User talk:Abigor/Archives/2011/July

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Abd in topic Unblock request


Hello Abigor! I've blocked all your accounts for general project disruption and for playing us as I already said here. Just informing you. You should have known better. This is not a game we are playing here and your behaviour was clearly disruptive. Also I've removed your global rollback right from the account Abigor. -Barras 18:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a pity. Abigor, I'd love to hear from you what is going on -- you can respond here if you like. SJ talk | translate   10:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi SJ, do you mind if I respond by mail, I'm kind of affraid that what I say online will be used to get my out of the projects where I still can be active. Let me know if its okay? Yours sincerly, Huib talk Abigor 11:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course that's ok. I'm on gmail .


Barras, I hope you can take a stab at an RFC to clarify what you feel is going on. For others with concerns about Abigor's behavior, please post them on that page as well. SJ talk | translate   11:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm currently traveling but will be home tonight (local time) and make a e-mail. Huib talk Abigor 11:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. SJ talk | translate  
Just for the record, its send... If you want to know more just ask me.. I'm no good writer. Huib talk Abigor 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: Please remove the block Barras give me. Cross-wiki abuse doesn't mean a block here on meta since there wasn't any abuse on projects. Running a unapproved bot is discussable, our policy says I need to do 50 edits before I can request approval I did 2 so according to the policy nothing was wrong even if it against Policy that we have other "bots" doing the same without a flag. Abbusing multible accounts was on and not meta. So please unblock, that will make me be able to talk with the RFC and make me be able to continu my work for the LangCom, with a block I cant do that. Huib talk Abigor 18:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock reason: I understand the reasoning for this block completely however this user should at least have access on Meta for the RfC etc. Also the lock is now undone. Herby talk thyme 18:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template should be archived normally.

English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

I hope this deblock is only a deblock on meta and not the other projects... I think it's a very bad thing if we'd deblock a user who is creating accounts with names like Xxxxxx xxxxxx fucks Xxxxx Xxxxxx in his ass (CU on meta confirmed connection with Abigors account, account is allready locked and hidden - dferg and barras took care of this). After edits like those which show personal information of Abigors victims I don't honestly believe Abigor is able to contribute in a civilized way to Wikipedia. Silver Spoon 18:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Silver Spoon, what do you mean by showing personal information of victims? SJ talk | translate   20:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean Abigor made a blatant privacy violation which was confirmed by a CU here on meta. Fortunately it's all oversighted. Silver Spoon 20:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess Herby already responded here to you about that... Stop saying things that aren't true please. Huib talk Abigor 21:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying things that aren't true, I would ask you though to please stop saying things that aren't true. On IRC yesterday some CU's told me that they would react to this yesterday night. I have no idea why this is taking so long. I'll go ask them. Silver Spoon 20:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You asked for a diff, here it is. Silver Spoon 18:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC) You can apologize for calling me a liar here.Reply[reply]

I did not create a account like that... Would be impossible also, because registrering accounts was blocked also. But for your information both the local block as the global lock is gone. Huib talk Abigor 18:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't you think it's rather strange then for a CU to confirm it? In short: I don't believe you, I do believe the check users. Silver Spoon 18:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is the request or the diffs? Huib talk Abigor 18:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP concerned is by way of being a public one - if I ever find it was Huib's account I would reblock without hesitation. I still maintain access would be better given the RfC. --Herby talk thyme 18:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ask a steward or a local CheckUser to confirm it. — Waterfox ~talk~ 18:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the message here above. It was created from a public IP. And that is a CU saying that. Huib talk Abigor 19:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I had better clarify my comments here.
Primarily I considered unblocking Abigor to allow access to the RfC. I know it could have been done differently however - generally - folk do not get blocked on Meta except as a last resort if such a process is going on.
Secondly - the IP used for the blatant vandal account was a public IP. However that very fact means that neither I nor anyone else can confirm with certainty that it was or was not Abigor who created that account. I sincerely hope it was not as I have worked with him for some years and have respect for him. However neither I nor he can prove it was not him. Sadly his behaviour recently has not been the same as it was of old and I am sure there are reasons for that. I hope that provides more clarity than my rather brief comments yesterday. --Herby talk thyme 08:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Look, Abigor, you did make some mistakes. Notice that what is being said about you is that you don't admit mistakes, that you will lie and blame others to cover them up. I have no idea that you are lying about anything, but you also have not openly and clearly acknowledged errors. The account Dirt Diver was set up without disclosure, and started operating a bot without permission, right? I understand your motive, and it wasn't a "bad" one, but that was an error. Do you understand why it was a problem? If so, explain this in the RfC. Admit your errors, promptly, you'll find it won't make things worse, and people will be more confident that you won't make the same mistake again.

