For what it is worth, they are highly Likely and blocked. They moved ranges, but it is a bit too large to block at this point. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk00:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please recreate this category? I understand the circumstances under which it was deleted; however it is, or was, a valid category. Thanks in advance. –Fredddie™06:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't any content to undelete, that said you are welcome to create it if you feel it is a valid category, hence why I only added semi-create protection. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk06:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm; I'll try it again. I tried recreating the category last night and I thought it sad it was locked down for non-admins. –Fredddie™17:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking this because of your experience and knowledge regarding the policies and ethics behind the rev del and oversighting because you are an oversighter and a highly trusted user here. Please see this and this for comments.
Romaine has stated that the user in question not only asked for rev del but oversight of public information and trying to hide previous accounts which they admitted was theirs when they did a user request for images to be deleted (and hasn't contested it since). Personally, I am horrified and very offended by these actions because not only do I hate sock puppetry and trying to hide evidence of abuse, but he demanded admin to speedy delete his images on IRC and then contested a user asking for his image to be deleted in a deletion review. It definitely seems of a horrible double standard that he is trying to hide by saying it is harassing or outing to point this out. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Ottava, I do not have much to add so I'll just put it here. I declined an OS request regarding this matter yesterday as I do not feel the content rises to the level of justifying suppression. Outside of that, my comments would simply be in my role as an editor and nothing more. I'm debating whether or not to participate in the RfA, and if I do my thoughts will be shared there. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk08:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I care more about attempts to mislead admin and oversighters into hiding public, non-sensitive information as a way to seemingly wage war against those who are pointing out aspects of his past that he unethically tried to hide from, which I consider an outright violation of multiple policies and, if there is some evidence (i.e. how he approached the individuals regarding the matter) I would pursue a ban because this is a complete disruption of Commons at many, many levels. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that the OS request appeared to state that non-public personal information had been released and as such I originally suppressed it on sight. My personal philosophy is that OS can easily be reverted and that the less time personal information sits out there the better (kinda a shoot first ask questions later thing), and given that the request came from a trusted user I assumed good faith and performed the action. Upon doing so though, I began digging and realized the content did not rise to the level of suppression and reverted my actions. That said, there was no obvious deception in the way the request was written. Tiptoetytalk07:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to publicly state that I am the one who requested suppression of the edits I had redacted myself (not so hard to guess, after all); I did so just because I felt was the right thing to do and OS would have decided; there isn't any clandestine direction so I don't know if suppression was asked by others as well. In any case, the reasons I gave were merely an iteration of my edit summaries, because I think the oversighters are able to evaluate the situation better than me and don't need to be explained it; Tiptoety has acted correctly, there's nothing strange about suppressing first and unsuppressing after thorough evaluation; I'm sorry if someone has understood that my requests were about real names but I've never removed or mentioned them so I didn't expect it, it seems to have happened because other users were particularly enjoying repeating real names (and activities) everywhere for various reasons and someone has spread false information about the removals (even though, again, my edit summaries were very clear). Nemo08:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I received an email from a mutual friend of ours about a global ban you performed last night. He pointed out he was blocked by you per that rationale and I asked if there was a discussion or where he was banned. He said he wasn't banned on Meta and just blocked on en.wikipedia. I checked his account here - though it has no edits from 2009, it appears not to be blocked. He does have an infinite block on Meta for "trolling". I checked for his name on Meta and I could not find a ban discussion though. However, I do not have other names and the rest, but that is just information from my end based on what I was sent. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an update, I talked to a Steward saying the individual was locked in March 2010, but I still couldn't find a discussion. I don't know how we are dealing with locks now that the global ban process is here, but I was told that the locks are being treated like a ban and they need to appeal in the same way. Hmm. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that I misinterpreted the global locks as essentially serving the same as a global ban. If you, or the locked user in question would like me to change the wording of the block to reflect "globally locked", I'd be fine with that. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk06:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the major issue would be to see with the Meta process how to deal with past global locks now that there are global bans. However, a few of the Stewards said they are treating the old global locks as new global bans (without the ban discussion) so I don't know. Seems like a mess that wont be figured out. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Are you going to do anything to Dingley for a retaliatory DR with no valid reason whatsoever and wasting all our time? That's not mellow at all. And I'll say and do what I please. PumpkinSkytalk03:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PumpkinSky, please don't take my comments as an attack on you. I'm just attempting to resolve this matter in the must mature and civil manner possible and calling people names certainly doesn't achieve that. You and I have been friendly before, lets not ruin that over something as silly as this. As for Dingley, I see that the two of you appear to have been (or still are) involved in a dispute on en.wiki. While I will agree it is possible he came here out of retaliation, on the flip side he could have seriously felt that the file doesn't meet commons standards for inclusion. While he is sorely wrong, I do not feel that his behavior has risen the level to justify me stepping in as an administrator. The DR will be closed as "kept" and all will once again be well in the world. Tiptoetytalk03:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I got it, you can file a retaliatory DR without any valid basis as long as you're polite about it? That's more disruptive than calling a spade a spade. Also see post about him really having 15 thousand edits. No way he doesn't know the basics. No wonder so many people leave wiki. Why the discrepancy in the edit count? I don't get that.PumpkinSkytalk03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the 4 edits is Jessemv. He has been involved with the en wiki article and obviously saw the post by commonsbot on the article talk page. PumpkinSkytalk03:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just where is the line drawn? this is downright insulting and could be phrased far better, despite the attempt at misdirection]. This person should get a warning too. Tiptoety, you seem like a great guy and user and I really like you, but your attempts at the effectiveness and application of the civility policy is misguided though totally well intentioned. It's useless to enforce it. The issues are far greater than little ol' PumpkinSky, towit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence. PumpkinSkytalk00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the delete vote, maybe I am missing it, but what exactly is disruptive about it? As for your thoughts on my application of the civility policy we will just have to agree do disagree there. ;-) And the ArbCom case, I'm well aware (I just so happen to be the case clerk). But remember, this is commons not en.wiki. Lastly, understand, I'm not just targeting you. I'm just calling it as I see it. