Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Wikipedia Annex _ Abigor's Meltdown

Posted by: Ottava

Everyone knows that Abigor has been majorly wheel warring over images, closing "undeletion" requests in less than 2 hours in order to stifle any discussion, and even blocked me http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=38906809&oldid=38906747 that while he claimed he was undeleting only "breast feeding" or "art" images, that he was really undeleting hard core pornography.

However, he has gone even further in intimidation:

1. Edit warring on a user talk page when the user has the right to remove content, especially when they leave:[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&action=history Mine] and http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&action=history. Note, vvv and Abigor were overturned as acting completely inappropriately and not within policy, but Abigor felt like removing my comments to make it seem one sided. This is classic abuse and bullying.

2. Trying to desysop Tiptoety for using his power appropriately: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Tiptoety_(removal).

3. Then, when it seemed like he would http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=prev&oldid=1964911 in order to stop his consistent bullying and abuse of every single policy we have and his horrible amount of intimidation, he backs down.

4. Then seeks more revenge against Jimbo to taunt him: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=38978195&oldid=38978161 and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=38978161&oldid=38977964.

So, he abused his ops very blatantly on IRC, cussed out people calling them a "fucking idiot", and has been rampaging over multiple pages.

Everyone knows he has been abusive on multiple accounts and deceptive, so why is he not yet banned? If Jimbo wants to prove he really has what is best in mind for the project, it is rather simple what the answer here is: ban Abigor, remove any trace of him, and if anyone dared to abuse their power like that again to make sure they are completely removed.

Abigor has shown that anarchists are able to take over and destroy everything in their path. He is doing a more to harm Wikipedia than anything Greg Kohs has ever managed, and I am sure Kohs is sitting there watching with a huge smile on his face.



By the way, what would the media think if they find out that a single admin has defied the WMF authority, blocked, threatened, cussed out, and gone to great lengths to intimidate anyone who dares to remove pornography that is clearly out of scope and has no reason to be on Commons?

For our reputation alone that guy needs to be shown the door and erased from history.

Posted by: Ottava

By the way, if the WMF or Foundation doesn't restore 100% authority back to Jimbo to block and desysop such people like Abigor, then what effective happened is you replaced one "tyrant" whose reputation is subject to criticism by the press to a system of dozens of petty tyrants who do not fear anything and can terrorize and abuse as many people as they want.


Posted by: Guido den Broeder

His real name is Huib Laurens, he is around 25 years of age IIRC, and reasonably intelligent compared to other wikigoons.

He has previously, in part concurrently, used other handles. Among them, Sterkebak and SterkeBak, with an extensive history of all kinds of problematic behaviour, He also uses a large array of anonymous IP addresses as well which he can easily do as employee of a provider.

Huib has been banned from Wikisage for vandalizing our main page and hacking into our database. He then threatened me with a lawsuit, which of course never happened. Instead, there is a police file on him. Since that time he has been stalking me. He often uses IRC to canvass lesser minds or offend his targets.

At one time he was caught red-handed while he was attacking the nl-wikisage chat channel with bots from a public library, something that he kept up 24/7 for months on end without much success. I identified the IP address and phoned the library, where he was forcibly removed.

The guy went on tilt when he lost his girlfriend several years ago.

To summarize, this is a very sad case of a young man whose emotions tend to get in the way of his abusive behaviour, making him trip over his own feet on a regular basis.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Sun 9th May 2010, 2:18pm) *

At one time he was caught red-handed while he was attacking the nl-wikisage chat channel with bots from a public library, something that he kept up 24/7 for months on end without much success. I identified the IP address and phoned the library, where he was forcibly removed.

The guy went on tilt when he lost his girlfriend several years ago.

To summarize, this is a very sad case of a young man whose emotions tend to get in the way of his abusive behaviour, making him trip over his own feet on a regular basis.


I can tell you that he used another IRC name to attack me in PM - it went back to the same server he was on and was by a guy with a clearly spur of the moment name (all caps and the such) that wasn't logged in on chat.

This was while he was calling me a "fucking idiot" and raging through multiple rooms and attacking anyone who disagreed with his abuse.

Posted by: Moulton

Was he wearing a furry animal costume?

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:19pm) *

For our reputation alone that guy needs to be shown the door and erased from history.

Perhaps Adam Cuerden can help you edit him out of all the photographs where he appears with Jimbo.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 9th May 2010, 3:10pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:19pm) *

For our reputation alone that guy needs to be shown the door and erased from history.

