Jump to content

Requests for comment/Abigor

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. Abigor socking and false statements shown, per checkuser and other evidence. Blocked on meta. No global lock. Notify local wikis where Abigor has admin privileges.

A whole slew of complaints related to Abigor turned up the morning of July 3, leading to checkusers on various wikis, and the following request for a global lock. Request for comment: what action if any should be taken?


Concerns of July 3

[edit]

Moved from Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Abigor.

  • Serious (cross-wiki) harrassment of sysops and wikipedians after blocks on nl.wiki and meta after vandalism, editwarring, misuse of rights, violating bot policy, privacy violations and more. This morning created a serious privacy violation account on meta which has been locked/hidden as well by stewards. Many checkusers performed to unravel the network of sockpuppets on nl-wiki, commons and meta. Mathonius 07:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Abigor is blocked in many projects, also lost his global rights due to distrust. Although he holds sysop rights in two other projects, but I think lock is necessary to make an end of this. I see no reason to keep an sock-master unlocked. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 07:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently the only proper block seems to be on one wiki (nl.wp), done a month ago. (everyone is blocked on foundationwiki once they no longer have a need to edit it, and the user was not an active editor on nvwiki.) Socking (as opposed to simply having multiple accounts), or worse, master-socking, has been alleged but not yet demonstrated. I was unable to find a privacy violation this morning, though I looked. Could you provide something closer to a diff or link? –SJ talk | translate   20:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

← Please see Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Delay. I will be honest, I looked into these accusations a while ago and did in fact find that Abigor = Delay but failed to see any editing overlap or abuse occurring on commons. Tiptoety talk 15:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason stated is "Serious (cross-wiki) harrassment of sysops and wikipedians". Would it be possible to add a few diffs for that claim? --MGA73 17:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have unlocked User:Abigor; this will give the affected user a chance to comment, and permit a more thorough discussion. In the case there is any abuse, the lock may be reinstated. --Eptalon 17:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the problematic behaviour seems to be summarised on this page at commons. --Eptalon 21:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tiptoety: If Abigor is Delay, there was indeed abuse occurring at Commons, since the Delay account was used to upload a blatant copyvio with faked EXIF info and attributed to Abigor. This is mentioned in the Commons discussion linked above.--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment Abigor requested on nl-wiki an unblock by using the "ontsnappingsclausule" (= escape clause, literally translated).[1] Trijnstel 10:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Abigor on multiple accounts

[edit]

Recognized accounts and bots

[edit]
I'm sorry to say but all the sterkebak SterkeBak accounts are noted on my userpage, and bots are no socks. Huib talk Abigor 19:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a user:Abibot btw. Huib talk Abigor 17:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged socks

[edit]

Each of these were claimed by at least one check (on nl:wp or commons) to be a sock, based on contributions/history or other info. Abigor claims the first two were alts and not socks, and the next three are close to him but not him. –SJ talk | translate  

Alleged harrassing usernames

[edit]
  • Three abusing usernames with privacy violation: Xxxxxx1=Xxxxxx2, Xxxxxx2=Xxxxxx1, Xxxxxx again (original names hidden). The first two accounts (both created on Meta) contained the username and real name of a Dutch user of Wikipedia. The first one created an article in the main space (WikiWeet) with privacy violation and all three vandalised the user page of that user.[17]
    Please note that the final outcome was:accounts can't be linked to Abigor So this shouldn't be listed here. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abigor (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic says "alleged harrassing usernames" and this is one of them. Btw, these were carrying the same name as that account below. Trijnstel 09:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why you want them here listed if there is negative checkuser result? Huib talk Abigor 10:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They couldn't get technically linked to you, because open proxies were used to create them. The same happened on Commons (using open proxies to support your argument) and that was confirmed by checkuser overthere. Another link was the name provided in those accounts. It's the same as listed below (that one - name hidden - was created by a public IP) and it's not a secret you have a personal conflict with him for quite a while. Trijnstel 10:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xxxxxx xxxxxx fucks Xxxxx Xxxxxx in his ass [18]
    Original name hidden. Abigor responded "I did not create a account like that..." –SJ talk | translate  
    Checkusers on IRC told me they'd respond to this. I have no idea why it's taking so long, so I asked two of them: 1, 2. I hope they'll respond soon. Silver Spoon 20:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you trying to talk to all the CheckUsers in the hope to get a different answer? [19] you already had a respondse. Huib talk Abigor 20:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to talk to all the CheckUsers in the hope to get a different answer, I'm waiting to get an answer, because there isn't one yet. And as you can see here there will be an answer. I suggest we'll wait for that. Silver Spoon 20:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abigor

[edit]

I had already placed a point of view but I think its also needed to make a formal statement, I'm sorry if my English is kind of bad, I never been good at English and writing big texts only makes it worse so if something is not clear please ask me and I will try to explain it. Its also difficult because some people know the complete story some people don't.