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk01:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the delete vote insults her intelligence. Blocking people for civility does no good, it will not change their behavior, they're easily overturned, and no agrees on what is or isn't civil, and if you've got admin friends, it's even more pointless. I'll do and say whatever I want and I don't give a crap what anyone thinks or if I get blocked. I believe in calling a spade a spade, not kissing their ass to make them feel good. If you're a jackass, I'll tell you that, not suck up to keep from getting blocked. As for arbcom, must be nightmare being involved with that. The effectiveness, rather ineffectiveness of the civility policy is the same no matter what wiki you're on.PumpkinSkytalk01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests[edit]
Please see. You originally moved the thread into its own section. It dealt with a very serious issue - Rd232 was involved in trying to have me banned in a proposal started by Fred, and he defended Fred many times. The original matter was started by Herby as retaliation for my saying that Rd232's previous behavior in using ops against consensus while involved was problematic. Rd232 used ops to remove Fastily's block increase on Fred. Herby then closed the complaint which you moved. Herby is involved, and we do not close discussions in that manner, especially when they are of a serious nature. The warning by Herby to block me while involved shows a clear intent to disrupt this community, ignore our policies, and goes in the face of what makes this a working environment. He claims that we need to stop the disruption, but it is clear that abuse of adminship is the true heart of the disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtless you will catch up with this and read around however I assure you I saw nothing wrong with the original thread - however - it me - it along with others has deviated from its purpose. Best --Herbytalk thyme18:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Ottava, but I am done. I'm not going to comment on Herby's closure (and even if I did, there is nothing really I could do about it - I don't have the power to desyop if that is what you are after), but I will say that I am a bit disappointed that you continue to open sub-thread after sub-thread. Regardless, I'm getting thrown under the bus here and dragged into stuff that really has nothing to do with me, so my little involvement regarding this matter his hereby over. Best, Tiptoetytalk06:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, according to this post of User:Ottava Rima, you are one of 9 users to whom he showed private email correspondence (from me to him). Can you please tell me (i) if this is true, and if it is: (ii) when and how he did this (iii) why you did not feel it necessary to tell me of this breach of trust (iv) what your view of my comments is, since Ottava claims of the 9 users "they agreed that you were defending Fred's action in an inappropriate manner."[1]. Please either email me or respond on my talk page, since I'm asking the other users Ottava has identified and I would prefer not to have discussion scattered on different talk pages. Thank you. Rd232 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied at AN. Please remember who these threads are discussing, and don't get derailed by going after administrators and users in good standing here. We are not the bad guys. Tiptoetytalk06:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your response here and at AN has rather thrown me; I took Ottava's claim to have shown my email to 9 other users seriously because it was either a serious breach of trust by him, or else a lie (I cannot see any wiggle room for a middle ground). I guess your "going after" remark derives from point (iii)? In re-reading it, bear in mind that it's qualified by the "if it is", and that I was highly skeptical that Ottava had actually done so. However, if he had, that would be a very legitimate question, I think (which there might or might not be good answers to). Rd232 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping a note to here to state I see this request. I'm currently busy with real life matters and will tend to this soon. If someone wants to reverse my closure, that's fine too. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk20:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you forward me the underlying ip? It's the fifth account I've locked this morning (actually I took 71.107.142.116 from this page but I cannot be sure it's the same guy), ty! --Vituzzu (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can't "replace" but we can certainly "remove" information from the file's history. Best to email the address above though. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk02:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're still watching his talk page, but just FYI I've reduced his block to 1 week following email discussion. If you have any questions, feel free. Rd232 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no real interest in continuing to comment as I feel I have already said what I need to. I trust the commons community to make the right decision, even if it is not the same one I would make. If there is a specific comment or question you would like me to respond to though, I'd be happy to. Best, Tiptoetytalk02:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a number of photographs that if published will link to my reallife persona. As a checkuser what is your take on creating an account to upload these while maintaining my current (SUL) account? Agathoclea (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is an appropriate use of an alternate account. The important thing in this situation is that the two accounts do not cross edit. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk03:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I present to you these three Checkuser hats in recognitions of your work and dedication as checkuser across multiple projects, and because you said you didn't get the routine hat when you got the job, which is a fairly sad state of affairs indeed. SnowolfHow can I help?06:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I do use OTRS occasionally to verify OTRS tags on deletion requests I come across (despite not directly working on OTRS requests)... Rehman04:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood. I rarely work on pending OTRS requests or things directly relating to OTRS. As I mentioned when I requested OTRS access: my main purpose is to verify OTRS-ticketed files that frequently get nominated for speedy deletion. (Although, despite being online and responding to requests/inquiries/ect, I am less active across all projects lately due to personal work and Wikimania 2012.) Rehman11:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I understood correctly. I think you misunderstood. :-) I am asking if you have any evidence of reviewing tickets? Like responses to requests to review tickets at the OTRS noticeboard, commenting at deletion requests, etc... or have all your reviews been made privately? Tiptoetytalk00:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, like I said, I am pretty sure I have done very little work which directly relates to OTRS, so it would be near impossible for me to provide one. But then again, I quite often simply access (aka "read") OTRS mails just to verify reasons why a/the particular OTRS file has ended up at CAT:CSD. The latter is largely the main reason why I requested OTRS in the first place (and I have mentioned that during my request some years/months ago).