Perhaps Adam Cuerden can help you edit him out of all the photographs where he appears with Jimbo.


Adam's behavior was disgraceful and anything short of desysopping and a 6 month ban would be unacceptable.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:13am) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 9th May 2010, 3:10pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:19pm) *

For our reputation alone that guy needs to be shown the door and erased from history.

Perhaps Adam Cuerden can help you edit him out of all the photographs where he appears with Jimbo.


Adam's behavior was disgraceful and anything short of desysopping and a 6 month ban would be unacceptable.

This thread had potential, but should probably be annexed at this point (except maybe Guido's comment).

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 5:26pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:13am) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 9th May 2010, 3:10pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:19pm) *

For our reputation alone that guy needs to be shown the door and erased from history.

Perhaps Adam Cuerden can help you edit him out of all the photographs where he appears with Jimbo.


Adam's behavior was disgraceful and anything short of desysopping and a 6 month ban would be unacceptable.

This thread had potential, but should probably be annexed at this point (except maybe Guido's comment).


Annexing would make it invisible to outsiders. Effectively, you would be removing any criticism and exposure of clear abuse, things that the media, for instance, would be interested to read about.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 12:40pm) *
Annexing would make it invisible to outsiders. Effectively, you would be removing any criticism and exposure of clear abuse, things that the media, for instance, would be interested to read about.
Yup, annex or delete; the purpose of Wikipedia Review is absolutely not to facilitate Ottava's personal need for vengeance.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 9th May 2010, 12:44pm) *
Yup, annex or delete; the purpose of Wikipedia Review is absolutely not to facilitate Ottava's personal need for vengeance.

Done! smile.gif

Is the Annex not visible to the public? It should be - I'll go check and see what the deal is.

(Two minutes later)

It's visible to the public, but not to Google and other popular search engines. Interesting problem, actually... I suppose we must have decided that deliberately, but I don't remember the specific discussion. (There's a Mods-only thread on it but not much in it about Google, and a few other posts scattered in various places, but nothing conclusive.) Maybe I was distracted with "real life" that week (like I am this week)...?

IMO we should probably discuss it in a bit more detail somewhere. I'd be inclined to make it visible to Google, but I could see why some folks would disagree.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 9th May 2010, 5:55pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 9th May 2010, 12:44pm) *
Yup, annex or delete; the purpose of Wikipedia Review is absolutely not to facilitate Ottava's personal need for vengeance.

Done! smile.gif

Is the Annex not visible to the public? It should be - I'll go check and see what the deal is.

(Two minutes later)

It's visible to the public, but not to Google and other popular search engines. Interesting problem, actually... I suppose we must have decided that deliberately, but I don't remember the specific discussion. (There's a Mods-only thread on it but not much in it about Google, and a few other posts scattered in various places, but nothing conclusive.) Maybe I was distracted with "real life" that week (like I am this week)...?

IMO we should probably discuss it in a bit more detail somewhere. I'd be inclined to make it visible to Google, but I could see why some folks would disagree.


People without accounts linked to annex threads can't see them, so, that is why I said it wasn't public.

Posted by: John Limey

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 9th May 2010, 6:44pm) *

the purpose of Wikipedia Review is absolutely not to facilitate Ottava's personal need for vengeance.


You certainly could've fooled me.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 9th May 2010, 5:44pm) *

Yup, annex or delete; the purpose of Wikipedia Review is absolutely not to facilitate Ottava's personal need for vengeance.


Personal need? He didn't do it to just me. It was already discussed in four different threads. A centralized location is more useful to be on topic. You are just happy that Wiki is in chaos because you just want it to fail out of your own personal need for vengeance.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:14pm) *
People without accounts linked to annex threads can't see them...

Huh?

I just logged out, and there it all was in its full glory and splendor. Maybe you're using the word "linked" when you meant to use a different phrase, such as "with internet ISP's who are told vague rumors about things relating"...? unsure.gif

Bearing in mind, of course, that I personally believe Abigor (T-C-L-K-R-D) to be a menace to all things proper and decent, and that he should therefore be severely chastised.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 9th May 2010, 2:32pm) *
I personally believe Abigor (T-C-L-K-R-D) to be a menace to all things proper and decent, and that he should therefore be severely chastised.