I will try to start with Delay, my girlfriend is a writer and has written 7 books. Since I can't edit Wikipedia and I can't write about some persons I know I helped a friend of my girlfriend getting used to Wikipedia, this friend wrote several articles before starting the article about my girlfriend. (I'm not going to state her name here for her privacy I would respect it if other people won't mention her name also, when we speak about the girlfriend it would be clear enough). The article was created but deleted for copyvio because we placed the text on our site also. At that moment I mailed the OTRS team given permission for use of the text, and the article was undeleted. We worked on Wikipedia futher on the article and it was nominated for deletion... Still no problem there, but that there came a block on my account and Delay's still no problem there sounds like something we could resolve but then people placed the name of my girlfriend online saying its my girlfriend and there I just lost it, I don't mind people attacking me, discussing me, blocking me, just don't get my family involved. I know I maybe bended to rules with helping someone to get on Wikipedia, but I believed and still believe that its our mission to make sure people can edit Wikipedia and that we need to build a complete encyclopedia with helping a person I supported this mission, I'm very sorry if I broke any rules or wasted people time but I believed I was doing the right thing and stayed within policies. If I wasn't yeah o.k is clear to me now.


Next is the Commons story, I was angry and maybe I shouldn't edit at the moments I'm angry but when you feel under attack its hard to walk away, some people can just turn the back and walk away other can't. I couldn't just walk away and used heavy languages, this isn't because I wanted to, my English isn't that good and maybe there where better words but this where the words I know and the words I used we cant turn it back, if there will be a block for my languages this would seem fair to me. I also want to say sorry to MoiraMoira I don't really mend that she need a doctor. I also sayed that Trijnstel should walk to hell or something it that direction and I am sorry for that also. Its totally my fault that I edited Wikimedia when I'm angry this was a leasson to learn I guess... That I lost my adminbit for that seems like a fair phunisment.


About Dirt Diver, it wasn't a real secret that Dirt Diver was my account, but I just wanted to work on Meta and Commons without being under continuous investigation, I didn't play hide and seek or something like that I was also aivable with my Abigor account on meta to answer all kinds of quistions when needed... Did I break the rules I don’t think so, if I did I’m really sorry but I guessed we had two options leaving Wikimedia and run away… Or use a temp account to edit calmly until the big discussion would go away. I believed I did the right thing here, sorry if it wasn’t so.


Futhermore we have some other small things I wont discuss in a long part of text. I hope I can explain why I did those things here below. We have discussed about the miss-use of WikiLinkBot on Nl.wikipedia. The bot was blocked as a sock account but it carried Sumurai8s name on it. This would mean that people would possibly link the account with the block and it would be bad for sumurai8. I tried to get the pages deleted so it wouldn’t carry anynames anymore. Here I really believed that I was helping and not misusing trust. I’m sorry if I wasn’t. GlobalEditBot edited the Dutch Wikipedia, I programmed to bot to only work on Wikipedia version where his name was registered… By creating his SUL with my own IP I believed that it wouldn’t be possible for the bot to create a account on blocked wiki’s so it wouldn’t edit there… I guess I made a mistake and somewhere down the road it did create a account there. This wasn’t mend to be block evation its just a mistake. Futhermore there are the wrong “deletion reasons” I use to be a very active administrator here and on Commons with very many deletions, so yes I did maybe pressed to wrong reasons now and then… But I’m human also, and its kind of impossible to not make any mistakes cuz even robots make mistakes… And how more active you are as administrator how bigger the change will be for a mistake. I’m not saying I never made mistakes, I’m not saying I’m not sorry for them… Its just that they are never done on purpose.

I hope this makes kind of sense, if I missed something please ask. Huib talk Abigor 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Views by users

[edit]

Please include links to diffs where possible.