On a totally separate topic though, I don't understand why I am being revoked of this access? And this is exactly some of the issues discussed at Wikimania 2012. I mean, my account was not compromised, I haven't misused the tool, and I am not completely inactive nor unresponsive. And despite being relatively inactive lately, I still do some volunteer work. I am not required to be 100% active to be allowed to voluntarily work in certain areas (no one on wikimedia is!), we are all volunteers. So why is that just because I am rather temporarily unable to be on the projects, I am punched in the face? Being such a long-term person, I am sure you understand this practice is wrong, particularly for a volunteer project(s) like the Wikimedias. Respectfully, Rehman01:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, it has been a busy week. I'll post a more detailed reply later but for now I have reactivated your OTRS account. Best, Tiptoetytalk14:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
← Alright, now that I have a break I'll give you a more detailed response. To answer your first question about why your access was removed: it was purely housekeeping. You did nothing "wrong" and it was not meant to be seen as a punishment. It is the practice of OTRS team leaders (admin) to remove accounts that have done (or at least appear) no OTRS related work for an extended period of time. After looking over tickets you have answered (none) and your contributions here on Commons I saw no evidence that you were still active and, as a result I closed your account. I completely understand that you are a volunteer with real life commitments; heck, I am too. I've taken months off Wikipedia before. I was by no means trying to make it feel as if I, or OTRS, was/is ungrateful for the OTRS work you have done and apologize if it came across that way. (Trust me, had I punched you in the face it would have been a whole lot harder :-P ). As for my line of questioning above, I was more attempting to determine exactly what type of work you are doing with regards to OTRS and if you plan to continue to participate in OTRS. Seeing as the answer was yes, and you still assist when and where you can I re-opened your account. PS: Answering a few tickets now and then wouldn't hurt. ;-) Best, Tiptoetytalk16:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er... Sorry to bother you again, but this user seems to have created a new user account, User:Msiexe. (And if I am not wrong, this username violates our username policy for being the username of a commercial product.) Profile and edit patterns fully match. May I advise a checkuser run? Thanks in advance. Fleet Command (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Cleaning up after him is a pain really. Just out of curiosity, is his IP blocked too? Or should I expect more of his sockpuppets within the next 48 hours? Fleet Command (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Tiptoety. Looks like bothering you about this sockpuppet has become a necessary evil. Sorry for inconvenience. We have a User:Szillasst assinmk whose pattern matches, although I might be wrong. He has started certain irritating behavior such as personal attacks and vandalism too. Fleet Command (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could I enlist your assistance with a username change?[edit]
Hi Tiptoety
You were very helpful to me in the past, so I would like to once again ask for your help with a frustrating issue.
Approximately one month ago, I requested a username change here, based on advice received here. It was my understanding that my username on commons could be changed without regard to the existing username on de.wiki. As you can see, the admin responsible for username changes declines to make the change unless and until I usurp the name on de.wiki (more detail here).
Finally, I did attempt to usurp the name on de.wiki here but was (predictably) declined for being contrary to policy. In spite of this, and the fact that I do not speak German, EugeneZelenko suggested that I discuss it with a de.wiki admin.
I have also involved Trijnstel who said that the original username request should be done. I'm not sure why he/she did not simply make the change.
If the answer to my original request is simply no, I can accept that. I will simply make any future photo contributions on en.wiki. My hope was that this username change on commons would allow me to consolidate accounts, and bulk upload photos and properly categorize them on commons. I have a catalog of more than 50,000 photos, many of which I would like to contribute to creative commons. The current situation is an impediment to doing so.
I am not a Commons Bureaucrat, so I can not perform renames on this wiki. That said, your request sounds do-able. With our current technology, you should be able to globally rename your account so that you have the same unified username on all wikis. You can request a local rename here. Best, Tiptoetytalk03:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. That's exactly what I have tried to do (Unify and local rename). You linked me to a page where I have already placed such a request, a month ago. I'm really lost as to where to turn for support. Umbris (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, thanks for categorising DRs. If possible, when putting something into the NSDR category, use {{subst:nsdr}} - this not only adds the category, it adds a sortkey which sorts the category by date of last edit. -mattbuck (Talk)
Could you confirm or refute some details from the OTRS ticket?[edit]
In this discussion I said I thought that mattbuck updated the discussion with more details, including that the request in the OTRS ticket was to have the image renamed or deleted. Do you feel it is consistent with your obligations as someone with access to the OTRS ticket to confirm or refute this?