Moreover, he should be castigated and ostracized.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 9th May 2010, 6:32pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:14pm) *
People without accounts linked to annex threads can't see them...

Huh?

I just logged out, and there it all was in its full glory and splendor. Maybe you're using the word "linked" when you meant to use a different phrase, such as "with internet ISP's who are told vague rumors about things relating"...? unsure.gif

Bearing in mind, of course, that I personally believe Abigor (T-C-L-K-R-D) to be a menace to all things proper and decent, and that he should therefore be severely chastised.


Well, I had someone check today and it was visible for them. I'm not really sure what the deal was - the last time I tried was the Giano/Bishonen thread and people weren't able to see that on the first day after it was in the Annex. I'm not going to begin to ponder what was going on and I'll just be happy that people can see it now.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:42pm) *
I'm not really sure what the deal was - the last time I tried was the Giano/Bishonen thread and people weren't able to see that on the first day after it was in the Annex. I'm not going to begin to ponder what was going on and I'll just be happy that people can see it now.

Oh wait, maybe that was the "Annex Tar Pit"...? That one's not visible to the public, but there weren't many threads in it last time I checked.

Getting back to this Abigor person, do you have some good examples of Awfully Abusive Admin Actions (4A) that don't involve you in any way whatsoever? I figure we can ignore the image-tagging warnings on Jimbo's talk page, but you mentioned Tiptoety (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who apparently was trying to remove ("oversight") some porno images so that even admins couldn't see them, causing Abigor to object in rather officious terms. Is Abigor one of those, you know, porn guys? Or does he just not like Tiptoety for some reason?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 9th May 2010, 3:10pm) *

Getting back to this Abigor person, do you have some good examples of Awfully Abusive Admin Actions (4A) that don't involve you in any way whatsoever?


He either blocked me or denied an unblock request of mine, on one of the various Wikimedia projects. It's happened to me so often over the past 4 days, I can't remember exactly. I've got Abigor/Huib in the "Bad Guys" column.

Then again, the way he seems to have Ottava in a bunch, Huib may be edging over into my "Hasten The Day support" category.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 9th May 2010, 7:10pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:42pm) *
I'm not really sure what the deal was - the last time I tried was the Giano/Bishonen thread and people weren't able to see that on the first day after it was in the Annex. I'm not going to begin to ponder what was going on and I'll just be happy that people can see it now.

Oh wait, maybe that was the "Annex Tar Pit"...? That one's not visible to the public, but there weren't many threads in it last time I checked.

Getting back to this Abigor person, do you have some good examples of Awfully Abusive Admin Actions (4A) that don't involve you in any way whatsoever? I figure we can ignore the image-tagging warnings on Jimbo's talk page, but you mentioned Tiptoety (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who apparently was trying to remove ("oversight") some porno images so that even admins couldn't see them, causing Abigor to object in rather officious terms. Is Abigor one of those, you know, porn guys? Or does he just not like Tiptoety for some reason?


He wheel warred against Jimbo while claiming he was only undeleting breast feeding or art images. The images were clearly women masturbating. Lying about your undeletions and closing undeletion pages after less than two hours and with one vote is highly inappropriate.

There was also the abusive treatment of Guido and edit warring on his talk page. Just check Abigor's contribs, there is quite a lot in 24 hours. He took his anger out on everyone he could find.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 6:44pm) *
He took his anger out on everyone he could find.

I guess he couldn't find me, eh?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 6:44pm) *

He wheel warred against Jimbo <...blah, blah, blah,...>

Ya know, if you stopped implying that not doing Jimbo's will is inherently a bad thing, people might actually read your posts. laugh.gif

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:13pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 6:44pm) *

He wheel warred against Jimbo <...blah, blah, blah,...>

Ya know, if you stopped implying that not doing Jimbo's will is inherently a bad thing, people might actually read your posts. laugh.gif


Clearing out a bunch of porn is something that Jimbo did right. He knew that Wikipedia was being mocked and looked down on over it and he took appropriate action. The trolls who put it up in the first place need to be shown the door.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 7:16pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:13pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 6:44pm) *

He wheel warred against Jimbo <...blah, blah, blah,...>

Ya know, if you stopped implying that not doing Jimbo's will is inherently a bad thing, people might actually read your posts. laugh.gif


Clearing out a bunch of porn is something that Jimbo did right. He knew that Wikipedia was being mocked and looked down on over it and he took appropriate action. The trolls who put it up in the first place need to be shown the door.

