Talk:Requests for comment/Abigor

Abigor's request for own IP

Abigor has requested IP information from the checkuser investigation reported in the RfC. The checkusers concluded that Abigor was the creator of a highly offensive username. The request was denied per policy about sharing checkuser data.

That policy, however, is designed to protect the privacy of users. Abigor's request should be granted, and, further, the full data (including user agent) be provided, redacting only the offensive user name (if the data is made public, the user name could be provided privately to Abigor).

Abigor could easily have known his own IP and agent string (see [1]), so providing him with this information does no harm. However, suppose that he was *not* the offensive editor. There are many possible scenarios, and we simply have concluded that they are unlikely, perhaps very unlikely, not that they are impossible. If it was not him, it would be important for Abigor to know where the problem was arising, was it at work? At the local coffee house? At home? Which computer? Etc.

I do not see providing a user with their own information, when they have been identified as a sock, as violating the intent of any policy. The information could be provided privately, but I think it would be best to do it publicly, so that requests like this are less likely to be made by guilty parties, i.e., those who know that they made the edits. This should only be done, as well, for definitive identification, where the user suffered some loss as a result of it. On the other hand, Abigor was a long-term volunteer, so providing him with the data privately could be okay as well. --Abd 18:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Abd, an IP gives too much info for someone who knows how to look at it, provide it violate privacy policy even if the use allows it, stewards and CheckUser can't do that. And by what the CU said (and i don't have acess to CU logs) the only chance to not be Abigor was if someone was using his pc at the same time he does. Béria Lima ^msg 19:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see what good that information will do him, anyways. A checkuser has determined that the user agent and IP are identical for the offensive username, Abigor and the admitted sock. Even if the IP is very public, the odds of the offensive username being created by someone else at this time is astronomically small. Given this history of recent disruption from this user, this request could also be seen as an attempt to drag out the proceedings and try to establish reasonable doubt, when little if none currently exists. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Beria, someone else could be using his PC at the same time as him. Compromised PC. Unlikely, but definitely possible.

The cited privacy policy page states:

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations: [...]

2. With permission of the affected user, [etc.]

It is clearly allowed. Ajraddatz, it is not "astronomically" impossible that a technically sophisticated enemy targeted Abigor. The strong preponderance of the evidence is what we must act upon, Abigor is properly blocked. But what is the harm of providing what he asks for? The benefit could be, that in the future, and even if he was "guilty," he remembers himself as having been treated fairly. --Abd 20:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the 'need' of providing what he asks for? Is there 'any' reason for giving him these info about his own account? What would he do with this info? The checkuser is not needed for that; he can find out what is his IP by himself. 4th question: Is there any reason for not considering him a vandal and not assuming good faith on his request?” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

@Abd; Since you obviously don't know what kind of information was posted by this account and how Huib got it. You cannot say anything about the odds. The information posted by Huib was entrusted to him in the days the user who was now harassed by him still trusted Huib. Still the personal information of this person is only known to Huib and some CU's and stewards. As far as I know Huib is the only one on the wikimedia projects having a problem with this user. I would say the chances that another person got into Huib's IP to publish this kind of information is practically non existent. I don't see any reason to grant Huib access to meta. Silver Spoon 21:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Perplexed, I am. We are only talking about "personal information" -- IP and user agent info (like the browser version in use) -- from the accounts Dirt Diver, Abigor (Huib), and the vandal. Since the checkuser confirmation was so strong, since Abigor was blocked again on the basis of this information, we can assume that all three are Abigor. This is being confused with "personal information" about another person. None of this is being mentioned as any reason to give Huib access to meta. The opposite. It would only be letting Abigor know the evidence against him. I've stated positive value for that act. I'm not seeing any negative, the original claims that this was prohibited by privacy policy were not correct. I just think that one of the checkusers who already has this data could handle the request in a flash. It would have taken less time than this discussion. Huib could request the data from the Foundation, but this would be simpler. --Abd 22:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Abd, you are making the assumption that editing from an IP address means that it's their own IP address. This is not necessarily the case. As the owner of a similar wiki site, I know that the privacy concerns are justified. Guido den Broeder 23:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'm using an IP address to access Wikipedia, it's "mine" for that time, or I couldn't even read or edit the site, the handshake with the server wouldn't work. Yes, there are anonymizing proxies, but I still know that proxy's address, it becomes "mine," and I can retrieve it from any web site which displays it. --Abd 02:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the people that own it for the rest of the time (and the libraries, etc.) whose privacy is protected here. Guido den Broeder 10:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is preposterous. That's public information, generally. No, privacy policy protects our users, not their ISP. I don't "own my IP," Verizon does. But I'm using it, and I can easily determine what IP is currently assigned to me, and I can see my user agent string and screen resolution. (The display there is sent by the browser.) If you were to access that information page through a proxy, you'd see the proxy IP and whatever is being sent through from your computer, or by the proxy server. Which is what Wikipedia would also see. --Abd 16:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Following what Ajraddatz said on Barras' talk page, there are only two possibilities: (1) Abigor is the owner of the vandal account; (2) Abigor is not the owner of the vandal account. If (1) is true, he created the account and we should end this discussion without attending the request. If (2) is true, by providing the IP some would be releasing an information of 'another person', which is not Abigor and it would be a privacy violation, so we would also have to end this discussion without attending the request. There is no need to keep discussing here something that shouldn't be done whatever the truth is. I believe the above is not a false dilema and, if not, this discussion is meaningless.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 03:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just look up the time the account was created and then give that piece of information to him; he can figure out the rest for himself (where was I at that time? where was my PC? etc.) Seb az86556 15:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC) nevermind, I see he already knows this. Seb az86556 15:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(wrote this before Seb struck his comment.) While it might help, it isn't conclusive. It is consistent with privacy policy to simply give him the checkuser data on what was allegedly his IP and user agent string -- as well as the time of the edits. I'd argue that he should also get the offensive user name. Remember, the presumption here is that it was him. If it was him, no harm is done by giving it to him. If it was not him, he should know what was spoofed about him. (However, it's possible that the user name provides RL information that should not be given to Abigor. However, the real WMF user name should be given to him.) It is not impossible that he could find evidence, for example, linking the allegedly insulted user with the IP used. As an example of what might explain what was observed, consider the possibility that his password for Dirt Diver was obtained. The vandal then logged in to Dirt Diver and to make the vandal edit. (This was using some unusual device, probably mobile, my guess, with some apparently unique identifier. A question I'd ask of checkuser was what Abigor normally used, user agent and IP, for Abigor and other Dirt Diver edits.) This would completely explain the mystery, and is a pretty simple scenario. We should end this right here, it's up to Abigor to deal with the possible consequences of, say, password compromise. The full information could establish this for him. and then he'd know better where to look. From what he says, he didn't log in as Dirt Diver in the manner that was described. We may assume that he's lying, as a presumption, given the circumstances, but we should leave it as a rebuttable presumption, and give him what he needs to discover the truth. He's blocked, and should remain blocked, and there was enough revealed to justify the block even if he was not the vandal. But the vandalism increased our impressions of Abigor's culpability for serious offenses, the RfC immediately flipped to "block." Without it, there were still offenses justifying a block, but if he was not the vandal, a period of positive contribution somewhere might allow him to return to positive work globally. The RfC should be closed.