Do you feel it is consistent with your obligations as someone with access to the OTRS ticket to explain why she did not consider the expo to be a public event? Do you feel your responsibilities allow you to explain why she thought she could withhold her consent to have photos published taken while she was employed as a promotional model? I would have thought accepting the taking of photos would have been a job condition.
as well as public places on private land (like at a large private party or concert where there is generally no expectation of privacy when many people are openly taking photographs).
It seems to me that a large trade show, with lots of professional and amateur photographers wandering around snapping photographs, would be a canonical instance of a public place on private land.
Did she offer a convincing rationale as to why we should consider this trade show a place where she had an expectation of privacy?
One of the participants in the discussion reminded us all to be patient and respectful to those who request deletion. I want to patiently and respectfully state my concern that without regard to whatever she might have said about her consent being required, her consent was not required, and that both the public nature of the venue, and the nature of her job, meant she could not expect to be able to withhold consent to have her picture taken, or to have it published.
I am one of the participants in that discussion who wants to politely and respectfully voice doubts as to whether she has a meaningful privacy concern, as her online resume seems pretty clear that she continues to be willing to accept further gigs as a promotional model, where she could expect additional pictures to be taken, like this one, and the one on IMDB.
Do you feel it is consistent with your obligations as someone with access to the OTRS ticket to offer further details as to why she says she thinks she has a meaningful privacy concern?
Hi Geo Swan. Thank you for your questions. I'll do my best to answer all of your questions but let me know if I miss one.
Mattbuck is correct in saying that the customer did in fact request that either her real name be removed or the file deleted (though I will note that she claims there is still issues with the current version of the file). After corresponding with her further, she began to raise more privacy related concerns as well as concerns regarding the source from which the file was uploaded, and as such I made the move to file a deletion request. As for your direct question regarding my "obligation", I see no real reason to confirm or deny what another OTRS agent said unless specifically asked or someone brings up concerns regarding that specific agent. As far as I am concerned, agents have no reason to lie.
As for your second question, generally speaking I ask customers to provide OTRS with an exact copy of what they would like put up at the deletion request and I copy/paste it for them. In this case, my attempts to get such a statement were not working and instead all I got was consent to release the fact that I was corresponding with the subject and file a deletion request on their behalf. As such, I did my best to summarize the concerns they had raised. It is important to understand that OTRS is bound by the privacy policy and I can not just release emails without consent (or some binding legal document). So, I would have to say no. I am not obligated (nor is any OTRS agent) to explain why she feels the expo was not private or to explain why she wants it deleted. Instead it is my job to best assist the customer in reaching an agreeable outcome and serve as a messenger between them and the community. If they want me to just post "delete this page" I will. By me filing the deletion request it should not signify that I in any way support the file be deleted (same can be said for me supporting keeping the file). Once again, OTRS just acts as a neutral party. As such, it is up to the community to determine if they should give credence to the reasons that the subject of the file is requesting it be deleted.
And to answer your last question, I can only go based upon what the customer has written us about. I can not pretend to know all of the reasons they are requesting the file be deleted. Additionally, I have attempted to gather more information from them and have generally been unsuccessful. Lastly, as mentioned above there is only so much information I can give out per the privacy policy.
Some of what you wrote surprises me. I would have thought that any {{Afd}} initiated by the OTRS team implied that the basis of the {{Afd}} had been checked for credibility and policy compliance. I am afraid that practically everyone else participating in the {{Afd}} also assumed that the OTRS team had endorsed the credibility of her claims.
I didn't understand your passage about trusting other agents wouldn't lie. I never thought any members of the OTRS team were lying here, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that. Rather, I meant to show I understood there were limits to what you could or couldn't say -- although I didn't know what those limits are.
Delicious carbuncle cited a WMF resolution that individuals like our model should be receive patience and respect. I thought there must be patient and respectful ways to tell outsiders when their requests are not consistent with our policies.
While OTRS attempts to patiently and respectfully inform customers of our projects policies (which was done in this case), we also provide the customer with every option available to them within said policies. In this case, a deletion request was a viable option and it was explained that the community may choose not to delete the file. Really the only difference between the subject filing the deletion request and OTRS is who clicks "save page."
I think a point of confusion is the different roles that agents play on this project. Because they are expected to evaluate licensing releases and ensure they meet our requirements prior to adding an OTRS template to a file, many feel that all actions made by OTRS respondents in the course of their duties are "official." While this is true of permissions related activities by the respondent, it is not the case in many other functions. As mentioned above, generally speaking OTRS simply acts as the middle man. Maybe that should be made more clear in the future. Tiptoetytalk01:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you blocked this user. I understand why he has been blocked, and why all his uploads were deleted. But is there a way to see which pictures were deleted? Because a lot of his pictures were used on articles about celebrities on dutch Wikipedia. It would help if there was somekind of list of his deleted pictures to see which articles have to be checked on missing pictures. Thank you, LeeGer (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted most files, so you can see my deletion log. In that log you see three different parts starting from the top of the page:
part 1 (ca. 100 entries in the log[3]) is derivative works uploaded by MyCanon based on uploads from his sockpuppet. That are cropped faces that other Chace Watson sockpuppets or MyCanon included in Wikipedia
part 2 is another sockpuppet with not so many uses
part 3 is the original files uploaded by User:Tom Sorensen, those files hadnt many uses too.