And there's that in and out the ears trick again! Amazing! applause.gif

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:29pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 7:16pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:13pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 6:44pm) *

He wheel warred against Jimbo <...blah, blah, blah,...>

Ya know, if you stopped implying that not doing Jimbo's will is inherently a bad thing, people might actually read your posts. laugh.gif


Clearing out a bunch of porn is something that Jimbo did right. He knew that Wikipedia was being mocked and looked down on over it and he took appropriate action. The trolls who put it up in the first place need to be shown the door.

And there's that in and out the ears trick again! Amazing! applause.gif


I judge the individual action, not the person who may have a history of fucking up. A broken clock is right twice a day, so, if you continue to say it is wrong then you will be wrong every once in a while.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 6:30pm) *
A broken clock is right twice a day, so, if you continue to say it is wrong then you will be wrong every once in a while.
You really aren't going to convince anyone that nothing in my posts is worth reading when you run about plagiarizing them (albeit badly).

Posted by: Rick

Regarding Tiptoety aka Tyler Van Wormer: Oh please. Tyler needs to have his priveleges taken away. He thinks he's so mighty, what with his power on a high number of Wikimedia projects, as well as being a police cadet.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 7:30pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:29pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 7:16pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:13pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 6:44pm) *

He wheel warred against Jimbo <...blah, blah, blah,...>

Ya know, if you stopped implying that not doing Jimbo's will is inherently a bad thing, people might actually read your posts. laugh.gif


Clearing out a bunch of porn is something that Jimbo did right. He knew that Wikipedia was being mocked and looked down on over it and he took appropriate action. The trolls who put it up in the first place need to be shown the door.

And there's that in and out the ears trick again! Amazing! applause.gif

I judge the individual action, not the person who may have a history of fucking up. A broken clock is right twice a day, so, if you continue to say it is wrong then you will be wrong every once in a while.

I didn't actually say you were "wrong", I was just giving you a friendly heads up on why people around here add you to their ignore list wink.gif.

Despite the obvious similarities (e.g., spending years covering up for pedophiles and/or making life easier for pedophiles in order to "keep a good public face"), Jimbo is not the pope. You really don't have any duty to kiss his ring and preach his message on command, you know, much less any likelihood of a reward in the after-wiki-life. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 7:19pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 7:30pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:29pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 7:16pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:13pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 6:44pm) *

He wheel warred against Jimbo <...blah, blah, blah,...>

Ya know, if you stopped implying that not doing Jimbo's will is inherently a bad thing, people might actually read your posts. laugh.gif


Clearing out a bunch of porn is something that Jimbo did right. He knew that Wikipedia was being mocked and looked down on over it and he took appropriate action. The trolls who put it up in the first place need to be shown the door.

And there's that in and out the ears trick again! Amazing! applause.gif

I judge the individual action, not the person who may have a history of fucking up. A broken clock is right twice a day, so, if you continue to say it is wrong then you will be wrong every once in a while.

I didn't actually say you were "wrong", I was just giving you a friendly heads up on why people around here add you to their ignore list wink.gif.

Despite the obvious similarities (e.g., spending years covering up for pedophiles and/or making life easier for pedophiles in order to "keep a good public face"), Jimbo is not the pope. You really don't have any duty to kiss his ring and preach his message on command, you know, much less any likelihood of a reward in the after-wiki-life. rolleyes.gif

While there are a lot of legitimate reasons to blame for Ottava being such an idiot his religion is not one of them.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 9th May 2010, 8:25pm) *

While there are a lot of legitimate reasons to blame for Ottava being such an idiot his religion is not one of them.

The catholicism, no. The Jimboism, yes smile.gif.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 9th May 2010, 5:25pm) *

While there are a lot of legitimate reasons to blame for Ottava being such an idiot his religion is not one of them.

dry.gif No? Well, it doesn't seem to be helping any. hrmph.gif

But I suppose you can argue it's a very broad tent, and has a section for every sort. wink.gif

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 10th May 2010, 12:19am) *

I didn't actually say you were "wrong", I was just giving you a friendly heads up on why people around here add you to their ignore list wink.gif.

