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:
- checkuser is a tool for stewards
- 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:
- 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@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l