The most used files where derivatives uploaded by MyCanon, so you can also check the redlinks in Special:Log/MyCanon.
Hi, I do not understand why the image Anahí Puente, 2011.jpg was deleted, flicker license is correct and is authorized by the owner of the photo. photo.--JudithJunkers (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not required that I post that template on your talk page. You have clearly seen the message and can read its content there. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk23:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Tiptoety: I thought you might like to see the magnitude of the problem of a particular Sock whom you have previously blocked. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Another user had a serious problem with that page, so I removed the file to keep from upsetting him further. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at this (diff)? This user uploaded an attack image here for vandalistic use by one of his socks on cs.wiki. I wonder if/how much he's engaged in any socking here, has any sleepers, etc? Thanks for your time. INeverCry18:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi INC. I did locate some pretty clear cut sleepers which are now blocked (they can be located by checking my logs). It appears that a number of these accounts are already locked, so it would seem appropriate to request the others be locked too. Best, Tiptoetytalk02:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've mentioned this to Trijnstel too, so I can ask her about the locks. I don't feel comfortable or welcome on Meta personally... INeverCry02:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my fairly limited knowledge of this sockmaster and my inability to read Japanese I believe these are Confirmed. I also located two sleepers which are now blocked. Tiptoetytalk03:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't doubt it's him. I see lots of hidden user creation log entries at ja.wiki for the past few days, which is the usual thing for him, as he often uses offensive names. Here it's almost always 6 accts created on 1 IP from a mobile range or on a proxy IP. The UA even links to a website of his now and then. INeverCry03:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain, why you deleted this file? Burial monuments are definitely not out of scope but are used for the illustration of biography articles for years. For that reason Commons has a bunch of categories with such files, e.g. Category:Tombs or Category:Grave stones. Please undelete them and the other files by the same uploader you deleted recently. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matthiasb. These files were uploaded by sockpuppet's of a prolific copyright violator who is indefinitely blocked here, User:Messina. The majority of the files they uploaded were never used in an article, were low resolution, and were uploaded with no source or permissions information. Some of the files were so low quality, you could not even make out what was said on them. As an example of some of the copyright issues, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Erwin Mehne. If you have proper copyright information, licensing, sourcing, etc I am willing to remove the upload protection and allow you to upload the files again. As it currently stands the user who uploaded the image is claiming that it is their work, and given their track record, that is not sufficient to verify copyright status. Best, Tiptoetytalk18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiasb, the uploader has a history of socking and more important, copyright violations and misleiding the community with false statements. I understand that you are making this comment on the request of a editor who is not welcome at Wikimedia Commons. I am not very keen of sockpuppeting by proxy btw. The only way we can keep our reusers safe is to enforece com:PCP when it comes to serial offenders like Messina. The next time you talk with him, please ask him to stop socking. If there is evidence that those files are released under a free license by it's copyright holder they can be uploaded by someone who isn't blocked. Natuur12 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Tiptoety, you deleted those files with the comment "out of scope". They aren't out of scope, so the deletion was incorrect.
@Natuurl2: The uploader has, firstly, a record of being stalked and harrassed within the German WP, and there are at least three reasons for what the user himself feels stalked and harrassed, including antisemitism, and this record in DE:WP goes back to 2006. What happened here in Commons is a proxy war several commons admins are involved into, a couple of them on behalf on users of the highly in the conflict involved German WP Wikiproject Dresden which simply did not like that Messina wrote articles on Dresden persons and buildings. Such proxy warrior include Steinsplitter and his buddies, whichfor I am not really surprised that these files got deleted. In fact Messina's block was wrong from the beginning because users which did not like Messina in the German WP but faced opposition their used their power on commons (some of them are or were sysops in this project) and others only helped their buddies, and this causa is also a cause of mistreatment and abuse. Indeed the blocking of Messina because of he is a blocked user in DE:WP is a non-valid reason for blocking this user in Commons as well. And I have very big doubts if the user would've started using sockpuppets if he wasnot blocked indefinitely.
Furthermore, Mass deletion of pages added by Scirt.32 is no valid deletion reason, for any deletion has been a rational why a file got deleted. This might or might not be that a file has a doubtful origin but ever on a case-to-case assessment. Deleting a file simply because it was uploaded by a possible sockpuppet of Messina when Messina was blocked on base of arbitrariness, IMHO, is arbitrariness itself.
Note also that I am fully aware that the user has a record of bad practice in licensing an chosing the correct license templates, but due to ANON I cannot and I won't elaborate on the reasons. However WMF demands a zero tolerance stance on harassment and discrimination, for any reason, wether religious, sexual, medical, or whatsoever.