What is important to me is that he be treated fairly. We must conclude, from what we know, that he was almost certainly the vandal. But it would simply be fair and due process to allow him to know the evidence on which he was charged and "convicted." He was a long-term volunteer. Why not give him the respect of providing him with the information requested? The only person whose privacy is "protected" by not providing the information would be him, if he was the vandal, or a vandal who pretended to be him, having hacked his access in some way, and thus whose privacy should not be protected, just as Abigor's privacy was not respected on the appearance of clear evidence that he was the vandal. (Which is more of a problem, his IP, which he's openly revealed, or the claim that he was the real-life person behind a major piece of vandalism? It's entirely possible that this could affect his career, for example.) --Abd 16:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I really do not understand your point and such insistence on this matter. The checkusers already said that "The vandal account shares the same IP address and other technical information that Abigor and Dirt Diver shares, with 100% exactitude.". If you or Abigor doubts this information, they can ask for a recheck or appeal to the Ombudsman. Repeatedly asking for this info is nothing but an annoying red-herring, and personally I'm very much fed up with reading that pleading again and again and again. You have the necessary mechanisms at your disposition, use them, but for Christ sake stop with those petitions. It's clear enough that nor you nor Abigor will ever get that info at the current stage.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Darwinius, indeed you do not understand my point, because I completely trust what the checkusers wrote as their observations. I also agree with the reasonableness of their conclusions. This discussion here would stop if not continued by the provision of various arguments, spurious in my opinion, bearing on policy, not just Abigor. Please don't read the replies if they annoy you. I asked that the RfC be closed, did you notice?

Moving from one forum to another, prematurely, in an attempt to gain a favorable decision, is called "forum shopping." What will be done, I assume, if Abigor wishes to pursue this, and if he takes my advice, will be to wait until this discussion is finished, then escalate the request directly to checkusers, the Ombudsmen, or the Foundation. There are policy issues here which should be addressed, and, if addressed, it is possible that some level of future disruption can be avoided. Thanks for respecting the appropriateness of complete discussion before moving on. --Abd 17:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblock User:Sterkebak

The following has been moved from WM:RFH (permalink) by Mathonius 15:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC). The last comment before the moving was added at 15:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

---

Huib Laurens is a member of the language committee and does good work. It is really welcome for this and one other reason for him to be unblocked. We found at Wikimania that there was activity that was to indicate that he was sockpopping. This was not possible as he was not at even close to the Netherlands; he was in Haifa. As a consequence he asked at the time for a check user. Consequently these facts have been established. Given that the block on the Dutch Wikipedia happened when Huib was not active there for the last year, it is quite clear that some people are creating mischief.

For all these reasons it makes sense for him to be unbanned on Commons and Meta. Huib indicates that he does not care for the Dutch Wikipedia any more... Thanks, GerardM 12:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ehm... Huib was contributing with 81.218.88.83 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser) from Haifa (see here) and therefore he was evading his block here. The sockpuppetry before happened when he was still in the Netherlands. See this RFC for all information about the blocks, when he used sockpuppets and what the evidence is. Also this is something I think it's strange and I can't explain it. Personally I strongly recommend *not* to unblock him. He has done way too much harm to the projects and the evidence has proven he committed sockpuppetry. Imo it's his own fault he can't do his work for the langcom well anymore. Kind regards, Trijnstel 13:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

