Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

walter at vankalken

Jun 15, 2006, 2:47 PM

Post #1 of 19 (1314 views)
Permalink

Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse

Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:

==De moderatoren vernietigen het bewijs van hun machtsmisbruik==
Dit haalde [[Gebruiker:Dolledre]] zojuist uit de kroeg, het bewijs dat
men oneigenlijke middelen gebruikt en de privacy van gebruikers ten
grabbel gooit:

=== Misbruikmaken chekuser en inbreuk op de privacy ===

Zojuist heeft [[gebruiker:Walter]] gebruik gemaakt van de tool
checkuser. Dit is een tool die ter beschikking staat aan de stewards en
slechts in een uiterst noodgeval gebruikt mag worden. Namelijk als
iemand erg vandalisme pleegt om zijn IP op te kunnen sporen. Dit deed ik
niet en toch heeft Walter checkuser gebruikt. Tegen alle richtlijnen
daaromtrent in.

Hoe weet ik dat Walter dit deed? Heel eenvoudig hij blokkeerde zojuist
het IPadres waaronder ik werkte. Dat kan hij alleen geweten hebben als
hij checkuser gebruikte. Niet alleen is dit een schending van onze
privacyregels. Maar ook nog eens een schending van het feit dat dit
alleen in een noodgeval gebruikt mag worden. En dan alleen nog als er
meerdere mensen mee instemmen

Daarnaast stuurde Walter mij ook nog eens een dreigemail vandaag dat ik
voor altijd geblokkeerd ga worden en dat hij mij alleen ''kan redden''
als ik braaf ben en allen als waerth edit. Tja als dat editten me
onmogelijk wordt gemaakt .......
Dit is:
A) Schending van iemands privacy ... er is een reden dat men onder een
naam edit.
B) Bedreiging
C) Oneigenlijk gebruik van machtsmiddelen.

Ik vraag [[Gebruiker:Walter]] zelf de conclusie te verbinden aan deze 3
zeer ernstige feiten!

WAERTH (die zijn computer opnieuw op heeft moeten starten)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere9 at yahoo

Jun 16, 2006, 3:32 AM

Post #2 of 19 (1273 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

Walter van Kalken wrote:
> Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:

Being a Dutch person... could you translate that for us ?

Thanks

Anthere

> ==De moderatoren vernietigen het bewijs van hun machtsmisbruik==
> Dit haalde [[Gebruiker:Dolledre]] zojuist uit de kroeg, het bewijs dat
> men oneigenlijke middelen gebruikt en de privacy van gebruikers ten
> grabbel gooit:
>
> === Misbruikmaken chekuser en inbreuk op de privacy ===
>
> Zojuist heeft [[gebruiker:Walter]] gebruik gemaakt van de tool
> checkuser. Dit is een tool die ter beschikking staat aan de stewards en
> slechts in een uiterst noodgeval gebruikt mag worden. Namelijk als
> iemand erg vandalisme pleegt om zijn IP op te kunnen sporen. Dit deed ik
> niet en toch heeft Walter checkuser gebruikt. Tegen alle richtlijnen
> daaromtrent in.
>
> Hoe weet ik dat Walter dit deed? Heel eenvoudig hij blokkeerde zojuist
> het IPadres waaronder ik werkte. Dat kan hij alleen geweten hebben als
> hij checkuser gebruikte. Niet alleen is dit een schending van onze
> privacyregels. Maar ook nog eens een schending van het feit dat dit
> alleen in een noodgeval gebruikt mag worden. En dan alleen nog als er
> meerdere mensen mee instemmen
>
> Daarnaast stuurde Walter mij ook nog eens een dreigemail vandaag dat ik
> voor altijd geblokkeerd ga worden en dat hij mij alleen ''kan redden''
> als ik braaf ben en allen als waerth edit. Tja als dat editten me
> onmogelijk wordt gemaakt .......
> Dit is:
> A) Schending van iemands privacy ... er is een reden dat men onder een
> naam edit.
> B) Bedreiging
> C) Oneigenlijk gebruik van machtsmiddelen.
>
> Ik vraag [[Gebruiker:Walter]] zelf de conclusie te verbinden aan deze 3
> zeer ernstige feiten!
>
> WAERTH (die zijn computer opnieuw op heeft moeten starten)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

muijz at wikipedia

Jun 16, 2006, 4:43 AM

Post #3 of 19 (1271 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

On 16-jun-2006, at 12:32, Anthere wrote:

> Walter van Kalken wrote:
>> Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:
>
> Being a Dutch person... could you translate that for us ?

It's just a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations Anthere.
Nothing interesting really.

Waerth apparently is soliciting for a permanent ban.

Erik vdMb aka Muijz
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

kelly.lynn.martin at gmail

Jun 16, 2006, 4:45 AM

Post #4 of 19 (1282 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

On 6/16/06, Erik van den Muijzenberg <muijz[at]wikipedia.be> wrote:
> On 16-jun-2006, at 12:32, Anthere wrote:
>
> > Walter van Kalken wrote:
> >> Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:
> >
> > Being a Dutch person... could you translate that for us ?
>
> It's just a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations Anthere.
> Nothing interesting really.
>
> Waerth apparently is soliciting for a permanent ban.

I, for one, would appreciate a fair and accurate translation.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

muijz at wikipedia

Jun 16, 2006, 6:01 AM

Post #5 of 19 (1275 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

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

jk-wikifound at ks

Jun 16, 2006, 6:35 AM

Post #6 of 19 (1274 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

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

muijz at wikipedia

Jun 16, 2006, 6:52 AM

Post #7 of 19 (1273 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

On 16-jun-2006, at 15:35, Jan Kulveit wrote:

> 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).

Ironically, if Waerth had not complained, nobody would have known it
was his IP-address. After all it was just a Thailand-based IP-address.
Nobody could know for sure it was Waerths.

+++Muijz

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

skatinghacker at hotmail

Jun 16, 2006, 6:55 AM

Post #8 of 19 (1272 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuserabuse [In reply to]

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
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

sannse at tiscali

Jun 16, 2006, 6:59 AM

Post #9 of 19 (1274 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

Frankly - if you don't want your IP address to appear on the block log,
then don't break the rules by using sockpuppets to circumvent a ban.

I'm sorry Waerth, but from all I've read here - you are the one in the
wrong. Checking where the sockpuppets were coming from, and blocking
the address shown, are normal and correct.

(And this is a local issue, I think it should go to local mailing lists now)

--sannse

Erik van den Muijzenberg wrote:
> On 16-jun-2006, at 15:35, Jan Kulveit wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> Ironically, if Waerth had not complained, nobody would have known it
> was his IP-address. After all it was just a Thailand-based IP-address.
> Nobody could know for sure it was Waerths.
>
>
> +++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

skatinghacker at hotmail

Jun 16, 2006, 7:11 AM

Post #10 of 19 (1274 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

It went to the local list *as well*. And better: There is a discussion about
it at the local NL.wiki. At the local wiki there is a copy of the complete
text of Waerths original email as well.

Johan Bos

> (And this is a local issue, I think it should go to local mailing lists
> now)
>
> --sannse
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

kim at bruning

Jun 18, 2006, 4:59 AM

Post #11 of 19 (1266 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:47:16AM +0700, Walter van Kalken wrote:
> Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:
> === Misbruikmaken chekuser en inbreuk op de privacy ===
>
> Zojuist heeft [[gebruiker:Walter]] gebruik gemaakt van de tool
> checkuser.

Yes, checkuser is a tool to find sockpuppets and people avoiding
blocks and bans. You were caught.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

henna at wikipedia

Jun 18, 2006, 6:30 AM

Post #12 of 19 (1275 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

I have tried to translate Walter van Kalken's email without
changingthe meaning of his words. I'm not a profesional translator, my
apologies for the less then nice flowing of the sentences from time to
time.