View by Ajraddatz

[edit]
  • Well, after reading through this and checking the effected wikis, it seems clear that this user has been disruptive and I agree with all of the local blocks that have been instituted. However, since Abigor is still around in some IRC channels, and doesn't appear to be trolling in them, this raises doubts in my mind. So I'd personally like to hear it from him; why were the socks made, and what is the reason for the disruptive behaviour of late? Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm happy to respond to that... Below there is a list with the accounts seen as socks by the dutch commety after every one there is explanetion.
Thanks for the explanation. As for the block here, I see no disruptive behaviour on meta, therefor I disagree with blocking this user here. We shouldn't be in the business of blocking a user on meta over their actions on another wiki. Likewise, since there has only been disruptive actions on two wikis, I disagree with a global lock - for now. However, if the behaviour continues on other wikis then I would be supportive of that. Local issues should be handled locally, and there is no need to lock a user who still has some obvious good faith left in him. This can be seen by the complete lack of trolling here on meta, as well as on IRC. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz, It's stated here that Abigor did some bad things on Meta today (creating an account with an abuse user name and privacy violation; confirmed by checkuser)... Trijnstel 20:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser says otherwhise here [20]. Huib talk Abigor 20:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checkusers didn't say anything, I spoke to one of them on IRC. There will be a formal response to this. Silver Spoon 20:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you press the link, its really a checkuser saying that... So now you spoke on IRC and making accusations again? Sounds just like the reason this all started, things spoken about on IRC nobody can give diffs etc etc. Huib talk Abigor 20:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a diff. Multichill 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That has also nothing to do with today... Huib talk Abigor 21:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading everything above and below, I think that I'm going to need to assume good faith and recommend that no global action be taken against Abigor, and no action on meta (the latter subject to the checkuser results on that other account). What really convinces me, though, is Abigor's actions throughout the last week or so. Though he has made mistakes in the past, Abigor seems to now be able to react civilly to concerns raised, even though I imagine that this is incredibly frustrating for him. I still see a user who is editing in good faith here, and as such, perhaps the best thing to do in this case is lock all of the above accounts and allow Abigor to have a fresh start on a new account; preferably one which isn't publicly disclosed. If that account continues to cause disruption, then further action can be taken here.
  • Abigor isn't a troll; the fact that he was once an admin on meta, commons, mediawiki, and incubator shows that. There was trust once, and the actions that he has recently displayed are obviously not recurrent (as of yet). Of course all of this would change if the disruption continues, but until that point, I see no reason to take action as of now. Also, some of the more recent blocks like this one on commons are just stupid. It looks to me like some people are taking this very personally, and just searching for reasons to take action against Abigor. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm told that there is a pattern of this happening; bad actions followed by attempting to regain the trust of the community. If there is indeed a pattern of this behaviour going on, then perhaps Wikimedia isn't the best place for Abigor to be spending time on. If this is recurrent behaviour, then I'd support a lock, but as it is I'll need to see more evidence of such behaviour before I can make an informed decision. Also, edits like really don't impress me. Abigor seems to be rather obsessive with the rights he does and has had.Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by MGA73

[edit]

Personally I think we should have proof before we block users. Especially a global block. I'm a checkuser on da-wiki so I know that checkusers can not tell everything they know. But if there is proof it will only take the checkuser 20 seconds to add a "I checked and can confirm that..." (or perhaps "I checked and found no connection..."). I do not like the idea to block someone and then (maybe) give proof later once there is time. Regular users do not have a chance of knowing if Huib is the bad guy or if Huib is a victim that is being stallked.

Checkuser may have saved 20 seconds but instead other users can spend hours discussing this case. What is the point of that? We do not need more drama! --MGA73 22:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, MGA. –SJ talk | translate   15:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by Abigor

[edit]

I rather have to say something more about the accounts... When you look at the log of my first account you can see that is is renamed: http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal:Logboeken&page=Gebruiker:Sterkebak 

21:07, 31 July 2008 Chris (Talk | contribs) renamed Gebruiker:Sterkebak to "SterkeBak"  (11.047 bewerkingen. Reden: Conform verzoek op Wikipedia:Verzoek voor hernoeming van account)

But in the same second the account was renamed it was created again: 

21:07, 31 July 2008 Sterkebak (Talk | contribs) Account created automatically

When it went from SterkeBak to Abigor with no rename there was a redirect in place but it got deleted a while ago. 