Despite the obvious similarities (e.g., spending years covering up for pedophiles and/or making life easier for pedophiles in order to "keep a good public face"), Jimbo is not the pope. You really don't have any duty to kiss his ring and preach his message on command, you know, much less any likelihood of a reward in the after-wiki-life. rolleyes.gif


Well, I wish more of them would because some of their responses are boring. ;/

By the way, that is a cheap shot. You are putting the wrongs of a few individuals upon others. Your actions on Wikiversity and the problems they caused are not the fault of Wikiversity or any other member.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 7:33pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 9th May 2010, 8:25pm) *

While there are a lot of legitimate reasons to blame for Ottava being such an idiot his religion is not one of them.

The catholicism, no. The Jimboism, yes smile.gif.


Well Ok.

It seems to me that WMF has much to learn form the American and Irish Catholic Churches. The lay leadership in these Churches have overcome historic inertia and loudly insisted upon responsibility. Institutions like the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts, who have learned hard, painful and expensive lessons about child protection should be looked to as resources by WMF. At this point they have implemented rigorous safeguards and practices. But it is just the opposite on WP were the "laity", or the community, are the bulwark of irresponsibility and no child protective measures have been implemented at all. The saddest thing is that we know from these entities and their child victims is that it will take decades for the harm to come to light.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 6th May 2010, 3:11pm) *

I don't really think a group of over 1 billion people are a "minority" or that people who have the ability to wage war all over the Middle East and fly three planes into US buildings are powerless.


QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 12:37am) *

By the way, that is a cheap shot. You are putting the wrongs of a few individuals upon others.



Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 10th May 2010, 1:30am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 6th May 2010, 3:11pm) *

I don't really think a group of over 1 billion people are a "minority" or that people who have the ability to wage war all over the Middle East and fly three planes into US buildings are powerless.


QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 12:37am) *

By the way, that is a cheap shot. You are putting the wrongs of a few individuals upon others.



I never said that the three minorities reflected the billion people. I stated that they were not weak and powerless on either account. Now, if you want to say that my stating Muslims are not an oppressed minority is comparable to someone saying a few pedophilic priests mean that all 1.6 billion Catholics are evil, then that is absurd.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 9th May 2010, 11:29pm) *
And there's that in and out the ears trick again! Amazing! applause.gif

Ottava, I do not know you, we have never crossed swords and I have never said a bad word about you, we operate in different spheres ...

But I do wish you would

a) stay 'on topic', and
b) stop making quoting multiple quotes 4 or 5 deep every time you reply ... why should anyone have to scroll 8" to read something off topic or get to the next post.

Please look at the title at the top of the page and learn how to edit off your replies. Thank you.

Abigor is 'everywikipedian'. The solution is locking them and their effluence all up in a private world where they do not poison ours.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 10th May 2010, 1:47am) *


a) stay 'on topic', and
b) stop making quoting multiple quotes 4 or 5 deep every time you reply ... why should anyone have to scroll 8" to read something off topic or get to the next post.



o.O

The most amount of quotes in quotes I have done is http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=29487&view=findpost&p=235739 and that was four. That was one time. Most are a quote and I cut out most (and I have gotten flack for trimming).


Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 1:45am) *

I never said that the three minorities reflected the billion people. I stated that they were not weak and powerless on either account.

So generalizing from a small sample is cool as long as you put a minty-fresh positive spin on it?

I'll have to try that. dry.gif

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 10th May 2010, 1:58am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 1:45am) *

I never said that the three minorities reflected the billion people. I stated that they were not weak and powerless on either account.

So generalizing from a small sample is cool as long as you put a minty-fresh positive spin on it?

I'll have to try that. dry.gif


Well, which is racist: Asians are smart or black people are lazy? Obviously, both are generalizations and stereotypes. However, one is positive and the other is not. It is just human nature to side with it being okay to generalize to the positive but not to the negative.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 2:19am) *

Well, which is racist: Asians are smart or black people are lazy? Obviously, both are generalizations and stereotypes. However, one is positive and the other is not. It is just human nature to side with it being okay to generalize to the positive but not to the negative.

To achieve a comparable level of culture-baiting you might explain how Seung-Hui Cho, for example, was a true fucking genius.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 10th May 2010, 3:09am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 2:19am) *

Well, which is racist: Asians are smart or black people are lazy? Obviously, both are generalizations and stereotypes. However, one is positive and the other is not. It is just human nature to side with it being okay to generalize to the positive but not to the negative.

To achieve a comparable level of culture-baiting you might explain how Seung-Hui Cho, for example, was a true fucking genius.