If you *haven't* made any mistakes, you are too good for the WMF, you may well be globally banned. I wish that was a joke, it's not. --Abd 23:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks bad, Abigor. If you had promptly admitted the errors, as rash actions, this would have blown over. Life lessons?
I assume you will be allowed continued Talk page access, and email access if you don't abuse it. If you need any assistance, let me know. v:User talk:Abd could be a good place to ask if you can't ask here. Good luck. --Abd 12:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I just find it very strange that there is a link between Dirt Diver and the account... Because I used the Toolserver to edit with Dirt Diver, and I'm sure the account isn't created from the toolserver... And they won't share the IP.. Still thinking I'm being framed here... Huib talk Abigor 15:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Abigor. I just deleted your user page as you requested. However, we don't delete user talk pages, so you can archive this page. mickit 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your request for IP information.

I have argued that you should be provided this information, see Talk:Requests_for_comment/Abigor ( Good luck. --Abd 19:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, when there will be no cooperation I guess I maybe should start a discussion at foundation-l because the privacy policy is foundation wide.
Since I cant argue there I will post here why I want to see the data...
The problem is I use GRPS connection for my laptop, this is provided by the biggest telecom company in the Netherlands, this uses one range of IP numbers for all those connections... Everybody that knows that... And yes there are a lot of those people can easely set me up by login in with a mobilephone on the KPN network. The main problem is, what I already posted on Herby's talkpage... At the moment the account was created I wasn't in the country, it has to be a german IP to be me. I can send the bill for the hotel when needed. Huib talk Abigor 21:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's completely besides the point where you were. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how you can be at one location and have an IP-adres from a completely different location. Silver Spoon 21:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There you go... Maybe you should never want to discuss things like this... when you login to KPN GPRS you always get a IP out a the same range... it doesn't matter where you are... And those IP's are complete random. Huib talk Abigor 22:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huib, frustrating, isn't it? I'm not seeing that you understand the situation. Before I explain it, just tell me straight. I have not seen you say that you were not the abusive account-creator, the one who created the abusive username. You've merely asked how this was known, demanded proof. If you were that user, it's easy to tell how it was identified, the checkusers affirmed that the strongest possible identification was made, and I believe I know what that means. If you were the user, I highly recommend you just say so, and apologize for all the fuss you created. Doing stuff in anger is rather easily forgiven, if admitted.
If you were that user, and are simply too embarrassed to admit it, and can't get over that -- it would be a huge victory if you could! -- then I suggest quietly disappearing, because what you would do to try to clear your name will possibly increase dislike of you. It can work that way.
But if you were not the user, understand, first of all, that this would take a lot of effort to establish, with a high likelihood of failure. You can see above and on the Talk page how certain people are about this. If you decide to go ahead, let me know and I'll assist. You can, of course, do it completely on your own, but your comments above show that you don't seem to understand the problem. If you were not the user, then there is a high probability that your computer is compromised, or was. Do not think of this as an excuse you can use. It is unlikely that anyone will believe it. --Abd 22:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the most fustrating of all of this is that SilverSpoon drops in every conversation with offtopic stuff... Its really annoying...