See this recent checkuser report to show that impersonation is taking place, including impersonation that was at first strongly assumed to be Abigor. That IP has not been checkusered, probably, and, given that it was a massively shared IP for the Haifa, it's pretty meaningless. If it were important, I'd ask Huib if it was him. It's not important. I don't see any disruptive edits from that IP. If it was him, so what? We block socks to prevent disruption. When the pursuit of sock puppetry becomes disruptive, in itself, we've lost the purpose! Abigor definitely made some mistakes and may have done some harm, that's a very complex judgment, but he also did some good, rather obviously. Our goal here should always be helping the projects and the communities. It is properly up to LangCom whether or not he's useful there, but we need to think about how we help LangCom. LangCom can decide that Abigor is not useful there, and can remove him from the Committee, or the WMF could do that, since LangCom exists as liaison between the WMF community and the Board. We could ask that he be removed, but we have not done so. And it is probably not worth the effort to even discuss it, absent some specific problem, and I haven't seen any allegation of such at all. --Abd 23:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose: I agree with Trijnstel. His block on nl.wikipedia is essentially a local issue and should be discussed locally (please note that the Dutch arbitration committee has stated here that she believes there is enough evidence that Abigor was evading his block on that project by using the account "Delay" and that this was later confirmed by Abigor here). The block on Commons is a local issue as well. In my opinion, for as far as Meta is concerned (see RfC), Abigor has caused way too much disruption and has had way too many second chances to justify an unblock of this sockpuppet. Mathonius 15:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delay: complicated issue. Apparently a shared account. Bad Idea. But people make mistakes like this. Second chances? Abigor went from trusted administrator to blocked or banned user, very quickly. That process may have been "helped along" by certain Dutch users, that's what it's looking like. I've seen, in investigating certain cases on nl.wiki, that someone who was, indeed, having a problem there, was "assisted" by the appearance of mysterious sock puppets that were *not* the problem user. And the existence of those sock puppets, even though they were clearly different from the user having a problem, were then tossed in the pile of "evidence" that this user was beyond redemption. And, all too often, nobody looks back and sees what actually happened, unless it's that crazy Abd from meta. --Abd 23:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose as well, really, the RFC shows ample evidence of his disruption of this project, which continued by his sockpuppetry while in Israel. Quite frankly, that a proven sockpuppeter is still on an official committee like Langcom surprises me, whatever the quality of his work internally, being indefinitely blocked on three large projects does not demonstrate the global level of trust commensurate with holding such a seat. Courcelles 07:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The notion that he abused the system from Haifa is impossible. He did not have a laptop with him at the conference. Also I am not asking for anything on the Dutch Wikipedia, I am asking for Commons and Meta. Consequently whatever happened on the Dutch Wikipedia is hardly relevant. Consequently the opinion of Dutch Wikimedians based on the Dutch Wikipedia is hardly relevant.

It is essential to accept that the guy has been proven to be framed; other persons have demonstrated to create sockpuppets in his name. Thanks, GerardM 09:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've not followed this closely and don't have the time to do so however it amazes me that folk can leap to conclusions about accounts created from IPs anywhere in the world and it is all down to Huib. I've posted off wiki the fact that I do not see that CU work is not about jumping to conclusions as a general rule which folk seem prone to do in this case. The behaviour on Commons was not wonderful but many folk get second chances whose background of behaviour to the project generally seem far less useful. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@GerardM, It's not impossible he evaded his block in Haifa. As you know (and that can be seen here) Abigor attented Wikimania 2011 and this proves it was him. There were also more edits of that IP related to the Langcom, so I'm pretty sure it's him. Apart from that, it is proven he has abused sockpuppets, not only per checkuser but he also admitted it several times, for example here. I'm not saying this all because I'm Dutch. I don't know much of his wrong behaviour on the Dutch Wikipedia, because that was before I became (highly) active there. I know him because of the sockpuppetry on Meta and Commons (see for instance the sockpuppetry during his desysop on Commons). It's enough. I don't trust him anymore. He got enough "second changes" already. Trijnstel 10:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If that is prove you consider him way more stupid then he actually is.. Putting his name on a list is PROOF? That is when people are actually doing what they can to damage his reputation?? Really, I wonder how you can come up with the notion that it is prove!! Thanks, GerardM 10:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that because he didn't have a laptop in Haifa (according to his own sayings I guess) it is proven that he is framed by someone else in Israel at that moment? I also respect his good contributions to 'the cause' but that doesn't seem a more reasonable explanation to me, sorry. Especially considering all the other facts from the past discussions Wiki broad. Is there any proof or reasonable argument that can be considered a good argument against the facts he has been blocked for or is this faith of hart the only thing we can go by? Wkr, Fontes 22:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just making a note here: We can't decide for commons (and I honestly don't care). As for meta: This is a checkuser block, and if a non-checkuser overrules this, the admin may lose their right. Just to make this clear. And this also means, that it doesn't matter what the outcome of this discussion will be. -Barras 10:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I am an admin and I can override. I doubt sincerely that the checkuser block is correct. As far as I know there is no policy about this and I do like to be shown that the checkuser is correct. Thanks GerardM 10:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, there are three(?) checkusers confirming this result. And if the data of the users is not too old, feel free to get Patho, Tiptoety and Drini to confirm it as well. I'm kinda sick that this gets now again blown up. Either trust us (and non of us had much interaction to him in the past, so we are not biased) or go to RFA and propose us for demotion. And for the rule, just read {{Checkuserblock}}. As you see, I'm not in favour of this as I know the checkuser result. -Barras 10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The point is that there is proof that other people are making the life of Sterkebak difficult. Consequently the question is to review the findings as they do not take into account that he has been abusing the system from Haifa. This has nothing to do with trust in people doing the checkuser, it has to do with the assumptions that are the reason for this block. Thanks, GerardM 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
        • To review the findings...Gerard do you want to accuse our checkusers of abusing tools? As first, three of them have confirm the result. As second, Huib is not a newbie who don´t know what he is doing. As third, he created a sock, even if he is a sysop elsewhere and knows the conseqences. And as last, he is not blocked because of nlwiki, but because of his behavior. And even if this is Huib, there will be no exceptions. You can overrule the decision, but as Barras wrote above, this could have consequences, and in my eyes it would be a decision against the whole community and not just against the blocking sysop. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Besides that. "I didn't see him with a laptop in Haifa" is hardly something to call proof. Wkr, Fontes 22:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Courcelles: being indefinitely blocked on three large projects does not demonstrate the global level of trust commensurate with holding such a seat. MADe 20:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Support with conditions. I paid close attention to this matter and have correspondence with Huib. The preponderance of the evidence was that Huib did violate some policies. The most serious evidence, however, was gross vandalism involving an abusive username. The checkuser evidence appeared conclusive. From this point of view, Huib was properly blocked. However, there is a possibility that there was some fairly sophisticated straw puppet creation, possibly involving some sophisticated hacking. Huib requested that he be provided with the actual checkuser data, but this request was denied, on spurious grounds that it was allegedly against privacy policy. Policy does allow disclosure of checkuser data on user consent. It remains possible that Huib was framed. It seems clear that there are those with the inclination to do that.
• First things first. That checkuser data was obtained and was requested quite some time ago. If checkuser data on which the RfC blocking Huib was based can still be obtained, it should be provided to Huib. That's a matter for a steward or possibly a local checkuser. This should be done as a courtesy to Huib and in case that what is involved is some serious security breach at his end.
• Huib's block interfered with his legitimate work with LangCom. It is possible to unblock him on the condition that he only use the account for LangCom business, violation of that would result in immediate reblock, until the restriction is formally lifted. Our communities tend toward black and white solutions, and people are more complicated than that. Whoever unblocks Huib should be willing and able to monitor and supervise subsequent activity to ensure that it satisfies conditions set by the unblocking administrator. If nobody is willing to do that, he should not be unblocked.
• I'd be willing to monitor, but I don't have tools here; nevertheless I'd agree to report a violation to this page for action. I do regularly look at meta and I'd make a point of watching Huib contributions. --Abd 20:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I am definitely in favor of removing Huib's block (LangCom has some problems because Huib doesn't have access to Meta; as well as I am in favor of giving the second chance to anyone who promised to change behavior); having in mind how the issue was complex, there is no need to build theories about CU's and stewards' behavior. Those who were the most involved in this task have counted all important issues and they concluded that they are not able to give private data because some of them are inconclusive. If Huib wants to get those data, he should ask Ombudsman commission, as their job is to consult WMF lawyer about possible issues related to the privacy law(s), as well as to take that responsibility. --Millosh 10:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Update: Huib told me via IRC that he is already working with WMF on that issue. That's the right procedure. --Millosh 10:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: It has come to my attention that some people are using my comments on the previous RfC about Huib as foundational "proof" that the WMF supports this block and the other similar ones. That is not the case. The Foundation officially has no position on issues of community governance. I personally do, but it appears I didn't clearly separate the two, so I wish to clarify my previous statement. Philippe (WMF) 21:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no opinion on whether or not to unblock Huib, but I personally don't understand why he is still on the LangCom after all of this. Perhaps a better action to take would be to find a more suitable candidate, rather than one who has been desysopped and blocked on multiple wikis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I want what the community wants. I'm hardly ever "the second chances guy" notwithstanding I tend to agree to Herbythyme but I understand the opposers as well. Leaving nlwiki and commons away (because meta is a different project) Abigor's behaviour in the past months in meta was not wonderful as Herby says but before I think he did good work in the LangCom/Spam area. I think that folks are most concerned regarding a vandal account created at meta. I said in the RfC (or at least tried to say) that given the nature of the tool and the technical data obtained for that very case it's not possible for me to make a definitive conclusion on what was the operator of that account (falacy #1: editor A and editor B shares the same IP so A and B are sockpuppets → error).