Sigh, it isn't culture baiting. People support positive stereotypes. They do not support negative ones. Its called a reputation, and people seek out to have a strong one. You should know that and I don't know why you are being so blah.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 10:27pm) *
Sigh, it isn't culture baiting. People support positive stereotypes. They do not support negative ones. Its called a reputation, and people seek out to have a strong one.

Well... if you ask me, we should all seek to rid ourselves of racial and religious stereotypes whenever possible, even if they tend to be positive (bearing in mind that one man's "positive" is another man's excuse for a campaign of murder or even genocide). But if you're talking about positive national or regional stereotypes not related to race (or related as indirectly as possible), or perhaps stereotypes regarding what school(s) a person went to or what kind of music they listen to and so forth, I suppose that's probably not so bad, really. Though it still makes me a little queasy.

Anyway, getting back to User:Abigor, I've now looked through his http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abigor and while he does seem rather officious, this latest behavior seems to be a new thing for him. Maybe he's just been drinking too much beer in the last several days? Is there some sort of national holiday thingy going on in The Netherlands?

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 9th May 2010, 10:10pm) *

Well... if you ask me, we should all seek to rid ourselves of racial and religious stereotypes whenever possible, even if they tend to be positive (bearing in mind that one man's "positive" is another man's excuse for a campaign of murder or even genocide).



Here's where I disagree. Stereotyping is just logical induction applied to sociology. Not only is neither intrinsically bad or good (a lot depends on accuracy)-- but since it's also unavoidable if you think and observe people very much, one should learn to make friends with it.

Illustration: Almost any good standup comic does sterotyping from start to finish. And only gets laughs if what he or she says is TRUE.

Posted by: Subtle Bee

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 10th May 2010, 12:34am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 9th May 2010, 10:10pm) *

Well... if you ask me, we should all seek to rid ourselves of racial and religious stereotypes whenever possible, even if they tend to be positive (bearing in mind that one man's "positive" is another man's excuse for a campaign of murder or even genocide).



Here's where I disagree. Stereotyping is just logical induction applied to sociology. Not only is neither intrinsically bad or good (a lot depends on accuracy)-- but since it's also unavoidable if you think and observe people very much, one should learn to make friends with it.

Illustration: Almost any good standup comic does sterotyping from start to finish. And only gets laughs if what he or she says is TRUE.

Here's where I disagree - comic audiences are hardly arbiters of truth. They laugh if they share the stereotype.

If being funny was the same as being right, I'd... actually, for me it wouldn't change a thing. wtf.gif

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 9th May 2010, 8:37pm) *
Your actions on Wikiversity and the problems they caused are not the fault of Wikiversity or any other member.

In the never-ending conflict between ethics and corruption, it occurs to me the problems are mainly caused by the presence of corruption. Having said that, I must admit that the introduction of ethical principals and practices evidently tends to aggravate the problem, driving the corrupt factions to escalate the intensity of their corrupt practices until they have driven out those meddlesome ethicists.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Mon 10th May 2010, 3:14am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 10th May 2010, 12:34am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 9th May 2010, 10:10pm) *

Well... if you ask me, we should all seek to rid ourselves of racial and religious stereotypes whenever possible, even if they tend to be positive (bearing in mind that one man's "positive" is another man's excuse for a campaign of murder or even genocide).



Here's where I disagree. Stereotyping is just logical induction applied to sociology. Not only is neither intrinsically bad or good (a lot depends on accuracy)-- but since it's also unavoidable if you think and observe people very much, one should learn to make friends with it.

Illustration: Almost any good standup comic does sterotyping from start to finish. And only gets laughs if what he or she says is TRUE.

Here's where I disagree - comic audiences are hardly arbiters of truth. They laugh if they share the stereotype.

If being funny was the same as being right, I'd... actually, for me it wouldn't change a thing. wtf.gif


Stereotypes are a kind of a weighted mix of crude mental statistical inference based on very few data points of personal experience and hearsay and basic superstition based on the classic confusion between correlation and causation. In themselves they are a form of "weak prejudice", particularly if they are of the "good stereotype" kind. Add the common, though not universal, innate need for people to feel superior to others and willing to take almost any reason to do so and you got "strong prejudice".

I think that's agreeing with Moulton rather than Somey.


Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 10th May 2010, 5:10am) *

Anyway, getting back to User:Abigor, I've now looked through his http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abigor and while he does seem rather officious, this latest behavior seems to be a new thing for him. Maybe he's just been drinking too much beer in the last several days? Is there some sort of national holiday thingy going on in The Netherlands?


I've sat in the IRC rooms he frequent for a while. There is very little here that he does. Most of the real work on Meta is handled by Stewards or by people like myself doing all the really tedious pushing things around (archiving nonsense). On Commons, it was all done by those like Tiptoety, NuclearWarfare, Juliancolton, you know, the people that get poked at quite a bit. Abigor is active over with the Dutch and German side of things, so, that would probably be something to dig into.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 1:58pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 10th May 2010, 5:10am) *

Anyway, getting back to User:Abigor, I've now looked through his http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abigor and while he does seem rather officious, this latest behavior seems to be a new thing for him. Maybe he's just been drinking too much beer in the last several days? Is there some sort of national holiday thingy going on in The Netherlands?


I've sat in the IRC rooms he frequent for a while. There is very little here that he does. Most of the real work on Meta is handled by Stewards or by people like myself doing all the really tedious pushing things around (archiving nonsense). On Commons, it was all done by those like Tiptoety, NuclearWarfare, Juliancolton, you know, the people that get poked at quite a bit. Abigor is active over with the Dutch and German side of things, so, that would probably be something to dig into.


Wait, are you stating that I actually do something?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Mon 10th May 2010, 2:21pm) *

Wait, are you stating that I actually do something?


Well, enough to be mocked here. tongue.gif

Posted by: Ottava

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AOversighters%2FRequests%2FTiptoety_(removal)&action=historysubmit&diff=39045103&oldid=39045077 , he protects the page himself.

This guy really loves to make it clear he has no respect for how ops are to be used.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 10th May 2010, 6:18am) *

Stereotypes are a kind of a weighted mix of crude mental statistical inference based on very few data points of personal experience and hearsay and basic superstition based on the classic confusion between correlation and causation. In themselves they are a form of "weak prejudice", particularly if they are of the "good stereotype" kind. Add the common, though not universal, innate need for people to feel superior to others and willing to take almost any reason to do so and you got "strong prejudice".

Both "stereotype" and "prejudice" are innately biased and emotionally tainted (perhaps I should write "prejudicial") words. Apply them to car models or dog breeds or sports teams, and you see that they have limited utility. If you didn't believe that something statistical and predictive could be said about dog breeds or car models or sports teams, you'd be in poor shape in the betting pool, or as an informed consumer. But there's no argument you can make about social prejudices that I can't make as well about any inductive inference about any group whatsoever. It's not the process that is the problem, it's the errors that result when it's done incorrectly.

What makes you assume that a "stereotype" is always based on "very few data points of personal experience and hearsay and basic superstition based on the classic confusion between correlation and causation?" or are you simply defining "stereotype" that way, in which case you're simply making an information-free syllogism, ala no true Scotsman?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 10th May 2010, 5:52pm) *

Both "stereotype" and "prejudice" are innately biased and emotionally tainted (perhaps I should write "prejudicial") words.


I tend to agree with Hume that since our knowledge is based on perception, it is inherently biased and emotionally tainted.

(Not Hume:) the only way to fix that is to recognize the biases and adjust, but they will always be there in some way. Some are passive enough or just not harmful enough to be worth putting in large scale efforts to remove.

Posted by: ulsterman

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 6:34pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AOversighters%2FRequests%2FTiptoety_(removal)&action=historysubmit&diff=39045103&oldid=39045077 , he protects the page himself.

This guy really loves to make it clear he has no respect for how ops are to be used.

And then Raymond abused his admin powers by editing a protected page. ohmy.gif Is there no policy on Commons prohibiting that sort of thing?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 10th May 2010, 9:45pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 6:34pm) *

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AOversighters%2FRequests%2FTiptoety_(removal)&action=historysubmit&diff=39045103&oldid=39045077 , he protects the page himself.

This guy really loves to make it clear he has no respect for how ops are to be used.

And then Raymond abused his admin powers by editing a protected page. ohmy.gif Is there no policy on Commons prohibiting that sort of thing?


Obviously, whatever policies that did exist on commons are now moot.

Posted by: Killiondude

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 8:02pm) *

Obviously, whatever policies that did exist on commons are now moot.

Votes for adminship and other special rights are normally protected after the voting is over. Admins editing it after the vote/protection isn't something new, but it's not done too much. Commons (used to be?) kind of lax about procedures like that.