I'm not going to say that my laptops where compromised, if I would say that it would cost my job and I'm sure that isn't the case. The weekend that the account is created I had my laptop with me, or in a locker. So that wouldn't be the problem. The only thing that I think is very strange in the conversation is that they where able to link Dirt Diver to Abigor and the removed nick. I was registered on meta with Dirt Diver by a proxie unlinkable to Abigor, after that the bots edits where made from the toolserver. But somehow the account is created and is linkable to Abigor and Dirt Diver and that sounds very strange to me, thats why I want to see the IP and user-agent info for that account. Is it only the IP that matches or is it more? And yeah maybe it will cost lots of time and no I'm not going to put lots of time in it.
For now the only thing I need to come clean about is that "Delay" was a shared account used by 4 people, but that is a block-able offence, so that doesn't change a thing. I didn't edit with it on Wikipedia but was one of the 4 people. T
I do not have to come clean about harrasment what so ever. I did never created any accounts that would compromise the privacy for Sumurai8, yeah we where in a argument but I didn't cross the border between right and wrong. Huib talk Abigor 23:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I wasn't clear enough so I'll try and explain it to you in Jip and Janneke language. You said: "At the moment the account was created I wasn't in the country, it has to be a german IP to be me." My respons was intended to reply to this statement. Unfortunately you didn't get it. What I meant to say was: If a person is in another country, lik you were in Germany, this persondoesn't have to have a German IP when editing on Wikipedia. For example: you could use a Virtual Private Network while you're staying in Germany and then edit through this VPN connection on Wikipedia. When a CU is then requested on Wikipedia this CU wouldn't show the German IP, but the VPN-IP instead. So what I'm saying is that being in Germany doesn't mean the only way for you to edit was through a German IP-adress. You could have used a VPN or another method to edit from a another ( := Dutch) IP-adres. In your response I read that you were suggesting that because you were "being in Germany" it was impossible to have another IP-adress. I just showed you the opposite. Please elaborate why you think this is off-topic. I don't agree with that assessment. Silver Spoon 15:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course you are technically correct, but this could be practically irrelevant. Abigor knows about using proxies, obviously, he acknowledges using a proxy to create Dirt Diver. Bottom line, Silver Spoon, he doesn't consider your comment welcome. How about leaving the user his Talk page? There is no proposal for unblock here where you would have a legitimate need to oppose. What Abigor truly did and what he truly wants is not a matter than I can divine. However, an AGF interpretation would be that he didn't make the vandalism edits and wants to know what the hell happened. An ABF interpreation would be that he just wants to know how he screwed up. Bottom line: if he did make the edits, simply knowing that he screwed up would be enough to cause him to be more careful, if he decides to sock in the future. If he didn't, then providing him the information will help him to understand what happened, again, and what problems he may wish to check for, such as a compromised computer, very serious for him (he could "lose his job"). Indeed, he might use the information to make a claim of error, but that's not going to fly unless he can present convincing evidence. "The dog ate my homework" isn't going to work here. Even if the dog did eat his homework.
I don't think it's practically irrelevant. But you might be correct about his dog eating the homework, unfortunately when the dog-story fails he'll come up with a cat or another animal. I don't think I'll get an apology from him, the only reaction is to get rid of it al. So, it might indeed be better to leave this talk page alone. I don't think I'll accomplish anything here. Silver Spoon 18:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To make it more easy for the checkusers: Was the account created by a IP 93.186.23.