  I've been chatting with Huib on IRC: he's said he's sorry for all that happened and that he wants to do constructive work w/o dramahz and so on. I don't kwow if he's lying or he's saying the truth. I'll AGF. If he's finally unblocked he has the opportunity to demonstrate he's capable of doing good work w/o disrupting. If he's not, we can block again for betraying a possible community trust.

  I don't neglect the bad things he might have done in the past however he also did good work. Today I don't want to take a personal part in this case and as such if the community wants him to continue blocked, so be it. If the community finally accepts and wants Sterkeback unblocked, so be it. In this second case their editions can be restricted to LangCom work.

  My personal advice is to evaluate all this case as a whole and ponder what weights more. I repeat: I'm not taking part in this process, just commenting. Not supporting or opposing.

  Best regards, -- Dferg 08:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Support As per Dferg. If user is given a second chance, he should be immediately blocked on doing disruptive work again. ^Email Vaibhav ^Talk 11:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment IMHO we can give him a second chance. "Be a good guy" should be sounds like "forewarned is forearmed" --Melos 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I see this pretty much the same way as Dferg & Melos. I see real issues with nl wp and they have been there for years. However, with the exception of some silly behaviour recently, this user has always seemed to be a net positive to the project - there are folk who have been far less helpful/useful who seem to get away with it. If there were to be an unblock any repaet of the recent bad behaviour should result in a total block with no further discussion. Just my 0.02 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - some people really deserve second chances, some people even deserve a third chance. This person has had numerous chances and every time blew it big time in the process harming the community, harming and deceiving people and harming the build of the encyclopedia. The funny thing is that Huib is telling sad stories what other people did to him, without giving notice of what he did to other people. Both cannot be proved and both should not be used as an argument to unblock him. - Brimz 20:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think it's wise to stay to meta related issues. If people on meta want to give him a second chance, I'm not against it. I would warn them though. If a second chance is given I personally would like (but who am I?) it is made clear this doesn't mean he is proven innocent on earlier stated cases, it doesn't mean he's framed, wrongfully blocked or anything like that. Not making this clear will lead to illusions and blaming. Wkr, Fontes 20:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Properly, we look forward, not back. Given that Abigor did make some serious mistakes, as he acknowledged, an unblock should be forward-looking, not any kind of "exoneration." That's a separate matter. I've requested, before, that the actual checkuser data be released, because Abigor gave his consent to that, and policy allows it (with the user's consent). The very odd argument was given on one side that the evidence was supposedly absolutely conclusive, and, on the other side that it would be, if the vandal was not actually Abigor, a violation of the vandal's privacy. This seemed to me to be a complete misunderstanding of privacy policy; in effect, Abigor was made to suffer a humiliating identification with a serious vandal, but on the other, had no right to see the evidence, even if he requested and consented to release. That's grossly unfair, and poor process. Privacy policy does not protect clear vandals impersonating someone else.
    • Abigor must bear some responsibility for what happened. From my contact with him, he does. In theory, wikis do not punish, they only protect. We can protect the wiki without punishing Abigor. Where are the "numerous chances" that Brimz refers to? block log. I see one sequence here, not more than one. It happened over a week, and the block in the end was not based on continued offense. It was the original charges that led to the result.
    • Abigor was an active administrator. Administrators often make enemies, and often come under attack. Sometimes they respond inappropriately. We need to correct the inappropriate behavior; however, we also need to understand that administrators, in general, have been positive contributors. I had "issues" with Abigor as an administrator. So what? He lost his privileges here for non-use, not for misbehavior. I've argued that he should be allowed to be unblocked under some kind of mentorship. A mentor would agree to monitor his editing, and would report any problems for administrative action, if they were not resolved by discussion with Abigor. The mentor would be someone agreeable to both Abigor and the community. It is not that I expect he'd be a problem. The proposal is to satisfy the legitimate concerns of those who expect him to misbehave.
    • This is the paradox: if Abigor were really inclined to sock again, being blocked would certainly not stop him. Blocks, unless they become massive range blocks, which cause collateral damage, don't deter socking. Indeed, blocking the primary account can make it harder to detect socks. There is some very strange thinking behind how we block people, sometimes. In spite of all this, I see no sign that Abigor has done any serious socking; the edit from Haifa, even if it were his -- which is far from proven -- was harmless, not disruptive in itself. I suggest that any closer here attempt to maximize consensus. That is, seek a solution that, as much as possible, satisfies the concerns of all sides. --Abd 23:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Opposing unblock, apparent home wikis (from global contributions):
      • Trijnstel nlwiki
      • Brimz nlwiki
      • Mathonius nlwiki
      • Courcelles enwiki
      • MADe nlwiki
      • Fontes nlwiki added; did not explicitly oppose but consistently argues in one direction. --Abd 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)}}, refactored, Fontes, now, explicitly, does not oppose unblock
    • Only one of those opposing unblock is not from nlwiki, so far. I've observed this kind of pattern before. A block on meta should be based on behavior on meta. --Abd 00:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
      • This block is based on behaviour on meta. What you're doing here is just mean and offensive; my home wiki does not matter in this case. Mathonius 12:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I could be from Mars for that matter. It has to be about the arguments. Come on people! Lets all behave like rational human beings with the same passion and ultimate goal that brought us together on Wikimedia in the first place. In the end it doesn't matter how many people are in favour or against unblocking, or where they came from. It's about the arguments, the facts and above all the influence on realizing our goals. Wkr, Fontes 15:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support If an user who is known to use socks asking for unblock, it means that the user would like to change his approach, and I believe he should be given one more chance. He always could be re-blocked, if there would be any problem with his contributions. Thanks.--Mbz1 15:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