Finne/henna

On 6/15/06, Walter van Kalken <walter[at]vankalken.net> wrote:
> Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:

==Admins destroy proof of their abuse of power==

> Dit haalde [[Gebruiker:Dolledre]] zojuist uit de kroeg,
[[User:Dolledre]] removed this a short while ago from the village pump

> het bewijs dat men oneigenlijke middelen gebruikt en de privacy van
> gebruikers ten grabbel gooit:
the proof that tools are used inapropriatly and the privacy of users
is disrespected

> === Misbruikmaken chekuser en inbreuk op de privacy ===
===Abuse checkuser and invasion of privacy===
> Zojuist heeft [[gebruiker:Walter]] gebruik gemaakt van de tool checkuser.
[[User:Walter]] has just used the tool checkuser

> Dit is een tool die ter beschikking staat aan de stewards en slechts in een
> uiterst noodgeval gebruikt mag worden.
This is a tool available to stewards and should only used in emergencies

> Namelijk als iemand erg vandalisme pleegt om zijn IP op te kunnen sporen.
Namely, when one vandalises to be able to retrieve someones IP

> Dit deed ik niet en toch heeft Walter checkuser gebruikt.
I did not do this and still Walter used checkuser.

> Tegen alle richtlijnen daaromtrent in.
Against all directives concerning this

> Hoe weet ik dat Walter dit deed?
How do I know that Walter did this?

> Heel eenvoudig hij blokkeerde zojuist het IPadres waaronder ik werkte.
Very simple, he blocked my IPadress

> Dat kan hij alleen geweten hebben als hij checkuser gebruikte.
He can only have known this when he used checkuser

> Niet alleen is dit een schending van onze privacyregels.
Not only is this an invasion of our privacy

> Maar ook nog eens een schending van het feit dat dit alleen in een noodgeval gebruikt mag worden.
But it is also an infraction on the fact that this can only be used in
emergencies

> En dan alleen nog als er meerdere mensen mee instemmen
And even then only when other people approve

> Daarnaast stuurde Walter mij ook nog eens een dreigemail vandaag dat ik
> voor altijd geblokkeerd ga worden en dat hij mij alleen
> ''kan redden''als ik braaf > ben en allen als waerth edit.
Apart from that, Walter send me a threatening email that I will be
blocked indefinitly and that he "can save" me only if i'm good and
only edit as Waerth

> Tja als dat editten me onmogelijk wordt gemaakt .......
Tja, if this editting is made impossible for me

> Dit is:
This is:

> A) Schending van iemands privacy ... er is een reden dat men onder een
> naam edit.
A) Invasion of privacy, there's a reason people use names to edit

> B) Bedreiging
B) Threath

> C) Oneigenlijk gebruik van machtsmiddelen.
C) Inapropriate use of tools

> Ik vraag [[Gebruiker:Walter]] zelf de conclusie te verbinden aan deze 3 zeer > ernstige feiten!
I ask [[User:Walter]] to draw his own conclusions

> WAERTH (die zijn computer opnieuw op heeft moeten starten)
Waerth (who had to reboot his computer)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere9 at yahoo

Jun 18, 2006, 6:49 AM

Post #13 of 19 (1265 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

Thanks for the translation Henna

I do not think it is written anywhere that the tool should be used only
in case of emergencies. Usually, the only reason for emergency reaction
is that the logs are kept only for a limited amount of time.

It is worth noting that the sockpuppets might have been created on
purpose by a third party, in the intention of doing prejudice on Waerth.
If that had been so, Waerth would have been more than happy if a
checkuser had revealed he was not the sockpuppet holder.

I do not see any abuse in what Walter did.