** I'm currently loggedin from it wouldn't be to hard to confirm that or not? Huib talk Abigor 23:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is what you want, I think: log-in/edit times and IP for Abigor, Dirt Diver, and the vandal account, and user agent information. My opinion is that someone asking for this is consenting to public disclosure of the information, do you agree to this? You have acknowledged being Dirt Diver, and your curiosity about how Dirt Diver was identified is not adequate reason to take the time of a checkuser, in my opinion. However, I understand your comment above as a denial of being the vandal user. Is that true? --Abd 02:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilverSpoon I told you that I don't want you here... And that I'm not going to respond to you anymore... You wanted me blocked, and you got it.... So now just leave, you are going over the line here it starting to look like herassment. Huib talk Abigor 20:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drop the cudgel, Abigor, SilverSpoon, above, already agreed to leave this talk page alone. Let this user have the user's own opinion, you have more important fish to fry. Please remember, I know it's easy to forget, you did do at least some of what brought down the consequences. --Abd 03:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will promise with everything I have that I'm not the vandal user, and I want to find out what happend. Cuz how Dferg and Barras say they found the link is simply impossible since Dirt Diver only logged in by a proxy or Toolserver. So, I know I'm in trouble for socking with that account, no quistions asked... But the link with the vandal account and Dirt Diver is simply not possible... But the stewards are not going to discuss it... So I don't get any proof but I will pay the price, Dferg or Barras didn't become a CU on also... And the Dutch are trying to get me blocked in the first place, so sorry I don't believe any data if its been given my the Dutch CU people. Huib talk Abigor 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I believe that you should be given this information, but, meanwhile, I highly recommend that you also drop the cudgel with respect to "the Dutch," even though you may be right. Focus on what you can do that will serve your future. Take a break. Etc. All it takes is one checkuser willing to give you the information. If you don't present this as if it were a vendetta against the Dutch, you have a better chance of getting the information, providing it to you is not, as was asserted, a violation of privacy policy, the interpretations that have been given were preposterous. You might also formally request this information from the Ombudsmen, or the Foundation. If you were not the vandal user, you have possibly been defamed, or someone has effectively impersonated you, you have a critical interest in that data. So one step at a time.
I have only so much time, but I'll do what I can. If you have anything specific you need assistance with, let me know. I'm not certain where you should start, you might know better than I. Start with the lowest level, if there is a way you can mail the checkusers or stewards, I'd suggest it. Then, if that fails, the Ombudsmen. Then perhaps OTRS or the Foundation.
You've been caught in a trap: on the one hand, it's been asserted that the identification as the vandal was effectively certain, down to the same IP and user agent, unusual information, that the vandal and Dirt Diver were clearly using the same access and computer or device. On the other that this information cannot be revealed to you because you might *not* be the vandal, so "private information" of the vandal might be revealed to you. That's preposterous. A vandal like that has forfeited all right to privacy, and you can see this in that your right to privacy was violated but on the (legitimate) claim that the vandalism justified it. Good luck. --Abd 03:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One more element here, Abigor. Do you permit the release of checkuser data with respect to
    • Abigor,
    • Dirt Diver, acknowledged as well as found by checkuser to be you,
    • The vandal editor confirmed by the appearance of checkuser data to be you, per your RfC?
  • You have already, above, revealed likely IP for Abigor, but you would, here, be consenting to the release of full data, including but not limited to the user agent string. Thanks. --Abd 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I give permission to release the data.
The info about my home IP is this IP is owned by me and didn't change for the last year, all of my edits at home are done by this adress
User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0 Huib talk Abigor 19:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the mobile phone:
User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9300; nl) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/ Mobile Safari/534.8+
What about your notebook that runs on Android? Freaky Fries 19:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I bought that one yesterday don't see how that could be important? Huib talk Abigor 21:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done [1]. Good luck. --Abd 03:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[redacted username] and [redacted username]

