Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Tiptoety (removal)

Vote

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:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• File:Self-kicking_breasts.jpg

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]

•  Delete - Huib talk 19:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - Sumurai8 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete LeinaD dyskusja 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete unbelievable. --S^[1] 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete 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]

•  Keep, per Killiondude. Obelix (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, premature. Agree with FloNight, Lar, AFBorchert, and Killiondude. I would certainly first like to see discussion with the user involved here, as well as additional on-wiki processes, before going right to this step itself. -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep agree with KillionDude. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Investigations of abuse of privacy related-tools such as checkuser or oversight need to be carried out prior to any "vote" for tool removal. As far as I can see, nobody has bothered investigating whether he actually abused the use of this tool. Note: Investigations do not involve, "A steward/an oversighter told me on IRC that he did it." Removal of privacy related tools involve considerably more than a vote. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, and I must say I'm not surprised to see Abigor's name appended to this farcical nomination for tool removal (per Cary). Daniel (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep: I'm hesitant to vote here only because it gives the appearance that this is a legitimate request by Huib. Also, I thought Pieter ragequit. I'm sad, though unsurprised, to see his return. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete vote after reading Tiptoety's statement. Blatant policy violation and tool should be revoked. – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find myself somewhat confused by that. As has been explained the policy violation, if any, is hardly "blatant". ++Lar: t/c 04:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep no explanation needed, this is obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Lar. Keegan (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete this is abuse of power. That a member of the meta:Ombudsman commission defends this behaviour shows how low wikimedia has stooped. Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your understanding of oversight policy is inadequate, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 04:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I know which of my contributions you oversighted. Following a weblink, isn't a privacy violation. Your view is limited. Erik Warmelink (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep This was ill-considered and not in the best interests of Commons. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep To remove the tools at this time would be hasty. It appears at least that Tiptoety's rationale was a reasonable one. No opinion on whether it was correctly applied in this instance, only that it comes within the scope where reasoned discussion should precede formal action. Durova (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. Everyone please remember that we are using the suppression extension of revision deletion, and it can be undone and this is a part of the idea of the review process. Calling for removal based on what can be perceived as preemptive action is emotional and unwarranted. Calm, rationale discourse about what was suppressed and why is constructive. Head-hunting is not. No offense intended in that statement toward any of the remove votes, but to me that's what this is in my perception. I don't mess around with commons, I've been taken to task here before because I don't categorize my images in all the proper categories. That's fine, I respect that. To put to flames someone who is new to oversighting on this project based on reaction to a heated discussion is not good for the community. Tiptoety, if incorrect, can learn from this. If correct, can learn from this. Drama, like tarsiers, abound. Keegan (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Does not understand or does not agree with core policies of wikimedia projects. --Melanom (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete. This is misuse of Oversight to vandalize against policy without discussion. Remove oversight immmediately. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Lar, etc. Wknight94 ^talk 11:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ! Keep per Tiptoetys statement and comments from Lar and others above. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - I am willing to believe Tiptoety until I see clear evidence of wrongdoing in regards to his use of the oversight right. Further investigation is required here. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment This clearly needs further investigation. It can hardly be judged by the facts given. Nemissimo (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]