Ant

henna wrote:
> I have tried to translate Walter van Kalken's email without
> changingthe meaning of his words. I'm not a profesional translator, my
> apologies for the less then nice flowing of the sentences from time to
> time.
>
> Finne/henna
>
> On 6/15/06, Walter van Kalken <walter[at]vankalken.net> wrote:
>
>>Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:
>
>
>>==De moderatoren vernietigen het bewijs van hun machtsmisbruik==
>
> ==Admins destroy proof of their abuse of power==
>
>
>>Dit haalde [[Gebruiker:Dolledre]] zojuist uit de kroeg,
>
> [[User:Dolledre]] removed this a short while ago from the village pump
>
>
>>het bewijs dat men oneigenlijke middelen gebruikt en de privacy van
>>gebruikers ten grabbel gooit:
>
> the proof that tools are used inapropriatly and the privacy of users
> is disrespected
>
>
>>=== Misbruikmaken chekuser en inbreuk op de privacy ===
>
> ===Abuse checkuser and invasion of privacy===
>
>>Zojuist heeft [[gebruiker:Walter]] gebruik gemaakt van de tool checkuser.
>
> [[User:Walter]] has just used the tool checkuser
>
>
>>Dit is een tool die ter beschikking staat aan de stewards en slechts in een
>>uiterst noodgeval gebruikt mag worden.
>
> This is a tool available to stewards and should only used in emergencies
>
>
>>Namelijk als iemand erg vandalisme pleegt om zijn IP op te kunnen sporen.
>
> Namely, when one vandalises to be able to retrieve someones IP
>
>
>>Dit deed ik niet en toch heeft Walter checkuser gebruikt.
>
> I did not do this and still Walter used checkuser.
>
>
>>Tegen alle richtlijnen daaromtrent in.
>
> Against all directives concerning this
>
>
>>Hoe weet ik dat Walter dit deed?
>
> How do I know that Walter did this?
>
>
>>Heel eenvoudig hij blokkeerde zojuist het IPadres waaronder ik werkte.
>
> Very simple, he blocked my IPadress
>
>
>>Dat kan hij alleen geweten hebben als hij checkuser gebruikte.
>
> He can only have known this when he used checkuser
>
>
>>Niet alleen is dit een schending van onze privacyregels.
>
> Not only is this an invasion of our privacy
>
>
>>Maar ook nog eens een schending van het feit dat dit alleen in een noodgeval gebruikt mag worden.
>
> But it is also an infraction on the fact that this can only be used in
> emergencies
>
>
>>En dan alleen nog als er meerdere mensen mee instemmen
>
> And even then only when other people approve
>
>
>>Daarnaast stuurde Walter mij ook nog eens een dreigemail vandaag dat ik
>>voor altijd geblokkeerd ga worden en dat hij mij alleen
>>''kan redden''als ik braaf > ben en allen als waerth edit.
>
> Apart from that, Walter send me a threatening email that I will be
> blocked indefinitly and that he "can save" me only if i'm good and
> only edit as Waerth
>
>
>>Tja als dat editten me onmogelijk wordt gemaakt .......
>
> Tja, if this editting is made impossible for me
>
>
>>Dit is:
>
> This is:
>
>
>>A) Schending van iemands privacy ... er is een reden dat men onder een
>>naam edit.
>
> A) Invasion of privacy, there's a reason people use names to edit
>
>
>>B) Bedreiging
>
> B) Threath
>
>
>>C) Oneigenlijk gebruik van machtsmiddelen.
>
> C) Inapropriate use of tools
>
>
>>Ik vraag [[Gebruiker:Walter]] zelf de conclusie te verbinden aan deze 3 zeer > ernstige feiten!
>
> I ask [[User:Walter]] to draw his own conclusions
>
>
>>WAERTH (die zijn computer opnieuw op heeft moeten starten)
>
> Waerth (who had to reboot his computer)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

kelly.lynn.martin at gmail

Jun 18, 2006, 7:19 AM

Post #14 of 19 (1268 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

I concur with Anthere's conclusion. Thanks, henna, for the translation.