In summary you might see, why I don't give a shit on any socket puppetry accusations. What is important, is only a) are these images within the scope of commons (and undoubtedly they were, because of at least some of them had been used in DE:WP at the time of deleting) and images of tombs ot their parts are within the scope of commons and b) is it plausible that the Uploader took this picture himself. All other considerations are only based on personal animosities between certain users and therefor irrelevant. Greetings --Matthiasb (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to sit here and wikilawyer about the language of the deletion summary, I am happy to un-delete them and re-delete them with "copyright violation" - either way, they were going to be deleted. Secondly, I've never encountered this user before and know nothing of the German Wikipedia drama, so please don't drag it to my talk page. The majority of your post sounds like a conspiracy theory. Lastly, a user's history is extremely relevant in determining their creditability when uploading files. You said it yourself, they have a history of copyright violations. Is it a far stretch to delete the similar files they were blocked for uploading in violation of licensing rules? You are welcome to file a deletion review. Tiptoetytalk19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no ties with de-wiki nor do I participate in cross wiki blockwars or other war games. I'm just against socking. The files where deleted because of a questionable copyright status given the licensing issue's in the past. It has nothing to do with some lame conspiracy. A bad block is a poor excuse for creating like 300 socks btw.... He/she knows how to appeal and as long as the block isn't lifted he/she shouldn't edit. It plain and simpel. I suggest that you drop the stick, walk away really fast or take it to com:UNDEL. Natuur12 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you, Natuur12, might see on my German WP user page, I am strictly against sock puppets (see black bar "Dieser Benutzer…") but this is not a case in which sock puppetry is the main problem. Sock puppetry in this case is, in Messina's eyes, a mean of self-defense, and to some extent I would second that stance. It is quite funny to claim not to take part in cross wiki war games but maybe unaware of doing so. It also ain't the question of "how to appeal" and edit or not edit – I strongly recommend to read between my lines – what I wrote before and especially within the following sentence: Messina IS NOT a prolific copyright violator but for some reason has some difficulties with proper use of licensing templates and even with deciding which template is the one to use, and occasionaly misunderstands rules. For some reason – mainly the same, which I spoke about before – he NEVER will appeal or even discuss the issues with people he's not trusting. Maybe my hints already have been too precise. It is not simple and plain but grey is a colour with some more shades. It's all about trust. Please read every word I wrote and think about what I might have meant but cannot write in public. I still presume good faith on your side. Messina claims he did take the image in question himself and he licenced it as PD. Until now there is no reason to doubt this case-to-case-claim, and — However, my Commons activity is rather small, mostly transferring EN:WP images to commons and uploading NASA satellite pictures, but I do have a reputation in Wikipedia, and considering the seventh point of Jimbo's declaration of principles, I do not deserve suggestions to drop the stick, walk away really fast or do something. Before you even think about wether I am a troll or not, you should take a look into my global activities. I try to be constuctive, honestly, and politely, though (and even if) sometimes my English is a bit jolty.
@Tiptoety: Surely a user's history is crucial to determine wether images are copvios or not, however a user's history is not the only criteria when determining if a certain upload is good or bad. Elsewhere Messina offered to meet him for looking on negative strips of the images of the photographs he took on the Heilbronn Jewish cemetery. Do you think he would do so, if he has not these strips? (Having them, means it is very unlikely, that he hasn't taken them, eh?) I consider to meet with him when after my next journey to verify this claim. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather like to discuss, what you both think about A.Savins mass deletion of images like File:Kadma_Jewish_cantillation_melody.jpg which were per MagnusManske's Bot from EN transferred images. It seems to become an obsession. Do we have the suspicion that w:en:User:Xyz7890 is a sock puppet of Messina? How images like that (in w:en:Kadma.jpg still not deleted but flagged to be upload to Commons) can be out of scope, heck, yet the idea of copy vio would be simply nonsense because of the lack of originality. I recommend one of you or both try to bring A. Savin back to reason or initate desysop. At least the deletions mentioned herein should be verified and restored, and the vandalism caused by the Commons Delinker must be reverted as well. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC) (who is not a supporter of moving discussions from one page to another but rather discusses where they started)[reply]
Hello. I decided to try this wiki out to practice editing on as one of the wikis I would use. I noticed that this photo, [4], of Freud was uploaded. Even though I'm against Freud's ideas, it seems kind of pov against Freud, so doesn't that violate the NPOV policy, or does that not apply here? The reason it seems pov against Freud is it says, "No Freud" and has a red line in front of the man, as if he were being crossed out. Also, it kind of seems trollish to. PaulBustion88 (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I asked my father, Dr. Paul Bustion, Jr. (I'm Paul Bustion III) to get a wikimedia commons account to help me find copyright for the photos I upload, he also has helped me edit on wikinews with the same account, user:Dr.PaulBustion. Can he contribute information like that to photos I upload or since he's related to me would that be considered meatpuppetry? PaulBustion88 (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many visitors does this site have? I'm asking because that relates to my ability to get copyright for one of the photos I uploaded.[edit]
