User talk:Abigor/Archives/2011/July

Info on CU

See detailed Info on the CU here. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kasteel Nijenrode.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI imo --Carschten 12:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

block

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Why do I get blocked for here for something that happend on meta Huib talk Abigor @ meta 13:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)" Decline reason: "Something so egregious on meta means we cannot trust you to edit here either. And anyway, the CU results mean that you have done plenty wrong on Commons too via your various sockpuppets and the associated lies. --99of9 (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Second statement (edit conflict): Wikimedia Commons was likewise affected as one of your recent socks (including User:Delay) has been active here as well. This is now not just confirmed by CU results but also through this WMF statement by Philippe. I write all this with sadness as you've done good work here in the past. But when all this unfolded you were not honest with us and this includes this unblock request. Finally, the findings of Dferg are so worrying that it seems best if you do not return to the WMF projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

12:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Abigor, are these accounts yours? Tshepang Motshwadiba (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) and Robert.jacques (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)? Additionally, to your knowledge have you ever edited via open proxies? Tiptoety ^talk 17:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

No, there are not, I never created accounts like that.

Second quistion, yeah I used proxies to edit, But I'm not sure if I did any logged in edits with those. But I do use a external loggin server myself with the IP: 31.186.169/32 that is usable by almost everybody. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 20:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Was there a particular reason you needed to edit via open proxies? Tiptoety ^talk 03:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, The GPRS network I used has been globally blocked or locally blocked for multible times. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 07:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you declare your other account(s) when you were explicitly asked during your adminship application Commons:Requests_and_votes/Abigor? --99of9 (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it was discussed with all the CU's at that time, the sterkebak account was no secret on Commons, it was only not known by the Dutch Community. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 09:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If it was no secret on commons, why didn't you tell the truth to the commons (non-nl) user who asked you a direct question to help him decide on your acceptability for adminship? Instead you replied with what appears to be an outright lie. --99of9 (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the people who helped me to start the RFA told me that answer was the best. I could have answered a different way but that would have triggerd a nl.wiki respondse. Maybe it wasn't the best way I know, but more that 5 people give me that advice so I did it. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 09:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please name some of the five so we can check this claim? --99of9 (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this will cause problems to some users that are still active here. I cant name all the users but this was discussed with user:Bastique and User:Mike.lifeguard. As you will understand I will not name to other users unless they give permission for this. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 11:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

unblock request 2

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Currently the CheckUser revealt here on Commons that there where no overlapping accounts on Commons and so I didn't abbuse any socks, its not illigal to have more than two accounts. This didn't break any policies, but I'm sorry it costed so much time for the community. The Vandal account on Meta is still under discussion, so could there be a unblock here so I can continu my picture works. I have been blocked for more than a week now, I understand that I did things wrong and let us continu. I'm sorry for all the time that I wasted and it won't happen again. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 09:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)" Decline reason: "the basis for the decision of AFBorchert not to unblock this account 1 week ago did not change. This Account is not unblocked Neozoon (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

The prefious request was closed with the note of a WMF statement. Please not this was his personal statement and not the statement made by the Foundation. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 10:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Also please see [1] the new statement by the Meta checkuser doesn't say anymore that its very high change that its me. But it says that all accounts had the same source, this is easy to do with a GPRS network or using a proxy. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 09:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Currently there is a discussion started by Jcb. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment "already blocked for more than a week"??? You don't seem to understand how serious your misbehaviour was. You have been blocked indefinitely for a reason. "I understand that I did things wrong" - exactly what do you admit was wrong? Your usual defence consists of denial after denial (which then prove false). --99of9 (talk)

  There was a discussion where I used hard languages, this mainly caused because the "under attack" feeling and the languages barrier. I currently have apoligiezed tho all involved by a Meta Message, IRC and e-mail. That doesn't make my words better but its kind of human to become angry when you feel under attack.

  I was one of the users that was using a shared account here on Commons... Now I know this wasn't the best thing that I could have done, but I will take full responsiblity for that account. It was a stupid move and I'm sorry for the time that it costed the community. I also didn't state the account Delay was mine, but as it was a shared account and I never checked the contributions made by other it didn't felt relevant. If I know what it did before I stated it wasn's mine I would have done other.