Kelly

On 6/18/06, Anthere <Anthere9[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the translation Henna
>
> I do not think it is written anywhere that the tool should be used only
> in case of emergencies. Usually, the only reason for emergency reaction
> is that the logs are kept only for a limited amount of time.
>
> It is worth noting that the sockpuppets might have been created on
> purpose by a third party, in the intention of doing prejudice on Waerth.
> If that had been so, Waerth would have been more than happy if a
> checkuser had revealed he was not the sockpuppet holder.
>
> I do not see any abuse in what Walter did.
>
> Ant
>
> henna wrote:
> > I have tried to translate Walter van Kalken's email without
> > changingthe meaning of his words. I'm not a profesional translator, my
> > apologies for the less then nice flowing of the sentences from time to
> > time.
> >
> > Finne/henna
> >
> > On 6/15/06, Walter van Kalken <walter[at]vankalken.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:
> >
> >
> >>==De moderatoren vernietigen het bewijs van hun machtsmisbruik==
> >
> > ==Admins destroy proof of their abuse of power==
> >
> >
> >>Dit haalde [[Gebruiker:Dolledre]] zojuist uit de kroeg,
> >
> > [[User:Dolledre]] removed this a short while ago from the village pump
> >
> >
> >>het bewijs dat men oneigenlijke middelen gebruikt en de privacy van
> >>gebruikers ten grabbel gooit:
> >
> > the proof that tools are used inapropriatly and the privacy of users
> > is disrespected
> >
> >
> >>=== Misbruikmaken chekuser en inbreuk op de privacy ===
> >
> > ===Abuse checkuser and invasion of privacy===
> >
> >>Zojuist heeft [[gebruiker:Walter]] gebruik gemaakt van de tool checkuser.
> >
> > [[User:Walter]] has just used the tool checkuser
> >
> >
> >>Dit is een tool die ter beschikking staat aan de stewards en slechts in een
> >>uiterst noodgeval gebruikt mag worden.
> >
> > This is a tool available to stewards and should only used in emergencies
> >
> >
> >>Namelijk als iemand erg vandalisme pleegt om zijn IP op te kunnen sporen.
> >
> > Namely, when one vandalises to be able to retrieve someones IP
> >
> >
> >>Dit deed ik niet en toch heeft Walter checkuser gebruikt.
> >
> > I did not do this and still Walter used checkuser.
> >
> >
> >>Tegen alle richtlijnen daaromtrent in.
> >
> > Against all directives concerning this
> >
> >
> >>Hoe weet ik dat Walter dit deed?
> >
> > How do I know that Walter did this?
> >
> >
> >>Heel eenvoudig hij blokkeerde zojuist het IPadres waaronder ik werkte.
> >
> > Very simple, he blocked my IPadress
> >
> >
> >>Dat kan hij alleen geweten hebben als hij checkuser gebruikte.
> >
> > He can only have known this when he used checkuser
> >
> >
> >>Niet alleen is dit een schending van onze privacyregels.
> >
> > Not only is this an invasion of our privacy
> >
> >
> >>Maar ook nog eens een schending van het feit dat dit alleen in een noodgeval gebruikt mag worden.
> >
> > But it is also an infraction on the fact that this can only be used in
> > emergencies
> >
> >
> >>En dan alleen nog als er meerdere mensen mee instemmen
> >
> > And even then only when other people approve
> >
> >
> >>Daarnaast stuurde Walter mij ook nog eens een dreigemail vandaag dat ik
> >>voor altijd geblokkeerd ga worden en dat hij mij alleen
> >>''kan redden''als ik braaf > ben en allen als waerth edit.
> >
> > Apart from that, Walter send me a threatening email that I will be
> > blocked indefinitly and that he "can save" me only if i'm good and
> > only edit as Waerth
> >
> >
> >>Tja als dat editten me onmogelijk wordt gemaakt .......
> >
> > Tja, if this editting is made impossible for me
> >
> >
> >>Dit is:
> >
> > This is:
> >
> >
> >>A) Schending van iemands privacy ... er is een reden dat men onder een
> >>naam edit.
> >
> > A) Invasion of privacy, there's a reason people use names to edit
> >
> >
> >>B) Bedreiging
> >
> > B) Threath
> >
> >
> >>C) Oneigenlijk gebruik van machtsmiddelen.
> >
> > C) Inapropriate use of tools
> >
> >
> >>Ik vraag [[Gebruiker:Walter]] zelf de conclusie te verbinden aan deze 3 zeer > ernstige feiten!
> >
> > I ask [[User:Walter]] to draw his own conclusions
> >
> >
> >>WAERTH (die zijn computer opnieuw op heeft moeten starten)
> >
> > Waerth (who had to reboot his computer)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