08:58, 1 June 2010 Eve (Talk | contribs) deleted "Gebruiker:Sterkebak"  (Weesoverleg, weesredirect of redirect naar verwijderde pagina: De inhoud was: '#DOORVERWIJZING Gebruiker:Abigor')

When a account is renamed I don't you can point it out as a sock... the same is in place for sterkebot 

14:04, 5 November 2008 Chris (Talk | contribs) moved Gebruiker:Sterkebot to Gebruiker:SterkeBot  (Automatische titelwijziging als gevolg van hernoeming account van "Sterkebot" naar "SterkeBot") (revert)
14:04, 5 November 2008 Chris (Talk | contribs) renamed Gebruiker:Sterkebot to "SterkeBot"  (6.346 bewerkingen. Reden: Conform verzoek op Wikipedia:Verzoek voor hernoeming van account) 
20:57, 13 March 2009 MoiraMoira (Talk | contribs) moved Gebruiker:SterkeBot to Gebruiker:AbiBot  (Automatische titelwijziging als gevolg van hernoeming account van "SterkeBot" naar "AbiBot") (revert)
20:57, 13 March 2009 MoiraMoira (Talk | contribs) renamed Gebruiker:SterkeBot to "AbiBot"  (6.594 bewerkingen. Reden: Conform verzoek op Wikipedia:Verzoek voor hernoeming van account (oldid=16022338))

Please not that MoiraMoira is the user saying they are socks but also the user that renamed them... When the software leave the "old" accounts active after a rename is a bug or just a software mistake but this must proof that there was no secret about it ever...

Even in the rename process I used both signs on request of MoiraMoira (http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verzoek_voor_hernoeming_van_account&oldid=16022338) So I'm still very confused how this turned into socks all of the sudden... Huib talk Abigor 14:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please not that MoiraMoira never helped me. But the renames are done on request on the rename page, there was nothing of good faith doing with it. It was just normal request handled like every other. So here its clear and writen all those accounts above are never used as a sock, but just blocked for the easyness.. A sock clame isn't true for this at all. Huib talk Abigor 15:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • When claiming socking, users will list every known "sock," i.e., alternate account. Abigor has many alternate accounts, the bulk of them legitimate. But such a long list looks bad. Then Abigor defends himself, looking double bad, as people who defend themselves often do. Modest socking (real socking, as alleged with Delay, etc.) may be disliked, and may even be disruptive, but I'm seeing nothing here worthy of a global lock, nor of blocking on meta. Much of the alleged "socking" is *really old.* Much of what has fallen on Abigor has come from nl.wiki, including this RfC. It's looking a bit like cross-wiki harassment. This is not a criticism of those who have been disappointed in Abigor, but being disappointed and blocking are quite distinct. --Abd 15:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second note the privacy violation was done on a project called [21] and IRC (while I was not active at that time) there was nothing to do with nl.wiki. Some admins are just have block happy fingers. Huib talk Abigor 15:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adb, if defending is bad I don't really know what to do, this goes a long why back and I tried ignoring, defending, and everything I know but it didn't work.

Just for the record this goes a long why back, the first link I could find is from 2008 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_and_votes/SterkeBak) where my RFA was posted in the DUTCH IRC channel (Forrestjunky told me to do so, and I trust her so no reason for not believing her) and it ended with a mass dutch people oppose on Commons, just like here with all kinds of accusations but without diffs. please note the responds from the user claiming to help me also. The RFA failed but I became a probathon administrator and was under attack for 2 months when I stopped myself. (The second try with only the Commons checkusers knowing I changed accounts a few months later passed without any problem... Mainly because the nl.wiki crew didn't know about it at all http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_and_votes/Abigor ) When you look at the de-sysop on Commons its not hard to see the same dutch people (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29) When you look on meta you can find (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Abigor_3) that the same users came to oppose, while some of them only edit meta to vote. At my second RFA on meta you again will find dutch people opposing (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Abigor) At this moment I cant say anything else than I feel stalked by the dutch communety, they keep putting my back against the wall for almost 4 years now, and yeah every person has a breaking point and every person will lose it at some moment. Huib talk Abigor 16:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your frustration, Abigor. It is not that defending is "bad," it is that it looks bad. That's a social fact, not any kind of rule. My suggestion is that you slow down. Supply fact when asked, or at least *very* briefly. Avoid telling a big dramatic story, and that advice has nothing to do with whether or not the story is true. Good luck.
One more thing: if you actually did something you are being accused of, admit it. Doesn't matter if it was not contrary to policy, such as something done off-wiki. What I'm seeing you accused of doesn't merit blocking or locking, but ... if you are lying, or even if people just believe you are lying, the reality is that accounts get blocked and locked for this. This is the most frustrating thing that can happen, if you are *not* lying, since people will throw the book at you for failure to "get it," failure to admit error. Checkusers make mistakes, there are false positives and false negatives, we know that. But .... then may be other evidence. In the end, for blocking and locking, there should have been real disruption, not something minor or a mere status offense (like "socking.") Nor, even some angry lashing out under stress. --Abd 16:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by Multichill