Since I'm already blocked it can do no harm to bring this out also, the Dutch ArbCOM already know about it for 6 months but decided not to go with it. On The Dutch Wikipedia there is a policy stating when you say something about a legal case you will be blocked indef. But since I'm already blocked what would be the worse that can happen....

Currently starting from 01-2011 there is a legal case under investigation by the Dutch Police

This case is against [redacted] and [redacted] including 2 other people that I will not mention here in this message. This case is about harrasing, stalking, and I don't know the English Word but using peoples name to get things done. Currently the patron here completly fits all the things that happend before...

Let the community decide what to do whit this, when trusted people from the community wants to see the e-mails between [redacted] and me v.s the policy just use the e-mail this user button and I can share.

I just want to say here, thanks for destroying me.... Huib talk Abigor 14:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abigor, until and unless you understand how you assisted in this process, you will continue to live in a world where you are the victim and others are at fault. It was an error to name the users, so I'm redacting that. Someone else can decide, obviously, if this is worth revision deletion. What you can lose here is still your talk page access. You just provided sufficient excuse for withdrawal of that access.
It is not that you cannot say "something about a legal case." You haven't understood the Dutch policy, which also applies here. Saying that there is a legal case over harassment is probably okay, but naming the users involved, openly, is defaming them. What you can do is complicated to explain, but you've got to start sitting on your hands, you are thrashing about and causing more damage for yourself. How about asking someone privately, someone you trust, before you put something that you know could cause a problem here?
If your talk page access is cut off, you may email me. If your email access here is cut off, you may email me through Wikiversity, at present, and I can also be PM'd on Wikipedia Review.
You may have dodged that bullet, see [2]. Don't try that again, I predict that next time there is a problem with your user page edits, your talk access will be blocked. It might still happen, but probably not. --Abd 17:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't mend that to happen... It still that its very hard to say anything when everybody is watching. Huib talk Abigor 17:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it's taken until now for you to realize this: these sites are wikis with public history. At any given time, few may be watching, or none, but the future is watching. Always. Keep it in mind! (Even when you are alone and think nobody can see you, you are watching, from your own future.) As you are now realizing, your future employer may be watching!
Can you understand, looking back. why mentioning the names of the users above, was a problem, looking back? You were effectively making charges against them, which can be considered user talk page abuse. Start to think how these things you are tempted to do will look to others. Be careful! You are not now allowed to make charges against other users on this wiki. We can talk about speculation about what happened with the vandal account, but please, don't name any names here! If you were spoofed, you may be able to do something through private channels, doing anything that involves user names other than your own, here, will almost certainly be a problem. I don't recommend doing that on Wikiversity, either, if you feel you must mention a specific user, use email. I will keep your email confidential. (You do know that I have only the power of an ordinary user, right?) --Abd 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed close of RfC

Abigor, I closed the RfC, and if it sticks, and nobody does it before me, I'll notify the wikis, where you have admin privileges, of the RfC closure. It's time to move on. You are not locked, and when I notify the local wikis, they will not be advised as to how to respond, the notice would simply give the closing statement with a link. I do recommend, again, complete honesty, be careful. Good luck. --Abd 16:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I'm going to edit anymore, I don't think I can edit because you know my real name is mentioned in the RFC, on Commons, and who knows where else. This is damaging me, its going to hit me in real life, is that something that can be removed also, the case is closed for now. I can work on this in a private way and I'm not going to stop yet but I can sit on my hand here and do nothing when my privacy is respected also.
Can you please request on my behalf the removal of the accounts with my full name in it on the RFC, De-admin, and the "case-file" on the Dutch Wikipedia? Futhermore can you please ask to lock and hide the account with my full name. I know you all think I screwed up, and yeah I know the evidance points in that direction, but sure I have some respect left to get me that privacy also? If this is going into Google it will hunt me down untill the end of time... Huib talk Abigor 17:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will do what I can. I intended to make a checkuser request to reveal to you the needed information, you gave permission for disclosure above. If you change your mind about that, and you want me to stop, just let me know ASAP. You could also make a request yourself in ways that have been mentioned, through checkuser-l, through the Ombudsman, through OTRS, I think. I've never gone that route, I will just do a checkuser request here and leave it at that. Good luck. Case-files are difficult to get removed, but they can be courtesy blanked so that they don't show up in searches but can still be read. They can be redacted to remove real-life identity information and then the old revisions deleted.
Because, indeed, you may have suffered some long-term real-world damage, you may legally compel certain things. But I don't recommend going the "legally compelling" route yet, and don't threaten it. Just do it, if you are going to do it, when it becomes necessary, if due process is exhausted.
One more point. Don't mention the places where your real name is mentioned, anywhere on-wiki. You may email those places to me and I'll see what I can do to help, and you may also go through OTRS on this. You should have the right to have private identity information hidden. --Abd 19:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Abigor, if there is anything to be done at Commons to protect your privacy, please send such requests to and I or someone else will take a look at that. Regards, AFBorchert 20:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adb, please continu with those things, I'm currently working on my private contacts within Wikimedia. I would like to thank you for not letting me fall. Huib talk Abigor 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFBorchert, the e-mail will come tonight I think. Huib talk Abigor 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOINDEX suggestion

User:Silver Spoon, who is avoiding your Talk page out of respect for your wishes, suggested to me that certain pages here might be no-indexed, out of concern for your privacy. If you will email me (use the interface here or on Wikiversity), listing pages, I will add noindex tags to pages as requested, unless I see objection. While you may also let me know privately about pages of concern, with your real name shown, I suggest instead using OTRS, as a non-admin I cannot directly assist with this. --Abd 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock request

Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: For srp

Unblock reason: Unblocked temporarily to request rights on SRP. Will be re-blocked with previous block settings. — Tanvir | Talk ] 11:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template should be archived normally.