kim at bruning

Jun 19, 2006, 8:43 AM

Post #15 of 19 (1270 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:47:16AM +0700, Walter van Kalken wrote:
> Zojuist heeft [[gebruiker:Walter]] gebruik gemaakt van de tool
> checkuser.

<columbo>
One last question, to check my assumptions

Were you in fact blocked from editing at the moment that this occurred?
</columbo>

sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

skatinghacker at hotmail

Jun 19, 2006, 1:31 PM

Post #16 of 19 (1269 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuserabuse [In reply to]

He was blocked at his normal account, but succeeded to do a lot of edits
with a lot of sockpuppets.

Johan Bos (Jcb)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim Bruning" <kim[at]bruning.xs4all.nl>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dutch moderators destroy evidence of
checkuserabuse

> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 04:47:16AM +0700, Walter van Kalken wrote:
>> Zojuist heeft [[gebruiker:Walter]] gebruik gemaakt van de tool
>> checkuser.
>
> <columbo>
> One last question, to check my assumptions
>
> Were you in fact blocked from editing at the moment that this occurred?
> </columbo>
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
> --
> [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
> gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
> 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
> _______________________________________________
> 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

kim at bruning

Jun 19, 2006, 1:39 PM

Post #17 of 19 (1266 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuserabuse [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:31:35PM +0200, Johan Bos wrote:
> He was blocked at his normal account, but succeeded to do a lot of edits
> with a lot of sockpuppets.
>
> Johan Bos (Jcb)

Oh. Is this still about the first time he did that, or has he now done it a second time?

read you soon,
Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

skatinghacker at hotmail

Jun 19, 2006, 2:08 PM

Post #18 of 19 (1267 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence ofcheckuserabuse [In reply to]

At 23 May, Waerth has been blocked for 1 day, for calling a transsexual user
a "neuter". He bypassed that block as well, using about 15 sockpuppets.

Johan Bos (Jcb)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim Bruning" <kim[at]bruning.xs4all.nl>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l[at]wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dutch moderators destroy evidence
ofcheckuserabuse

> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:31:35PM +0200, Johan Bos wrote:
>> He was blocked at his normal account, but succeeded to do a lot of edits
>> with a lot of sockpuppets.
>>
>> Johan Bos (Jcb)
>
> Oh. Is this still about the first time he did that, or has he now done it
> a second time?
>
> read you soon,
> Kim Bruning
>
>
> --
> [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
> gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
> 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
> _______________________________________________
> 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

effeietsanders at gmail

Jun 19, 2006, 2:22 PM

Post #19 of 19 (1261 views)
Permalink

Re: Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuserabuse [In reply to]

he did it at least twice. This is about the one of two or three days ago.

effe

2006/6/19, Kim Bruning <kim[at]bruning.xs4all.nl>:
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:31:35PM +0200, Johan Bos wrote:
> > He was blocked at his normal account, but succeeded to do a lot of edits
> > with a lot of sockpuppets.
> >
> > Johan Bos (Jcb)
>
> Oh. Is this still about the first time he did that, or has he now done it
> a second time?
>
> read you soon,
> Kim Bruning
>
>
> --
> [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
> gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
> 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com