[Foundation-l] Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuserabuse

Fri Jun 16 13:55:22 UTC 2006

That's true, it's a fact that blocked IP's appear in the block log. That's 
normal, that's the case with any block and no reason for a complaint.

One time Waerth even released *my* IP in the block log. He blocked HIMSELF 
and used my IP as a description. I never understood that, but it's no 
problem, because I even placed a note myself at the userpage of my IP. But 
now Waerth has no reason to complain about the fact that his IP is in the 
block log.

Johan Bos

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jan Kulveit" <jk-wikifound at ks.cz>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dutch moderators destroy evidence of 
checkuserabuse

> As I understand it, the core of the complain may be in the fact, Waerths
> ip address was effectively released public, as it appeareed in block log.
>>From the circumstances and whois record showing its in Thailnd,
> outside observer can associate the revealed ip and Waerth (yes, with
> some level of doubt).
>
> Jan Kulveit [[User:Wikimol]]
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 03:01:17PM +0200, Erik van den Muijzenberg wrote:
>> On 16-jun-2006, at 13:45, Kelly Martin wrote:
>>
>> > I, for one, would appreciate a fair and accurate translation.
>>
>> Since Waerth is Dutch himself, he is the one to provide one in the
>> first place.
>>
>> I the meantime I will discuss the matter briefly; refering to http://
>> meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_Policy#Wikimedia_privacy_policy
>>
>> Well first, Waerth uses the subject "The mods destroy proof of their
>> abuse of power".
>> Apparently he is refering to the fact that his complaint is no longer
>> to be read in De Kroeg (Dutch villagepump).
>> However his complaint was only moved - to the backroom of De Kroeg.
>> At NL this is standardprocedure for wild accusations as Waerth is
>> knowing very well.
>>
>> In the bodytext Waerth complaints about user Walter who blocked the
>> IP-address Waerth was using for sockpuppetry.
>> Waerth states:
>>
>> 1) checkuser is a tool for stewards
>> 2) checkuser can be used in a case of utmost emergency only, to find
>> the IP-address of somebody severely vandalizing the wiki
>> 3) Walter used checkuser; proof: he blocked my (Waerths) IP-address
>> 4) by using checkuser Walter violated all regulations concerning
>> checkuser
>> 5) Walter violated my (Waerths) privacy
>> 6) Walter violated the rule that checkuser should be restricted to
>> emergencies only
>> 7) Walter violated the rule that the use of checkuser needs the
>> agreement of several people
>>
>> I will refute this as follows:
>>
>> 1) The CheckUser Policy states ""Only a very few editors and Stewards
>> are allowed to have the CheckUser status. Editors will only have
>> CheckUser status locally."
>> It follows checkuser is not restricted to stewards. Besides: Walter
>> *is* steward of nl.wikipedia, plus he is approved for checkuser
>> capability.
>> 2) It also states: "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism or
>> check abuse of sockpuppets, for example when there is a suspicion of
>> illegal voting."
>> It follows the use of checkuser is not restricted to vandalfighting.
>> It can be used for investigation into sockpuppetry as well.
>> In this particular case, Waerth was using several sockpuppetts to
>> escape a ban. The use of checkuser for an investigation into
>> sockpuppetry is in accordance with the CheckUser Policy then.
>> 3) Strictly speaking there is no evidence for this; though it sounds
>> reasonable. However Waerth should proof his accusation first.
>> 4) Again: Walter used checkuser for an investigation into Waerth
>> escaping a ban by means of sockpuppets,  in accordance with the
>> CheckUser Policy.
>> 5) At http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Ipblocklist a IP-block by
>> Walter is mentioned. It reads as follows:
>>
>> Op 15 jun 2006 22:58 (vervalt op 17 jun 2006 22:58) blokkeerde Walter
>> (Overleg): 203.144.160.245 (bijdragen) (ipadres van actieve sokpopper)
>>
>> I'll translate the entry:
>> On 15 jun 2006 22:58 (ends on 17 jun 2006 22:58) Walter (Discussion)
>> blocked: 203.144.160.245 (contributions) (ipaddress of active
>> sockpuppeteer)
>>
>> Though other moderators mentioned Waerth while blocking other
>> sockpuppets of Waerth, *Walter* didn't.
>> So, no violation of privacy there.
>> 6) Checkuser Policy states: "The tool is to be used to fight
>> vandalism or check abuse of sockpuppets, for example when there is a
>> suspicion of illegal voting."
>> Therefore the use of checkuser is not restricted to emergencies;
>> Walter didn't violate the policy then.
>> 7) NL doesn't have an Arbitration Committee yet. Therefore the
>> relevant rule is: "The community must approve at least two CheckUsers
>> per consensus. Activity will be checked mutually." NL has two users
>> that are approved for checkuser capability. Whether they investigated
>> the case at hand together, as the Checkuser Policiy seems to indicate
>> should be the proper procedure, I don't know. But Waerth is the one
>> to substantiate his accusation here that they didn't, and he doesn't.
>>
>> I would say the accusations of Waerth are not substantiated enough
>> and to a great extent they can be simply refuted by pointing to the
>> relevant lines in the Checkuser Policy, as I have demonstrated above.
>>
>> I think Waerth should withdraw his accusations and stop trolling.
>>
>>
>> Erik vdMb aka Muijz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 