[edit]

Abigor seems to have a pattern. At first he is a nice, friendly and helpful guy. He gains the trust of some users and the community. At some point something happens, like an argument with another user and Abigor just snaps. He starts doing all these things he knows he shouldn't do (privacy violations, sockpuppets, etc). BIG BANG. After that he keeps below the radar for some time and than tries to pretend if nothing happens. He silently starts working extra hard to regain the trust. I wonder if Abigor is able to stop this pattern from happening again. Multichill 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by Abd

[edit]
original view

This is ironic. My sense of Abigor has been that he was sometimes harsh and arbitrary in his administrative actions, and it seems he's experiencing the other side of that now. However, "payback" is no reason to block an editor, and I'm shocked by the flimsy nature of some of the "evidence" being presented. He is properly unblocked, and globally locking an account that has admin privileges on a WMF wiki is an offense against that wiki, unless there is clear abuse or emergency there. Stewards are servants of the wikis, not governors or "protectors." I'm not claiming there would be no exceptions, but this isn't one. --Abd 00:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "list of socks" above is quite misleading. Abigor has responded in detail in Requests for comment/Abigor. Some kinds of "socks" are completely legitimate. That some level of socking may exist, on some wiki, is not a reason for a global lock; indeed, this can encourage a user to sock, since there is no policy against creating a new account if one's original account is locked but not blocked. Nothing here is alleged that would rise to the level where a global lock would be justified, nor a local block at meta. Guido den Broeder is concerned about actions taken while an administrator, which are irrelevant ancient history. If there were injustices done, those can be revisited individually. Not here. --Abd 01:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC) moved by Sj from Steward requests/Global[reply]

User:Dirt Diver was created to avoid attention, from Abigor's comment above. Sj notes that the account was not disclosed when created, which I've verified as to what I could see. Given apparent harassment, I understand Abigor's motive, and it does not seem to intend harm, but it was clearly an error, justifying the blocking of that account and the lock of the bot Dirt Driver was operating. I highly recommend Abigor admit the error, slow down, and proceed with great caution, avoiding even the appearance of anything fishy. He is accustomed to the good faith assumptions routinely accorded administrators, but he's not an administrator here any more, and creating a sock account, as Dirt Driver did, without disclosing it? I'd expect to be blocked for that! That's the way it is. Dirt Diver and the bot wasn't doing harm, it appears, so we should cut Abigor some slack. --Abd 17:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block at meta due to abusive account creation and deceptive response. Sad. Do not globally lock, allow useful contributions elsewhere, with monitoring and local blocking as required. --Abd 12:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by MoiraMoira

[edit]

I am sad to say I share the conclusions by Multichill now. Please note - all the old accounts (a long process of renaming and renaming) was done assuming lots of good will when the user needed a "fresh" restart in the past. When there later on was abuse and harassment, privacy violation (repeated) on several wikiversions extensive edit research and checkusers were done to unravel the whole network. Of course when the decision was reached to block all accounts so the oldones and new sockpuppets alike were taken along. Also please note that this user was originally blocked for privacy violation indefinitely on nl-wiki. Later the arbcom ruled it would be nine months. When he'd repeat the fact the block would become 5 years. During his block period he evaded the blocking with new accounts (Delay and further) so the block was indefinite for block evasion. User appealed to the arbitration committee als Delay, claiming he was some one else but the arbcom ruled that the checkusers done combined with the research was ample evidence to the contrary so the block stayed. Also note as an admin I have always shown leeway and help to this user when he had "difficult" periods. That leelway has over and over again proven to be senseless alas. I stronlgy feel that his actions and denial of the facts are harming the community and wikimedia projects. The trust is gone, the abuse was done planned and well prepared with sockpuppets, open proxies, mobile phoen ranges and ugly and harmful towards people. The user first should come clean and stop twisting the truth before perhaps in later years he can be trustated again. Unless he does so the pattern, like Multichill already explained so well, will repeat itself over and over again and people and the commmunity suffer from his actions. MoiraMoira 15:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if I read correcly you are saying indeed that all the bot accounts are proper renamed account and no socks? I would like to see some diffs for the privacy violations on multiple wiki's, it seems to me that nl.wiki is the only wiki that has does... Huib talk Abigor 15:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC) original comment changed after my quiston (http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Abigor&curid=576983&diff=2698763&oldid=2698758) [reply]
You were told by many colleague-admins who blocked you as well as by the arbitration committee very detailed - as long as *you* don't see that persisting in this mess is detrimental to yourself and to the community I am afraid that a solution is far away. Kind regards, MoiraMoira 15:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This not a answer on what is being asked. How can you say 3 accounts are socks when you did the renames? Huib talk Abigor 15:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there are still only words, no diffs, no proof, no nothing. Huib talk Abigor 15:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Views by Vibhijain

