[Foundation-l] Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse

[Jan Kulveit]

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