huib raised the interesting question how far oversighting shall be practiced in such a case. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there is no need to reupload, because there is still the third copy: File:Reaching for Bliss.png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which has been deleted as a dup of an already deleted image. I think it's oversightable too, but I'll leave that to another oversighter to decide. Also, adding that image to this discussion makes the discussion NSFW in many jurisdictions, greatly restricting who can participate. Don't do that sort of thing again. ++Lar: t/c 11:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open call for participation

Negative canvassing: In case anybody wonders about the appearance of some little- or unknown voters here, there has been a notification about this voting by de:Benutzer:Asthma at the German Wikipedia:Redaktion Sexualität, by its wording obviously intented to canvass removal-voters. --Túrelio (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info Túrelio. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight-Missbrauch zur totalen Pfui-Löschung von Dateien auf Commons? Siehe dazu … means <Is that> abuse of oversight rights concerning entirely ugly deletions of files on Commons? Confer … —DerHexer (Talk) 23:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. In case you didn't know: You've noticed a mechanism supporting the self organization of a social community/network. Welcome to this community. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, do you dare to claim that you did not hear about this vote on an admin-only place? If not, how about striking all votes from the "super-secret snoopers" mailing list, which prepared the outing of en:user:!!? Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow, en:canvassing is standard democratic practice, how shocking somebody actually does such an immoral thing. Fossa?! 10:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better and more relevant link: w:Wikipedia:Canvassing. Nice try (to cite Saibo) your red herring. --Túrelio (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Tiptoety_(removal)&oldid=51772454"