[edit]

Keeping it simple, I get to this conclusion that Abigor can really help Wikimedia projects if his intention is to do that. I advice him to be cool, and edit Wikipedia for his own happiness, which comes from improving, not vandalism. And then I am sure none will oppose you. All the best. Vaibhav Talk 17:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by Sumurai8

[edit]

I have seen Abigor in many ways. The more pleasent side I've seen is the helping Abigor. He starts projects with great enthousiasm, helps out in any problem, pretends to be your best friend.

There is also a side of Abigor that will NEVER admit he made a fault. Instead of saying sorry he will blame others. That part of Abigor isn't shy of using lies or phrases completely out of context to prove his point. If a lie starts to come out, he will just use another lie to cover the first lie. If he can't save himself with a lie, he will either say everyone else is lying or just say the thing stated is not true, despite the evidence.

Most of the above conclusion of his behaviour didn't happen on MediaWiki-projects yet. I'll write out a few points:

  • Made privacy violating accounts on meta with my real name, real name and nickname and even my real name, nickname and address (yes, I once trusted him with that information).
  • Of course he said he didn't make this accounts. However: At that moment he was the only person online person that knew that information and - as I refused to lick his feet and eat a lot of dust because I banned him from an IRC-channel after disruptive behaviour and later refused to return to our wikiproject after several incidents - it wasn't much of a surprise.
    • The accounts appeared to be made from a blackberry, as blackberry-ip's appeared as creation-ip's. Of course: Abigor denied that he had a blackberry. He said he used a Nokia for yeeaaaaaars instead... yeah right. He confirmed that he had a blackberry 2 months before that 'accident' via IRC. At time of the accident he had even a blackberry pin on his twitterprofile and I guess it was just one month later I spotted a tweet that his blackberry died. Quite obvious he had a blackberry at time of the privacy violation. Instead of approving he had made those accounts, he decided to accuse me of violating my own privacy. To prove his point he used a checkuser at an other wiki. It showed a screenie with quite a lot ip-addresses (my work ip's, my univ-ip's, my home ip's). I am still not sure if he actually faked in 1 entry with a blackberry, but as I have a Siemens MC60 (made in 2003 or 2004) and barely use my phone and don't have mobile internet, it doesn't make sense anyway.
  • Abigor stated that all accounts that are really sockpuppets, he says he isn't that account. Delay was linked with at least 1 ip that should be a home-connection or something similar to that. The chance that it is someone different is like the chance you will get hit by a meteorite right now: very, very unlickely. Read how he states that it is impossible to link Miss-Art, because the edits are 2 years ago. He doesn't say it isn't him, he just says it can't be linked. Of course, CU doesn't work on that account at this very moment, but that doesn't mean you can't link it.
  • WikiLinkBot isn't a bot. He created the account back then when we both worked at the WikiLinkBot-project on the toolserver. At first we would stay working together on the project, but after Abigor abused WikiLinkBot's IRC-account to bypass a channel-ban I requested to remove him from the project. WikiLinkBot is (and only will be) an IRC-bot. The wiki-account for WLB was made to prevent abuse. Ironical enough Abigor abused the account to take some kind of revenge...

Abigor is capable of doing good work and therefor not an ordinary troll. However: His bad behaviour gets worse and worse. From my experiences with him he will have 'nice' periods where he will do good work. Then he sees something or someone as a threat and will keep 'beating' it till it either give up or agrees to everything that Abigor does. He either doesn't want to control that behaviour or can't control it. In both cases it leads to disruptive behaviour onwiki. He isn't shy of using sockpuppets to prove his point. He isn't shy of using proxies to hide stuff from CU's. He isn't shy of abusing the toolserver to get on the wiki, causing disruption after an inevitable block. I doubt if he will be able to stay 'clean of bad behaviour' for over 6 months if he is allowed to have a fresh start. My advice is: block and lock him.