English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

Unblock request declined

This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request.
Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason: SRP

Decline reason: Same as block reason.[3] WizardOfOz talk 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

Would it be possible to consider to remove the block, if and only if all edits that are done will be langcom related? The fact that I cant edit will make it almost impossible to work for this Com. When I would break it, I agree with a total block including talkpage and e-mail. Could we talk about this? Huib talk Abigor 15:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abigor, I stand ready to assist you in making any legitimate requests here that you wish. I do support conditional unblocks, they are the equivalent of topic bans; in this case, it would be a topic ban allowing specific edits only, but politically it might be best to wait until there is a history of successful requests, as will be shown with my assistance (or that of others). There are various ways to proceed, some more controversial than others. Let's start with the least controversial! If you want to make a request on meta, place the wikitext of the request here, in a special section, together with a link showing where to put it. You should be able to do that with little more work than to make the request directly. I (or anyone else) will then, judging the request as non-disruptive, copy it to the appropriate place and annotate it to show the origin. Easy-peasy, there will merely be a little delay. This will all be transparent and if someone doesn't like it, they can object. Okay? --Abd 18:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main problem is here that I'm not able to do my job's since I can use the SRP page, also I can't edit any langCom related page. This is the main problem of meta, it has lots of things that are done here and excluding somebody here causes lots of bigger troubles. Meta is a cross-wiki hub, so you always *need* meta.
Secondly the main problem is sock abuse, Delay and Dirt Diver didn't do any disrupting edits here, and its not against any policy to have "multible accounts". So while the vandal is "likely to be me" there is also still room there for a error. That would mean that it could be that I would be kicked out the langcom for not being able to my work while there could be a "mistake" in place and that my innocence will be proved in the next comming months.
This option will let me work for the langcom and keep me out of the community like barras wants. Seems to me for a win / win ? Huib talk Abigor 09:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Abigor. You have few options left. As Abd pointed out here and elsewhere continuing, the web of lies is no option when you want to clean up your act. This is exactly what you again do here now. Coming clean means telling the truth and saying sorry big time to all involved. As long as you cannot do this, you harm yourself and the community. Even telling here that you did no harm with your socks is not correct - see for example unapproved bot runs also on Meta for Dirt Diver and see the lying everywhere denying that Delay was your sockpuppet up until to the arbitration committee on your original homewiki. Either you come clean and apologise unconditionally, say you used and misused sockpuppets and even a couple of times was so angry that you lashed out with vandal accounts so people can reconsider trusting you. Unless that day arrives, I am afraid your block on Meta will stay where it is - with someone continuing a charade there is no trust at all and thus you cannot contribute on the projects. Hope this sinks in. Trijnstel 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trijnstel (just noticed for the first time the ij instead of the EI no NS fan? :P) I can't say sorry for something I didn't do, I did never used a vandal account. You know I have been harresed by somebody in Wikipedia that even came close to irl business, it doesn't matter how much I dislike some users I would never create accounts like that. If that part is keeping me blocked than so be it, there is nothing else to come clean about all other things are already handled here. And just for the record before words are twisted, I used the account Delay a few times, I didn't create it or own it. Huib talk Abigor 13:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason shared accounts are prohibited is precisely because of this. You are, by using that account once, responsible for everything the account did, as if it was you. Get it? --Abd 13:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict with above)Sigh. I don't see any charade here. Abigor believes that the bot did no harm, and as far as what I've seen it did not, except that it was unapproved. Basically it harmed him. He did lie, which also harmed him, and the fuss did harm (to everyone). In his defense I'll claim that his good work was worth more. I do see a lack of understanding, though. I'll stick with what I wrote: Abigor can and should admit what he did, but not admit what he did not do. We must treat him as if he were the vandal, procedurally, because the checkuser evidence shows that Dirt Diver and the vandal used the same access, and Dirt Diver was his sock, so he's responsible (same situation with a compromised password, in fact). But that does not extend to expecting him to admit that it was him, because it remains possible that the Dirt Diver account was compromised. If Dirt Diver was, indeed, the vandal, it's actually easier. If he admits it, he can move on. But if he wasn't?