  I lifted my own block to edit my userpage and grant me right so I could let the stewards remove my administrator rights. This seemed for me the best thing I could do at that moment. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 10:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  And no, I'm not saying that those things are okay, But I guess every human can make a misstap so now and then, we are all human and we all make mistakes. I admit that those this are wrong, and I know that I will have to work my ass of to get a little bit of respect back. But I'm will to work towarts that and I know everybody will keep a eye on me. But that will just have to be. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 10:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose a) the vandal account on meta is far from "on discussion"; that discussion has ended a week ago. b) you still don't seem to understand what the problem really is, so saying sorry does not have any value at this moment. c) You're still trying to hide comments that are not favourable to you. BR Brimz (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As this is not a vote a oppose is kind of useless here. And no I didn't hide it, this was a complete personal attack with calling my girlfriend crap and stating this unblock request is a lie. Its normal policy to hide attacks. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 12:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And the block is still under discussion by e-mail, irc and lots of other ways. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 12:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you claim to know evrything on policies; it must be easy for you to show me where I can find the policy which states that a "vote-template" should not be used on de-block requests. And, it's also the policy that discussions on blocks, sockpuppetry, etc, should be kept onwiki to keep discussions transparent. Can you explain me how discussions by e-mail, irc "and lots of other ways" apply into this policy and help keeping the discussion transparent? BR Brimz (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I only told you this is not a vote. And there is a policy that says that non-public data cant be discussed on the wiki, so yes all things about the possible vandal account can't be used on wiki. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 12:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose I know this is not a vote, but I do want to give my opinion here. You seem to have forgotten that you misused sockpuppets here too[2]... Trijnstel (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 Comments

1. The story Abigor made up about the GPRS-connection is a nice one, though it lacks facts. In the given link to meta Abigor showed above it's still clear the vandal account is Abigor. I quote: "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."
2. The vandal account being still being under discussion is also false. Looking at the discussion on your talk page the discussion ended about 4 days ago.
3. Jcb did not attack your girlfriend, you should read again. It says the whole case that he's referring to is "crap", it doesn't say you girlfriend is crap. It's quite a characteristic by Abigor to get rid of comments he doesn't like.
4. All in all I don't see any changes by Abigor or in the conditions surrounding Abigor to unblock this user.
5. Unfortunately for me I've been spending way too much time on this user, also on meta, because of this I won't be able to close this unblock request. However I'd strongly suggest not to unblock. There are way too many places where this discussion pops up over and over again. I would suggest to keep it central and keep it on meta. Silver Spoon (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he used the word crap where her real name is Krap... Thats calling names and you know it. The discussion moved from my talk page to private channels like I told you, there is no way to check it. And yes you spend so much time here checking me out if is starting to feel like harrasment also. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 13:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And Dferg was saying: "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." So that is the fact you where looking for, they are not sure if I created the account and there is still room for error. Besides that the account was on Meta and its not relevant for the block here. The conditions have changed, I told all relevant people I'm sorry, I'm not in deneail, and I'm doing a option to start working again on Commons. You and everybody knows that there are other ways to start editting here again, and I want to use the right road.

Secondly i checked and we have here 2 BlackBerries in our home, both have the same user-agent. This will probaly mean that ALL blackberries have the same user-agent, this makes it real easy to make it look like me. But this is a discussion that is takes place elsewhere, not here on Commons. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 14:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Block or unblock

Hi Huib!

I find personal attacks unacceptable. I find socks a very bad idea and if they are used improperly I support a block.

But I think that the indef block may not be standard procedure for users that does bad edits during a dispute so I have requested that we discuss your edits and actions on Commons. I have therefore made a new notice here Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Block_or_unblock_of_Abigor.

I have not unblocked you because I do not think I can call my self 100 % neutral in this case. Even if some of the other involved admins may also not be neutral it would still be unwise to unblock (2 wrongs does not make a right). --MGA73 (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)