How many unique visitors does Wikimedia Commons have? The reason I ask is because the owner of the photograph of President Bush I, Chase Bank head David Rockefeller, and his sister-in-law Happy Rockefeller, and John Whitehead, that I uploaded to wikimedia commons, said he needs to know how many visitors this website has before he can sell me the copyright. PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia is ranked 6th in the world, Commons is the 207th most popular website. Quite how many users that equates to I don't know, but I don't really see how it's relevant. If you upload something to Commons, literally anyone can use your work. If aliens came from space and visited Earth, they would be able to use photos uploaded to Commons in their explanatory PowerPoint. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you should not be uploading copyrighted material that you do not own the copyright to. The correct process would be to obtain the permission to use the image first, then upload the file, not the other way around. Tiptoetytalk09:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. But a photograph I uploaded was deleted, it was a photograph of psychoanalyst Anna Freud (Sigmund's daughter). The Freud Museum, which owns the copyright to the photo, has given me the copyright permission to publish it on wikimedia commons. They communicated the permission to me via email. I can show the email if I need to, and I have emailed it to the wikimedia commons permission people. I tried reuploading the photograph after I got the copyright permission, but the website is not allowing me to. PaulBustion88 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The permissions mailing list is very backlogged. You will just have to wait until your email is processed; it could be a few months. Tiptoetytalk18:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the main other wiki I edit right now is Simple English wiktionary, and since the account I edit from there is PaulBustion87, I was considering switching to PaulBustion87 here as well, because logging into one wiki on an account name logs me into all under that account name, including this one. So if I switch from using Simple English wiktionary to Wikimedia Commons, I have to log out of one account and into another, it would be more convenient to just switch to using PaulBustion87 here. Also, my year of birth is 1987, so arguably, PaulBustion87 is more appropriate than PaulBustion88, although with a lot of previous accounts I just put random numbers after my screen name, putting 87 is more meaningful than putting a random number at the end, because I use my real name in those screen names, and PaulBustion87 combines my name with my date of birth, while 88 is just a random number like what I did before with my screen names. So is it ok for me to switch to PaulBustion87 on wikimedia commons as long as I agree to stop using PaulBustion88 and to not use any account other than PaulBustion87 in the future? PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is fine. You might consider putting a note on your "PaulBustion88" account noting that you are now contributing under a new username. Tiptoetytalk07:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please block my other accounts, user:PaulBustion88, user:FDR and user:RJR3333 because I sometimes log into those accounts in order to look at my talk pages on English wikipedia, even though I obviously don't edit from them since they're blocked, and I do not want to make the mistake of forgetting to logout from them and then editing here after confabulating that I'd already switched accounts, and get in trouble for socking. If those accounts are blocked then I won't make that mistake. I'm asking you to block those accounts, NOT this one, its because I want to not make a mistake due to forgetfulness/laziness, not because I want to be restricted, that's why I'm asking for the blocks on the other accounts PaulBustion87 (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We generally do not block accounts on request. Instead, I suggest leaving a note on the userpage's of those three accounts indicating you are now editing from PaulBustion87 and just leave it at that. If you still wish the accounts to be blocked you will need to make a wider request at COM:AN where administrators can discuss your request. Tiptoetytalk20:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bryony Davies, the curator of the Freud Museum, which owns the copyright to the photograph of Anna Freud I uploaded that was deleted, stated to me in an email, "Since this image is already in the public domain and it is low resolution then we can grant you permission to publish it anywhere." about this photograph, [5]. I thought that that was the only requirement for uploading it on wikimedia commons, so can't I just restore the file? [6] I noticed you deleted one version of it. I had unsuccessfully attempted to reupload the photograph but the system would not let me, because it had previously been deleted. So you were right to delete that version, since it was empty, but can you allow me to publish the photo again if I show you that I'm able to publish it anywhere? I can forward the email Ms. Davies sent me. PaulBustion87 (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I took a photograph on my own of a government/state/public building, for example of my city's fire department, would that photograph be in my copyright, thus giving me the right to publish it on wikimedia commons, or would it belong to my city's fire department/the state? If I took a photograph of a religious building such as a Freemasonic Temple or a Roman Catholic Church would those organizations own the copyright to the photo or would that automatically allow me to publish it here? PaulBustion87 (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My photograph of the Anderson Fire Department[edit]
Hello,
I took this photograph,[7] of the Anderson Fire Department in Anderson, Indiana with my cell phone today. However, after I uploaded it to the computer, it turned upside down. I thought I had fixed the problem when I uploaded it already because I had turned it to the normal side, but it uploaded upside down. Do I need to delete it until it is on the right side or is it fine as it is?Also, for some odd reason if you actually click on the photo, even though its upside down the first time, its on the right side the second time,[8].Well, when I was at the Anderson Public Library it was right side up when I clicked on the second link, but on my home computer it has the same problem in both,that's odd. PaulBustion87 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After I got home I just reuploaded the same photo from my computer, and it was rightside up. Maybe it was a problem with the library computer, [9]. I would recommend that the first photograph I uploaded of the Anderson Fire Department just be deleted and replaced with the second one.PaulBustion87 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any problems with my editing here so far? I just want to make sure to check on this since I've been irresponsible, biased, and tendentious in the past and I want to make sure I do not repeat that tendency on wikimedia commons, so that I do not get in trouble here. PaulBustion87 (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not really been following your edits that closely, so I can't really make an educated statement. From what I have briefly seen, your contributions have been fine. Tiptoetytalk04:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is off topic, but editor Anthony Bradbury has argued Emyth and I are the same person on English wikipedia, [10]. He's wrong. Our topic choices generally aren't similar.There's a few interesting similarities, but overall, there is little similarity in topics.PaulBustion87 (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My photograph of the Anderson Police Department/Anderson City Court[edit]