In time, Abigor may be able to see the deeper problem, what he did to create the animosity that was so deep that, if he wasn't the vandal, someone was motivated to create the appearance that he was.
Right now, Abigor, I suggest focusing on getting the checkuser evidence you need for your own investigation. You screwed up. Every opportunity you have to admit that you screwed up, if you do it, will help and not hurt. Every opportunity you have to say "I did no harm," and "It wasn't my fault," if you do it, will hurt. At this point, if you were not the vandal (there may be more than one vandal, did you do any of that?), still, the damage is done, your credibility is shot, and prospects for unblock at meta are about zero. I've offered to assist and I'm sure others will, also, but things are going to be more difficult for you than you've been accustomed to. You'll need more patience. Maybe that's what you've needed all along.
Trijnstel is right, in at least one way. Saying "sorry" to everyone whose time you wasted by lying and deception, by setting up a situation where, if you were spoofed by a vandal, nobody would believe you, will start to heal the situation. I don't know how long it will take. If you establish a record of clean service on the other wikis, in spite of the restrictions, you can probably recover. It could take some years. Probably, though, if those apologies aren't made, it will either take far longer, or it won't happen at all.
I'm running on the assumption (not "belief") that you were not the last vandal, but you set up the conditions for that vandal to whack you, by having used a proxy server in order to conceal your Dirt Diver connection. That set you up. If you had operated openly, if you had obtained bot permission first, etc., etc., you would not be in this fix.
I'm not suggesting you walk around with your head hanging in shame. Just admit you did what you did, apologize for any damage or harm or disappointment you caused, and move on. Part of apologizing is undertaking to not repeat the mistakes. Right?
One more point. You mention Barras, in a way that indicates you think Barras is your enemy. I highly recommend you drop that idea, it's poison, whether you are "right" or not. Barras has resigned as a steward, and, from the timing, I'm suspecting that it was triggered by the request for checkuser data, though I don't really understand it (and maybe he doesn't either!). Let it go! This is not about Barras. It's about what you did, and how to recover from that. Good luck. --Abd 13:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to answer the other way arround, from bottem to top, don't really know why but it feels much easier.
First point is that I do not see Barras as a enemy, if he stopped because of the request for the checkuser data it would be a real shame, he always did a great job and I really think its a bad thing he stopped. (I missed the removal of his rights so I was kind of suprised about this message.)
I don't see people as enemies, that would cuz a error in my vieuw, and I'm currently not looking back, but looking on a way to solve this. The past is in the past, things happend and they cant change I guess. People make mistakes, I noticed Phillipe didn't saw my message here and posted the data about Delay... Did it make me angry? Yeah, sure... Two days or more has past and staying angry will not work so he made a mistake, I'm sure I made more of them...
I already told Trijnstel that I'm sorry, and he / she accepted that apology for my attack... I'm sorry if I wasted time from the community and sure, there where better ways to spend the hours that where put in the RFC.
If I need to take full responsibilty for all the edits done by Delay, I will take that. Currently I revieuw all the edits and it created mostly good stuff. It wrote articles and uploaded some good pictures, I noted that there was a copyvio also... There could be a problem, and with that it started all this. I'm sorry for the time that it costed for the community of Commons, I know its hard to check for copyvios, and I'm sure the minutes spend in that would be better of elsewhere. I didn't know the account would be trouble, I used it with the best intentions not to cause trouble at all.
You are saying that it can take years untill everything is fixed, yeah sure... We all know when you mess something up you can never get it completly like it was. I'm not asking for a clean start also... If the block would lifted there will stays logs on Commons,, Meta and a wiki I can't read the languages of. So this will follow me forever... Thats fine by me, this happend there is no need to make it go away. Running away is much easier that facing all the troubles and still here I am. Currently it would be very easy to create a new account and start all over again, didn't do that also... I'm still working on getting me to go futher. I'm still active on projects and I'm still working under Abigor so it kind of feels like walking with your head in shame. Everybody knows what happend and everybody will look at all my contributions and that completly fine by me.
Currently there is a hunt for the checkusers data, this will damage me only more because people who didn't follow the RFC are pointed at it and will find out, also no problem. I'm not going to hide for it. There was a discussion for almost a week about the outcome of the checkuser, that means it wasn't a clear cut case. So yeah, I'm using my rights to get to the bottem of this, but thats not to waste more time, thats because I fully believe that the vandal account was not made by me.