As I am writing this in some dull hours at my work, I don't have actually links ready and don't have such fast internet that I can do extensive searching. The points above are a few nasty things out of a bunch of nasty things. I don't want to write them all down. If you don't get my point in the bunch of text above, you won't get it with reading everything that happened in like the last half year. Besides: For everything that I prove that it didn't happen that way, Abigor will come up with an other story and I don't want to go through all that again. Sorry in advance for poor grammar and misspelled words. People may ask me briefly for more information or clarification (is that a word?) on IRC. Sumurai8 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that he now has that Blackberry again.--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by Ottava Rima

[edit]

When Jimbo deleted pornography at Commons, Abigor/Huib was on both Commons and IRC using ops to intimidate or block anyone who tried to defend Jimbo's actions. He kept a very extreme view of what Commons was about and used all of his power to silence any opposition. He also set about using his clout to wage war on the opposition in hopes to demonize and limit their power. Such actions are completely unacceptable for an op, and he acted on Commons, Meta, and at least 3 IRC rooms regarding just myself in addition to his actions of intimidation against others. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by Trijnstel

[edit]

I don't see reading this all that things will change in the future. Saying sorry for cursing done in a moment of anger is of course fine. Apologies accepted on my side. What is much more worrying is that, as also others pointed out, there is a pattern of compulsive making up stories and denial of the facts. That is undermining matters since such a behaviour damages the credibility of the project. His stories "explaining" everything are far from what has happened. He also changes the stories when someone says that it doesn't make sense. I can't see how someone wilfully damaging the projects cross-wiki and not coming clear can be trusted anymore. When simply looking at the clear and confirmed chronology of events that happened (as can be found here) and the denial over and over again (even when checked and rechecked by editresearch and checkuserresearch), I am very concerned this user can't stop his detrimental cross-wiki activities at all. Trijnstel 12:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CU

[edit]

While checking, per request, a vandal account that was created in meta I've found the following evidence:

The vandal account shares the same IP address and other technical information that Abigor and Dirt Diver shares, with 100% exactitude. The account had a name so grossly insulting/harassing that got oversighted (OS#4) and thus its name will not be published.

As CheckUser Herbythyme has revealed before, the originating IP of the abusive account is somewhat a public IP. In those cases I normally would say that the results are inconclusive to make a call.

Notwithstanding this seems not to be the case. The additional information provided by the CheckUser tool while checking the vandalic account IP reveals that the device the account was created from is an special one. One that can not be normally shared and if shared, the responsibility remains on the owner of the device. The IP and the very same exact technical data is shared between the accounts Abigor, Dirt Diver and the abusive account. Note that the relationship between Abigor and Dirt Diver was confirmed days ago and recently by him, upper there, in this page. It was confirmed too before. So if the relationship between those 2 accounts has been confirmed by himself and the new abusive account shares the very same dot by dot number by number technical data the logic tell us that all accounts are related.

However, as an attempt of clarifying this I've asked for review on other wikis (crosschecking) and the same results showed up with 100% of coincidence and with exclusive IP/UA/other data usage, which in my eyes strengths the evidence.

Given the evidence above which I consider quite strong and not only in meta I have to say (what the tool tolds me) that vandal account has the same source as the two above-mentioned accounts.

Hope that this clarifies things.

Respectfully submitted,
-- Dferg ☎ talk 18:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Edited: grammar & vocabulary mistakes and miscellaneous fixes. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: my English is far from the perfection. Sorry for any misspelling or grammar mistake.

  • I would confirm completely the CU evidence here on Meta being as stated by Dferg. Given checking on other wikis it would seem his conclusions are valid. Based on my comment on Abigor's talk page I believe he should now be reblocked however I am concerned that he is able to participate in this discussion so will leave action to others. --Herby talk thyme 10:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, why he is not blocked? RC or no RC he can always write in his talk page until we finish that, but we can't afford to have someone who create such kind of offensive accounts out there free. Béria Lima msg 12:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I recall you are an admin - there is nothing to stop you? I unblocked Abigor because at the time there did not seem to be unambiguous evidence that the account was his. I have merely suggested that the community should decide. There is a time for immediate blocks when disruption is occuring - when it is not and there is an established user involved then time can be allowed for others to have views --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share Beria concerns above, and agree that he should indeed be blocked here on meta. The degree of disruption was just too much.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, I agree with a block on meta. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • would a checkuser be so nice to share the IP numbers from where the account is created on Meta? Sinds you all say its mine that shouldn't be a problem right? And the IP Dirt Diver used, on nl.wiki I used the toolserver so I know that ip. Huib talk Abigor 13:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-blocked the user per this RfC and the CU evidence. My comments on the original blocks are still valid, of course. Also, none of us cus can provide the IPs or will provide them, because it is quite simply against any policy, even if requested by the user himself. Best, -Barras 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to make a sightly improvement on my statement after reading some comments that seems to interpretate it in a way I didn't inteded to. Probably my fault. As I stated above my English is far from the perfection and estructures from my mothertonge mixes, which can lead in undesired grammar mistakes or missinterpretations. I've told what the tool said. I have no personal interest in hurting anybody. It's not my way. I'm here volunteering, like everybody else. I was shocked when I saw the results of that suppressed account because I simply couldn't believe what I was seeing. I reviewed, analyzed carefully but at the end all the data matched. I -nor anybody here I think- can't say with certitude if Abigor in person has created the account or not; only the creator of the account and God knows that. What I can say is that the tool says it's the same source and therefore there's a match. Hope that this clarifies a bit. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by Sj