Hello,
I uploaded this photograph that I had taken earlier today, [11](on wikimedia commons time that was probably yesterday, I mean June 14, 2015). I had intended it to be a photo of the Anderson Police Department/Anderson City Court, but I was to far away when I took it, so a lot of other stuff is in the photo. So, is captioning it as a photo of the police/court misleading since a lot of other stuff is in the photo in front of it, or do you think its ok since the police/court building is the only notable building in the photo?PaulBustion87 (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll have to take the photo next to the Anderson Police Department building. I'm a little reluctant to even though it is legal, because I'm worried the police will be suspicious of it, but I guess that's the only way I can make an acceptable photo.PaulBustion87 (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My mother has expressed concern that if I photograph the police building in our city, the police would be upset by that and would at the very least question me about it. I've noticed from watching youtube videos of the police that they sometimes question people about activity like that,but it's usually people who linger around the police station and take lots of photos, not people who just take one photo quickly and move on. But I've been reluctant to take a photo outside my mother's vehicle, I took the previous ones while she was at the post office next to the police building in her vehicle. I noticed you've edited law enforcement articles on English wikipedia and uploaded police photos here so I thought you might know if they are always suspicious of people photographing their building, or only of people who linger and take multiple photos as opposed to quickly taking one photo and moving on. Do you think its safe for me to do it as long as I only take one photo quickly and then I move on?PaulBustion87 (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My other photograph of the Anderson Police Department[edit]
I uploaded two more photographs of the Anderson Police Department. One of them was at least acceptable, and I see no issue with it so I will not ask about it, but the other was not so good. In this one,[12], because I was taking it from my mother's car, about half of the photo, is part of her car, I took both photos from her car, but because I took the other one from the side window angle instead of the front window angle, it interfered less with photographing the police department. Should I delete that photo since I uploaded a better one and people probably are not interested in parts of her car? The reason I took it from her car instead of from outside is because I did not want the police to notice me photographing their building, because even though it is legal some police officers frown on it, and I was worried if they noticed me doing it they would question me about it, and I was in her car because she had to go to the post office which is next to the Police Department.PaulBustion87 (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Portland Aerial Tram. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Can you do a quick check on this LTA sock? I usually report Milano socks to Elcobbola, but he hasn't edited in 2 weeks. INeverCry20:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it ran for about 3 days and created roughly 1200 pattern accounts. I've blocked them, though I may have missed a couple. INeverCry19:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Norden1990's unblock request on English Wikipedia[edit]
Hello! I'd like to notify you that Norden1990, who has made a request for unblock on en.wikipedia, has continuously evaded his block. Here there are only some random IP socks from the last months:
I hope that my message was coherent enough... if you want more details I am ready to provide them. And if I am doing something bad by writing this message, I apologize.Iaaasi (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Amir Hekmati DD Form 2 Reserve ID Card.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Amir Hekmati DD Form 2 Reserve ID Card.png]]).
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
OK, so at Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68 a bunch of files by User:Midnight68 were nominated for deletion, on various grounds. It was a long and involved discussion, but anyway, you closed the discussion and decided to delete all the files (with a closing comment of "Consensus is very, very clear here").
(User:Lar followed your close by deleting two others with the comment "Note: I deleted the following which appear to have been missed. That I think removes all of the user's uploads.")
However, for some reason, if I'm understanding this right, File:Kogaru1.jpg wasn't deleted, apparently. Also, one of the files that User:Lar said he was about to delete wasn't deleted: File:Akibachan5a.jpg.
It's not clear to me why these two files were exempted; there's no explanation given there unless I missed it.
(FWIW Midnight68 has been since hard-banned from Commons, and I believe all Wikimedia projects (as well as from DeviantArt and other places, apparently) on various grounds.)
So in that discussion, User:Wikitanvir decided to keep it, with a comment of "by consensus", and in the immediately following dicussion User:Jcb decided to keep it, with a comment of "as long as Wikipedia projects use it, we don't judge if it's 'inappropriate' or 'bad taste' or whatever quality or scope related argument."
All this was awhile back and I don't remember it, but I'm trying to figure out which of these is correct:
Unless I'm missing something? I can't see the images that were deleted, so I guess the third one could be true, but nobody made this claim in any of the discussions.
I just noticed this mention of my name. I have no idea why I did not delete files after saying I would, it was a long time ago. I have no preference as to further action, do what seems best. Sorry if that wasn't more helpful ++Lar: t/c14:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lonesomehurst1911.png&diff=66555041&oldid=66232662){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nofreud.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.freud.org.uk/file-uploads/small/b0fEWNNIUygi9XviqrzpaNe7S4lGVJQpVLl5_qFEluM.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anna_Freud.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anderson_Fire_Department.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Anderson_Fire_Department.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FireDepartment18.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anderson_Police_Department_Anderson_City_Court.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anderson_Police_Department.jpg){kind=link}