What I stated above about nlwiki users was neutrally presented, I hope, and no claim of misbehavior by any of the above mentioned editors has been asserted. However, the pattern is obvious, and I assume that any closer will properly consider the effect. If it is meta behavior that is the basis, then there will be a significant number of neutral meta users who support maintaining the block. If I have mischaracterized anyone's contributions, please correct me.

Contrary to the 5 users listed above opposing unblock, only 1 of which is not from nlwiki, we have, supporting unblock:

• GerardM nlwiktionary
• Abd enwikiversity (myself)
• Herbythyme enwikibooks 30K edits on Commons --Abd 18:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Millosh metawiki
• Vibhijain enwiki
• Melos scnwiki
• Mbz1 (no global account, user links only to hi-contribution enwiki account, blocked by the user's request). New comment. --Abd 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Fontes nlwiki Fontes allowed this move to the support unblock category[2]. --Abd 16:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral:

• Philippe (WMF) (WMF)
• Ajraddatz metawiki
• Dferg (MarcoAurelio) metawiki (but suggests conditional unblock)

Barras and WizardOfOz seem to have taken this request as an impeachment of checkusers, which it is not. However, there may be some questions about the interpretation of checkuser data. Based on what we know at this time, an unblock should not be based on rejection of checkuser conclusions.

In my personal discussions with Abigor on the checkuser issue, I've assumed maximal identification, i.e., IP and user agent, but there are possible ways in which a sophisticated vandal or hacker might be able to create such evidence (such as by hacking Abigor's computer), and Abigor would need to know if this happened. I asked for the data to be disclosed to him, not to help him "prove" that it wasn't him, but so that he could protect himself.

The real basis for unblock here is that all this happened quickly. If we assume the worst, i.e., that Abigor was the vandal here, creating an abusive username, nevertheless this was a long-term useful contributor, and he -- and the projects -- deserve a chance to recover. There is practically zero chance of further abuse on meta. He's been cooperative, and acknowledged mistakes.

There is clearly no consensus for a maintained block. If we set aside those involved with nlwiki, there is strong consensus for unblock. Unless something radically changes, Abigor should be unblocked, but an unblocking administrator may consider the arguments of those opposing unblock and set conditions and possibly set up supervision. --Abd 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Like stated above earlier: It shouldn't be an issue where people come from or what they vote. It's about the arguments they bring. I do however agree everybody should have a second chance, but not by playing around with numbers for consensus. Wkr, Fontes 15:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I also do not like your comments about me arguing in one direction. they are false. I have said, now multiple times, I do not oppose an unblock. The only thing I have argued is GerardM his claim that not seeing Huib with a laptop in Haifa is some kind of proof. Why lie about this? I would like you to remove me from your list with people who are oppose, where it's more than clear I'm not. I am very allergic to people who do not discuss things on arguments but on assumptions, fallacy and false representations of the truth. This is what you are doing now and I would very much like you to stop. Wkr, Fontes 15:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I will refactor what I wrote to clearly reflect your lack of opposition to unblock. As to "false representations," if you mean something else, could you be clear? --Abd 16:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with the above) It can be an issue when people preferentially pile in. The 'pedias can muster a large and sometimes highly motivated user base, which can distort meta results, on occasion. That's obviously happened, we may speculate on why. It's not necessary, I hope. Whether this "home wiki" information is relevant or not is up to the closer. --Abd 16:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but like stated multiple times, I'm not opposing so I would like you to remove that "false representation". I'm only arguing an argument brought up by GerardM (well, and now yours). I am in favour of giving somebody, including Huib, a second chance. Stating I'm not in combination with naming my home wiki is falsifying the numbers you use as an argument. Wkr, Fontes 16:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. ;-) Wkr, Fontes 16:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks now, from this comment, like you are supporting unblock as a "second chance." (Which is about the same as all other supporters.) If so, let me know and I'll move your name to the support unblock category. Or you could do that yourself, I won't object! Or leave it. Whatever. Thanks for discussing this. --Abd 17:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not oppose a second chance on Meta. You can move my name if you like. I do however agree with the fact that it should be monitored. But with Huib that shouldn't be an issue, he has enough people following him around crosswiki, including Meta. Wkr, Fontes 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. However, the unblocking admin may still wish to set conditions, which should be related to user objections to unblocking. Unfortunately, the basis for the objections isn't clear to me. No socking and no vandalism? What conditions will do is to avoid massive discussion if there is a problem. Prompt reblock if conditions are violated, that's all. "Socking" should be socking here, whatever he does elsewhere should be irrelevant. Abigor, if you read this, don't push the edges, period! Be careful about SUL!

