Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pieter Kuiper

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pieter Kuiper}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Pieter Kuiper

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch
Filed: 13:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit]
List last updated 16:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Rationale

[edit]
  • User was blocked for COM:POINTy nominations for a total of one month (COM:AN/U#User:Pieter Kuiper).
    • And suddenly the person he targets (User:Fæ) had four new DR notifications from an IP which are its first edits.
    • One of the nominations of the IP is a mural which Pieter Kuiper complained yesterday before his block.
    • The entire contribution of the IP (95.199.16.21) can be seen as evidence which isn't that many edits.
  • I want to extend this request to find any more sockpuppets by this user.
  • I also propose an extension of the block if the user is indeed using sockpuppets.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Additionally this edit by IP correlates with this edit by Pieter Kuiper which in both cases are bashing Fæ. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The check can be coordinated with en.wikipedia to cross reference with w:Special:Contributions/Pieter Kuiper as we are told he is travelling. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]
  •  Comment and just that for now as I haven't time at present to do this properly. However - the fact that an IP has started a DR which looks to have validity to me does not suggest that the IP is behaving incorrectly. Prima facie there seems to be enough evidence to suggest that the DR requires consideration. --Herby talk thyme 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it is against wmf checkuser policy to publicly connect an IP and username together. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So how would we handle a blocked user that continues edits/disruption logged off? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I can see how you could interpret the statement "The privacy policy does not allow us to make a check that has the effect of revealing IP addresses" on Commons:Requests for checkuser/Header in that way, but if you read the actual policy, it states that "when investigating abuse on a project, including the suspected use of malicious 'sockpuppets' (duplicate accounts), vandalism, harassment of other users, or disruptive behavior, the IP addresses of users (derived either from those logs or from records in the database) may be used to identify the source(s) of the abusive behavior. This information may be shared by users with administrative authority who are charged by their communities with protecting the projects." —LX (talk, contribs) 22:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, there is nothing preventing a checkuser from checking whether the IP addresses are sockpuppets of User:Pieter Kuiper. However, the checkuser might not be allowed to present the result of the check to other users, since that would have the potential of revealing IP information. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are the IPs proxies? Are they geographically relevant to the puppet master? Are there other accounts editing from these IPs that may be relevant to look into? These are the questions I care about. I already have the IP addresses. Privacy policy does not ban checks to logged in users if disruption is through IPs. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyone can do a geography check since the IP addresses are listed above. Just click on the "WHOIS" link provided by the {{Checkip}} template you used above and you'll see that both IP addresses belong to Telia Sonera, a large Swedish ISP. Now check Pieter Kuiper's user page and you'll see that he claims to be working in Sweden. Thus, the country of the IP addresses matches the country indicated on PK's user page. I suppose that the only thing which only a checkuser could do is to check whether PK has used the same Swedish ISP and whether he has used the same web browser and operating system. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is technical information only check-users can see which I am not going to discuss here. I do not believe the CU case is invalid just because he is editing while being logged out. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What we often do on EnWikiP in these cases is have the checkuser approach another admin and ask them to block the IP "per CU". The blocking admin does not (necessarily) know who the IP belongs to and there is no on (or off)-wiki link between the IP and the sock, but the IP gets blocked (as it should). Just throwing this out as a suggestion. -- Avi (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has already been blocked. The reason the check is needed is to determine whether there has been block evasion, which may affect the length of Pieter's block. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per remarks at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems User:Herbythyme should recuse himself from this checkuser case. I have nothing against Herbythyme but I feel he is too involved now. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice the dynamic IPs are being blocked which will have no effect so simply listing further IPs in three places is pointless so we will call this one closed. --Herby talk thyme 13:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this clearer in case there are misunderstandings.

As a project CU I see no point in running this check because it is quite obvious that dynamic IPs are being used (quite likely by PK). If there were reason to believe there was another account I would check without hesitation and block likewise - anyone who thinks I cannot operate in a professional/detached way with these tools so seek their removal. So if the check were run it seems probable that we would find PK uses dynamic IPs (we can see that anyway) and I would find out information about other people with the same ISP - an unecessary intrusion in their privacy to me.

As to blocking dynamic IPs the only inconvenience that would be caused it to make the user get up, walk across the room and reset the router, or more likely reach out and do the same or most likely do it in a browser window. By posting the IP in several places it would probably mean that by the time a well meaning admin had blocked the IP (which would take longer than changing IP) the user was already on another IP. That is pointless and would possible cause issues for the next person allocated that IP.

Hopefully that will make things clearer. If anyone has evidence of alternative accounts or if other CUs have other views it would be good to hear. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We won't know if he is disregarding the block unless such a check is run. ISPs with dynamic IP ranges are not exempt from CU review. You can perhaps see why it may be best to recuse yourself even though you are not doing anything wrong and the community isn't questioning your abilities/character etc. I just feel it would be best if an uninvolved CU handled this case. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to agree that it would seem good practice for this CU request to be closed by someone who has not expressed strong opinions in discussions about Pieter Kuiper's case elsewhere, even if the outcome is going to be identical. --Fæ (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that's me -- I have made no comments (that I remember) in this round of discussion of PK.

First, I object strongly to the suggestion that just because Herby has commented on a situation that he cannot run a valid CU. There are two reasons for this:

  1. Herby's integrity is, for me, unquestioned, so I cannot imagine him being other than straightforward. If he thought he could not be straightforward, he would not do it. I base this not only on more than two years of public interactions with him, but also significant private interactions, mostly as two CUs discussing problems.
  2. Even if you don't believe in his integrity, it's dumb to think that he would be so stupid as to fudge a CU result when there are half a dozen other Commons CUs who could easily discover his fudge, which would, in turn, result in a rapid deCU and deAdmin -- that just won't happen.

Second, I agree completely with Herby's assessment. It is public knowledge that the IPs listed above are in Sweden. While we have quite a few colleagues there, it strains credibility that these IPs are not actually PK -- the pattern is too close. I have not run a CU on them, but as a practical matter, it would not tell me anything that would do more to convince me that they are his work. Or, to put it another way, with the evidence in front of us now, I think that most of us believe that PK is continuing to work on Commons without being logged in. Since Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. and does not give us the revealed truth, I don't think that running a Check will change any minds and it feels to me right on the edge of the privacy policy under which we work.

Third, for the reasons put forth by Herby above, I am going to unblock the IP addresses listed above -- it doesn't prevent anyone from editing and it will cause trouble, cascading trouble, in fact, if another user happens to be assigned one of them. IN fact, only 90.236.29.6 was still blocked, the others having expired.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not at a short supply of checkusers. We want involved users not to close checuser requests. Recusing oneself does not hurt the credibility of someone.
The last IP (90.184.205.91) seems to be from Denmark not sweeden, the check of this IP should be coordinated with an en.wikipedia CheckUser.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is it relevant if Pieter Kuiper is (or was) in Denmark or not? What does it add to the discussion related to him? It is already obvious that he has been using IP addresses to edit whilst being blocked. One IP address more or less doesn't really change anything. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pieter_Kuiper&oldid=77509547"