[edit]

While I don't think this RFC should lead to a global prohibition at the moment, the deceptive use of socks suggests to me advising Abigor not to use any socks in the future. Due to the ongoing drama on many projects, and attempts to use decisions on one wiki to support leniency on others, we may want to leave warnings on his active projects pointing to this RFC, including on the two projects where he is an admin. Then local communities can decide how to proceed. –SJ talk | translate   10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like the proper thing to do. --Neozoon 12:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the provision of notice on projects as to actions affecting users of those projects, if they have possible cross-wiki relevance, and if a user has a difficulty on one wiki, or on more than one, neutrally informing users of other wikis as to a user's history elsewhere makes sense, as far as advanced permissions are concerned. In a parallel case, a user was allowed to return privately, by provision of information to checkusers, and this user then applied for adminship, creating a problem. Those !voting for adminship should have information regarding prior accounts (or at least that they exist!) and the private permission to return as a new user should have been accompanied by notice to the "new user," privately, that a candidacy for adminship in the future would require disclosure of prior accounts. That was the error there, not that they allowed the user to return, per se. Thanks, Sj and Neozoon. --Abd 16:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View of User:Philippe_(WMF)

[edit]

I have two points to make regarding Abigor.

  1. - I have in my possession an email from Abigor tying the account Delay to his own account, and asking me to migrate his user account on the WMF wiki to the new name. This is not an unusual request and I created User:Delay on wmfwiki correction: I never created the account. I was in discussion with him about why he requested it. Because of copyright law, I will not post the email here, but have made it available to Sj. I have no alternative but to believe that Abigor is willfully deceiving the community when he disclaims that Delay is his account.
  2. - While I find the deception here saddening, I do not believe it rises to the level of a global lock/block/ban. It certainly shatters any expectation of trust with me, but does not preclude the possibility of effective editing in other places. I'm willing to put it behind me and move on, provided that Abigor moves forward in a spirit of integrity and collaboration. I encourage the community to support Sj's proposal above. However, I would be remiss if I didn't object to any position of trust that's suggested for Abigor.

I take no position on the other things that have been accused of him, and comment only on this bit of the situation.
Respectfully submitted, Philippe (WMF) 22:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Philippe. An issue that might be checked to nail this down. Is it possible to verify, or has it been verified, that this email was actually from Abigor? The "Delay question" got lost in the flap over the IP vandal. Abigor has acknowledged using a proxy to handle Dirt Diver, which was obviously an attempt to conceal the connection, though not necessarily for harmful purpose (other than the harm of concealment itself). He's not contesting the block. Yeah, Abigor denied being Delay, above. I can't imagine what would make him want to connect Delay and Abigor, like much of his apparent behavior, it makes no sense other than being what can happen when a user burns out. --Abd 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been verified as from Abigor. Also, I should have specified that this email is from before the current controversy. It is dated March 30, 2011. Philippe (WMF) 05:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Philippe. Looks really bad. I've asked Abigor about this, but I'm not sure it makes any difference now. He seems confused about many things, so confused that I start to wonder if he really remembers what he did. Probably, but possibly not! It's all moot here, now, it doesn't matter, he's blocked and will stay that way. If a user is so confused that they don't know what they did, on something like this (being Delay!), they are, unfortunately, not suited for participation. We don't have to conclude "willful deceit." We aren't a court determining legal culpability. Determining gross unreliability is enough. --Abd 16:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for failing to remember that Abigor had acknowledged being Delay, on 23:17, 7 July 2011. He claims on my Wikiversity talk page that Phillipe warned him that if he did not acknowledge the account, Phillipe would reveal the email, and that he immediately responded with the disclosure. AGF, My guess is that Phillipe did not notice it. (Added after closure as a courtesy to Abigor.) --Abd 20:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Abigor&oldid=24950542"