How about this: "No more second chances!" After all, we have some users opposed to second chances! --Abd 17:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose the unblock, Is not like Abigor / Huib didn't had a second chance. He had. Lots of it. But i can not agree with the unblock of someone who has that extensive list of sock puppets. One time thing is "forgivable"... but after the 10^th time, is not. Béria Lima ^msg 20:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: For the record, my home wiki is not nl.wiki, and i think that counting is at least disruptive. Béria Lima ^msg 20:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Support It is clear that many from nl-wiki wants to have Abigor blocked and it is also clear that some is willing to do a lot of work to make sure that he is blocked elsewhere. So I think it is possible that someone is doing things to Abigor look more bad than he is. But the problem it is hard to prove.

I'm a checkuser on Commons and personally I do not think that the tools give a "I'm 100 % sure and I'm willing to die for that"-answer. So I think it is possible that all checkusers that have checked accounts that is or may be related to Abigor could have done a good work but still be wrong.

That said I also think that we should not unblock everyone that says "It was not me". But as said above admins risk to make enimies and when GerardM speaks up for Abigor I think we should give it a chance. And if Abigor can do good work for the LangCom then it is ok for me. Lets not kane it harder for the people behind the lines.

If he abuses the account after an unblock it is very easy to block again and I’m sure that there is a lot of users that volunteer to check and double check all edits Abigor does. --MGA73 13:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose @Abd: "There is clearly no consensus for a maintained block", that's a rather curious statement, you have to show a clear consensus for unblocking, to change his current status, not the opposite, he's already blocked, remember? There was already consensus for blocking him and I don't see any new objective element, just the same users opposing the previous block opening a new discussion. --Brownout^(msg) 14:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Puzzled, I am. Requests for comment/Abigor. Nobody opposed blocking. I supported the block. Brownout (home:itwiki) opposes unblock but gives no reason other than status quo. My statement about no consensus is true, but that was an extreme interpretation of the comments. There is, properly, -- I claim, reasons given above -- consensus for unblock with conditions. The consequences of that are up to a closer. --Abd 15:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is not a vote, afaik. An admin has to make a decision based on the arguments. Trijnstel 15:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You claim that the lack of willingness to discuss any longer a block already discussed ad nauseam is proof of consensus for unblock, not quite the same as showing consensus for unblock. And while we're at it: actually you didn't support the block, you got tired of his behaviour after you promptly dismissed the concerns of those in favour. Huib is a serial offender and he abused multiple accounts, he's a troublemaker and has already wasted a lot of volunteer's precious time, that is the reason for my oppose, I don't need your exegesis, thanks for trying. Anyway what is this great idea of enumerating home wikis of commenters? --Brownout^(msg) 15:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I asked Brownout to refactor the misrepresentation of the history. Brownout declined. --Abd 17:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Deblock under conditions

• Permanent link as-moved.

This section, as an active poll, requesting administrative action, moved back to WM:RFH.[3]. --Abd 18:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a mentorship

We are talking about a person. A person who does good work, a person who I am sure off has been set up. My proposal is that I will mentor Huib. He will do his work for the language committee as always. He will have access to Meta for that. He will have access to Commons because that is what he has been working on for the last year or so. He does not want nor need access to the nl.wikipedia.

When there are issues he will consult me. When people have issues with Huib, they can contact me and I will learn what I need to learn. Huib indicates that he will not use any sock puppets., he will also talk to me when there are issues. Thanks, GerardM 07:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a good proposal GerardM, i trust you that you can be a good mentor. ^Email Vaibhav ^Talk 09:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment and without giving my opinion: we can't decide about a possible unblock on Commons. This is Meta and not Commons. Trijnstel 09:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Trijnstel. The unblock on commons and nl.wiki should be upon the local community. ^Email Vaibhav ^Talk 09:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if all Huib may do after the unblock needs to pass by you, why unblock him? Why he don't send you a mail or IM with the changes he wants / need to do to some page and you do it? Béria Lima ^msg 10:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a naive proposal. It is far more efficient to approve an edit than it is to receive a description of an edit and then make it. What Beria has proposed can generally be done by any blocked or banned editor, just make the edit by IP. If the edit wants to simplify ban enforcement, representing a kind of cooperation, the editor may self-revert. People are often taken aback by this, but it does -- and has -- worked.

GerardM's proposal as it relates to Commons has nothing to do with the issue here, and it leads me to think that he doesn't understand the issues. I'm willing to "mentor" Abigor here on meta, if Abigor is willing to accept that, and I will ask him on his Talk page ASAP. "Monitor" would be a better term. I frequently check meta, and I get email notification of anything on my watchlist, including my Talk page and Abigor's talk page. If anyone has a complaint about Abigor, placed in either position, I would, as soon as possible, and first of all, advise him, and if he does not immediately comply with the advice, and assuming we have a clear agreement in place, I'd ask for whatever block was appropriate, on this RFH page, citing the agreement, no fuss. (I am not an administrator here, or I'd directly act.) I will ask for a block immediately if there is a gross violation. I will enforce whatever restrictions are placed by the latest unblocking administrator, whether I agree with them or not, pending discussion with the community. If I cannot continue in this position, I will find a replacement, preferably one agreeable to Abigor. The agreement will provide that if I become "absent," Abigor will stop all editing off of his Talk page, until there is a replacement with a similar agreement. If I decide that supervision like this is not longer necessary, I will notify the community and give time for the community to respond with a decision to reblock or to allow free editing again.