There where problems before with my connection on the Dutch Wikipedia, user:Akoopal visited me at my home and fixed it. I will do everything thats needed to get a solution here, I already posted user-agent and ip numbers. I can give a list off all the IP's I own it it would help. None of that mend to harm the project or do any distruption but to help and go futher. Huib talk Abigor 16:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not despair. No, there is no more information for you to provide. The case is closed here, you won't reopen it unless some very good reason appears to come to a different conclusion, and only if you could offer "proof," which is a big word. Just talking about your innocence can be thought of as disruptive. So don't. You need that checkuser data, the data that was used to impeach you. That's all. You'll, then, do what you can do, you'll know, for your own information. I may not be able to do any more than what I've done, but you can pursue this, if answers don't show up quickly, with the OC and OTRS. My opinion is that you have a legal right to that data, so go ahead and pursue your rights, but off-wiki. You can let me know what happens if you like, but that's just for my curiosity. Again, if you need assistance here, let me know. I get email notification of changes to your talk page, though it sometimes comes a long time later! You may also email me directly, but if it's a request for help here on meta, it's best if it *also* is on your talk page, for transparency, and it shows the request is from you, proving it. But the open request could be somewhere else, such as on the target wiki.
Oh, and I saw Barras's action dropping his steward bit in the log. He hasn't discussed it anywhere, AFAIK, but he confirmed it when I thanked him for his service, by referring to that note in another message in German on his Talk. I'm glad I mentioned this to you because you have cleared up the question of animosity. Good luck. --Abd 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, [4] Dferg just changed his "very high" and all his parts that he is "sure" in his statement. This means he has second thoughts? Strange when you change a statement after a block is done. All those accounts have the same source, so they all edit the same computer once... Thats not really conclusive is it? Huib talk Abigor 09:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a wiki, Abigor, anything that can be done can be undone. What Dferg has done is favorable to you, but not immediately. He backed up from what he'd said. No, it's not conclusive that it was "Abigor." What was conclusive, to him, was that Dirt Diver (ie., presumed to be you) was using precisely the same device to access the internet as the vandal. That's quite enough to establish a strong enough presumption, that it was you, to block you. And that is why, if you didn't do this, you need to get that checkuser information. Stay focused! If your account, Dirt Diver, was accessible to someone else, you've got a big problem, just as you'd have a big problem if someone hacked your password for Abigor. If you'd have admitted Dirt Diver from the beginning, if you'd not used a proxy for it, if you had not caused the community to become suspicious of you in other ways -- which you acknowledge doing -- you'd not be having this problem even if someone hacked your Dirt Diver password or was otherwise able to impersonate you. You also seem to have assumed that checkusers were out to get you, a bit mistake. Again, if you'd trusted the checkusers, assuming you didn't vandalize, you'd have immediately changed your password and would have announced the problem. Do you see how your broken relationship with the community made all this worse?
You were properly blocked, and there is nothing strange here. What Dferg acknowledged was already obvious to anyone paying attention who understands how checkuser works. His earlier statement was actually correct, as far as practical usage is concerned. With that evidence, given Dirt Diver being known to be you, you were cooked. So either you screwed up with ineffective concealment of your information, or you were skillfully impersonated. We don't care, in fact, because "skillful impersonation" could accomplish anything, and then we would have no way to protect the wiki, so we will assume that appearances are accurate, until and unless it is proven otherwise.
I am arguing that you should be given the checkuser information, out of the contingency that it wasn't you, because, if it was you, it's harmless, and if it was not you, somebody should find out what happened, starting with you. That IP information, you could go to the police with it, you have other options, you could at least know if it was actually your device or not. It is not impossible that this particular aspect of this situation could be cleared up, making it a bit easier for you to return later. But that's speculative, and the community cannot count on that. Stick with attempting to get the checkuser information, my opinion is that you have a legal right to it, if you insist through legal means, addressing the Foundation. I'm not a lawyer, for sure, but I do have some knowledge of common law. --Abd 16:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dferg has also resigned the checkuser tool, citing Barras's situation as being his situation, see User_talk:Dferg#Request. I think they don't understand the situation.... Dferg refers to the local checkuser page. I suppose I could try that, having been referred. No time at the moment for this. --Abd 16:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the user page of "Abigor/Archives/2011/July".