I do not see how this could fail. Mentorship frequently fails because it has not been so well specified. I trust that the value generated by Abigor's participation will exceed any trouble that this is for me, and I'm interested in this model, because it's a possible solution to many similar problems. --Abd 16:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

With regards to your proposal, Gerard: in general, I think it's a good idea and I'm willing to support an unblock if this is realistic, concrete and doesn't cause much worry amongst the Meta community. However, and I might be mistaken, but it seems like there's some naïveté... Do you acknowledge that Abigor has done bad things, even if he is not wholly responsible for all that's mentioned on the RfC? Are you prepared to take action if necessary (e.g., addressing him, blocking his account on Meta)? I think a statement by Abigor himself, promising to refrain from using alternative accounts (i.e., sock puppets or 'bots') and accepting the proposed mentorship, is an absolute necessity for an unblock of Sterkebak. Kind regards, Mathonius 10:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• As I wrote above, I agree only under conditions stated above. Even Huib told me on IRC that he agree with those. He is not a newbie that he could need a mentor. About commons, the local community should decide as we don´t have right to make decisions for other projects. Once more, he is not blocked because of his behavior on nlwiki, there he was already blocked before the block here. --WizardOfOz ^talk 12:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment @GerardM: could you please quantify the amount of work Huib did for the langcom on Meta, to understand the damage of this block is doing to the committee. I tried but I wasn't able to find much of it. --Brownout^(msg) 14:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

LangCom is a committee that meets by mailing list and that reports to the Board, it could be that most of the work would not be visible here. It is not essential that Abigor be unblocked to function on LangCom, but the block means one less LangCom hand to interface with meta. Abigor is also a sysop on two WMF wikis, and sysops need access to meta. If access can be provided without risk or damage, it should be provided. Hence any unblock here should adequately address any risk. --Abd 17:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but we're talking about the block on meta, not from mailing lists, and the only wiki relevant to Langcom work on which he's sysop it's incubator (the other is mediawikiwiki, inactive since 2010) where apparently he came back from inactivity just after this unblock was proposed. So can we please agree on the fact that we're dealing with the unblock of a simple user and stop using Langcom as an alibi? I think it would be respectful towards the work of its other members. --Brownout^(msg) 17:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have proposed a mentorship agreement.[4] Huib may take some time to consider this, I did not communicate about this with him off-wiki, it's a new idea. The agreement does not state restrictions, per se, that's up to an unblocking administrator if any specific restrictions are necessary. It does provide for protection against unanticipated issues, see the Agreement. I have agreed, if Huib accepts, to enforce any restrictions set by the unblocking administrator, whether I agree with them personally or not. On the other hand, Abigor wasn't engaged in disruptive editing here, using the Abigor account. If he socks disruptively using another account, it is not covered by the agreement, and he's wide open to being blocked for that regardless. Just as he could be socking today (have you checked under your bed?) I don't think so. --Abd 18:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I think mentorship makes sense just when dealing with newcomers, Huib may be everything but noob. In the past I had a good impression of Huib so I have no bias against him. I haven't enough elements to support or oppose unblocking but the main point should be "can we trust Abigor in the future?", the answer may be the same of "was the CU wrong?"
  Furthemore is always possible to set up a new "wikilife", just starting again, without doing the same mistakes. --Vituzzu 18:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC) (home wiki: it.wiki; are you related with the Dutch Connection? nope)

• I used the term "mentor" but this isn't like ordinary mentorship, it's simply identified and committed supervision, just in case. The checkuser question is not really the right question. My opinion is that if Abigor were truly inclined to sock, he'd be doing it. It can't be stopped, you know. It's actually safer if a user has an open account, for there is then something to compare checkuser results with! Checkuser is, however, not fully conclusive, ever. Suppose that someone hacked Abigor's computer, or, alternatively, captured his user agent information, then used the same IP as he'd used. He had used an open proxy (good reason to not to use an open proxy, someone else could!). Bingo! Maximum checkuser identification possible: IP and full user agent string, even if it's a rare one. They can be simulated, you know. Abigor claims that the meta vandal was not him. He might be right, he might be lying.
• The checkusers were not "wrong," I assume. They reported what they found. When all this came down, my conclusion was that we had to treat the checkuser data as conclusive. However, that's not the same thing as believing it was absolutely true, because that certainty is often impossible to obtain. Given that we now have some evidence that someone is trying to harass Abigor by pretending to be him socking, there is perhaps some increased doubt.
• It is not necessary to know. We do not punish, we protect. If Abigor was the vandal, I think he's learned his lesson. If he wasn't, then there was an injustice and an -- unavoidable but fixable -- error. Either way, if we can take steps to protect the wiki, and to protect users from having to go through RfC and RFH discussions, which waste time, we should allow him to edit.
• The actual restrictions, if any, are up to the closer. I'm simply offering to enforce them, and the agreement, if Abigor signs it, provides that I can do so with minimum fuss. I won't have to convince an admin that he's done anything wrong, that is what wastes time. He decides if he trusts me on this, and if he doesn't, he can propose anyone else acceptable to the unblocking admin. --Abd 20:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This has entirely gone on too long for anyone new to follow. We have two options now, a vote right here without discussion or take this to another RfC. Please stop commenting and discussing any further. This is not the only issue Meta sysops should be concerned with. Thank you. -The Management ;) Theo10011 20:25, 3 September 2011 -- sig added by Abd 20:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Move of this discussion to the Talk page here

This was an active request on MW:RFH, under discussion, with an active poll showing a rough consensus for unblock. It was moved here by Mathonius, who is not uninvolved, having initially opposed the request (But Mathonius later supported it with conditions), and this location will not be on as many watchlists. This may be a fine ultimate destination for the discussion, but moving an active poll away from those watching it is a problem. I have moved the poll section only back to MW:RFH, with linking to this page. The active poll is at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Deblock_under_conditions. --Abd 18:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The nlwiki connection

Guido den Broeder added an oppose comment to the poll on unblocking Abigor, and then immediately re-retired. I was familiar with the history of animosity between Abigor and Guido, connected with nlwiki. See Guido's block log here. It's broader than that, though. See [5] where Guido attempted to add an oppose comment to the closed RfAr/Abigor 3.

He wrote: Close was justified but fast, there may be more Dutch users wanting to join the unanimous opinion. We've had to suffer this guy for such a long time.

So I looked at the RfAr. Pile-in from users who have nlwiki as home. There is no doubt that Abigor had behaved inappropriately, the nlwiki connection was not the only reason for opposition, and it was not all from nlwiki users, it was a snow close. However, none of the opposition had to do with meta behavior or the use of meta admin tools.

As reviewed above, the balance of initial opinion on unblock was drastically different between nlwiki home users and non-nlwiki home users, and that is still largely true.

The Guido comment should be seen as completely unrelated to the issue in the poll, which isn't about Abigor as an administrator, but only as a user, and only at meta. Abigor's meta block log and other records do not show any long history of disruption at meta to confirm the claims of some that Abigor has been given many chances. It appears that this opinion is almost entirely due to problems on nlwiki, that eventually erupted cross-wiki. Where is the history of warnings and short blocks? Not on meta!

From the history, there is no reason to expect that there will be problems if Abigor is unblocked, particularly given the agreement he signed, and that he will be subject to whatever restrictions are placed by a closing administrator who unblocks. Some nlwiki users have accepted this. Certain others are determined, it seems, to oppose unblock no matter what, and some others have joined them. A closer should consider all this, and consider the welfare of the entire WMF community. We should not allow problems at one wiki to spread and infect other wikis and meta. --Abd 14:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop fabricating stuff, I've asked you this before. I have no history with Abigor on nl:Wikipedia, where I have not been active for many years. I merely heard about his exploits there. My oppose relates to his activities on Meta. Guido den Broeder 00:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

AGF, anyone? Even if Guido is hell-bent on brining Abigor down, he won't be able to do it by himself, and unlike Abigor he doesn't make sockpuppets. I don't see the need (or the evidence) to start a discussion on this, especially on an RfC on another user. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My responds

It took me over 3 years of being blocked, harassed and everything. I took the blockades, I took the false accusations. I kept silence, but now with my request for deblock going in a direction where users are claiming I did identity theft and identity fraud I do want to make something very clear. I'm done with being pushed around, the guy who made the complaint had it very easy since I was blocked, but here are some facts. While I'm the the bad guy' in the game I do want to protect his privacy and prevent me from being blocked.

On the 6th of February 2011 one of my Twitter accounts got hacked. [6] The Wikipedia users confirmed they had the password and where sending out tweets to destroy my name. Sure I broke and started to respond heavy on wiki. But while people where playing innocent on-wiki they where pushing me to my breaking point off-wiki. The difficult thing is to stay in there and defend you while all people think you done the things they accuse you off.

It started with vandalizing my userpages on different wikis with a message "cum slut": [7] This didn't happen on one wiki but on 4! Don't have the screenshots of them all.

After that it changed in wishing I was dead by the user that request the block of me: [8] [9]

Besides that the particular user harrased and destroyed my name by my friends off-wiki regarding wiki things [10] and he kept keeping contact with my girlfriend, speaking to her about all kinds of stuff trying to pull a responds from me till almost a year ago when she blocked him.

I'm not going to disclose anymore, cause that would cause me to give his real name, while I do not want it. But when you look at the time-stamps you can see that the harassment towards me was right around the moment the privacy accounts where created here on Meta. And I still would expect that he was using it, I was using a proxy that made me login to the a webserver with a small time a configuration error that made me use that IP publicly. It was never my intention to use that information publicly. And the accounts got according to my information created on that IP, and you would never guess who had untill that day just normal access to my server because we where working together on a project... Yes indeed.

Anyways if I get blocked for posting this message, sure my bad. But do realize, I did say bad things on-wiki and I regret saying this. But I was pushed to my breaking point by a group of three people, herassing me on other wiki's, by e-mail, hacking my twitter and harassing my friends. I didn't go from 0 tot crazy by myself. Abigor talk 15:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I will say that I consider Abigor credible on this. And, of course, Abigor made mistakes (and acknowledged them; he doesn't emphasize that here, but it's part of the story. There are lessons in this. The first one is Do not defend yourself. It's counter-intuitive, most people have no clue about this. But see meatball:DefendEachOther, this has been known for a long time. When you defend yourself, you look really bad. The wisdom of not defending yourself is actually found in a tradition from Muhammad, it's ancient. Avoiding self-defense (of this kind, this is about wiki words, not real-world attacks), and trusting the community to defend you, if it is needed, is basic to wiki survival. Most users never run into the problem, and, when accused, go ballistic. It is so unfair! Crazy, is the word Abigor uses. And most users will not look back for the cause, they will look at what they see. A crazy person. And that is what *they* react to. (In fact, skillful trolls know exactly how to set this up. It's like clockwork.)

When Abigor was an administrator here, I had problems with his actions. He was ready to condemn others for misbehavior, as I recall. I think he may now understand the other side better. He still is upset about what happened to him. I will propose this to him, as a reframe:

It was all for the best. You needed a break. Trust the communities, including nl.wiki. They will move in their own time. And if they don't move, that's their problem, not yours. You are, if blocked, completely relieved of responsibility for that wiki. Turn your attention to what actually works for you. Take care of yourself, and good luck. --Abd (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)