I kind of agree with Kelly in that any topic Ottava seems to be in on WR turns quickly to himself. :-/ I was hoping to find more content about Abigor in this thread.

Posted by: pietkuip

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29

Self-destructed.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Wed 29th June 2011, 7:14pm) *
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29

Self-destructed.
Wow. Extreme. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29&oldid=56076433 What came down there was so extreme that I'd suspect this wasn't Abigor at all. But it probably was.

I'd seen Stuff from him at meta. It's just surprising that he'd be so completely blatant, i.e., editing by IP, then defending those edits without acknowledging that they were him. That was grounds for blocking, in fact, not mere desysop. Abigor voluntarily https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=prev&oldid=2690240

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AAbigor

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AAbigor He'd unblocked himself when short-blocked for edit warring. This was truly a flame-out.

Posted by: pietkuip

This is extreme: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abigor#unblock


Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Especially since the same courtesy is never given to users with far lesser offenses, and Abigor himself even frequently removed a blocked user's access to their own talk page.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Fri 8th July 2011, 7:08pm) *
Especially since the same courtesy is never given to users with far lesser offenses, and Abigor himself even frequently removed a blocked user's access to their own talk page.
I originally had some sympathy for Guido, because of his advocacy for Greg, but I came to see that he was someone pursuing vendettas, and he was that way with Abigor, kicking him when he was down. Sure, Abigor was getting a kind of payback, I'd seen him as an administrative bully. He'd certainly abused his tools with Guido!

However, Abigor is now caught in a Catch-22, a true Kafkaesque moment.

On the one hand, it's claimed that checkuser identification of him as a the vandal, who created an account with a highly offensive username, attacking someone considered adverse to Abigor, was definitive, unmistakable, certain, with evidence in unusual detail being asserted (and which does, if true, represent the strongest level of identification), but, on the other, when Abigor requested the IP information, he was told that privacy policy prohibited that.

Which it doesn't. Permission of the user is a condition allowing release of the information, privacy and checkuser policy is explicit on that.

When I pointed this out, it was then claimed, by Ajraddatz, who had stated that the chance of false identification was "astronomically small" -- I refrained from pointing out the weird language -- that if he wasn't the vandal, revealing the vandal's IP and username to him would be violating the privacy of the vandal.

Catch-22. The user is not allowed to see the evidence against him, because he might not be guilty.

If it weren't for the seriously weird shit coming down about Poetlister, where it's clear that Wikiversity is under attack, distracting me, I think I'd have checked myself into a hospital. This stuff drives me crazy.

Abigor is probably the vandal, but ... even if he is, that he is treated with fairness and respect by *somebody* may help him get through this. And, of course, if he was framed, as he is effectively claiming, the only one who could uncover this crime would be him, if given the evidence, then investigating. Nobody else is going to do it!

It's not likely to help him, directly, but it might help someone, someday. The next victim, perhaps. "Ah! This also happened with Abigor two years ago, after conflict with the same user!"

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 9th July 2011, 5:40am) *
it was then claimed, by Ajraddatz, who had stated that the chance of false identification was "astronomically small" -- I refrained from pointing out the weird language -- that if he wasn't the vandal, revealing the vandal's IP and username to him would be violating the privacy of the vandal.

Yes, they could have given out the IP number. And it does not make much sense to talk about probabilities: some Dutch hacker might have become sufficiently obsessed with the guy to invest lots of time and energy to make trouble for him.

But he has certainly made plenty of trouble for himself, using his acknowledged accounts.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

I have already explained to Abd at Meta why the IP address has to be protected.

As an example, Abigor was caught red-handed while he was creating attack accounts on a computer in a public library. The IP of the library will of course not be revealed to him.

Cheers,

Guido



But, as usual, he just adds more Walls of Text on the same issue.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Sat 9th July 2011, 6:40am) *
I have already explained to Abd at Meta why the IP address has to be protected.

As an example, Abigor was caught red-handed while he was creating attack accounts on a computer in a public library. The IP of the library will of course not be revealed to him.

Cheers,

Guido

But, as usual, he just adds more Walls of Text on the same issue.
That's Guido. Totally ignorant, combined with great personal confidence in the errors of others. The IP of a library won't be revealed to me? I can go there and get it immediately, if I get on a computer. Trivial.

Abigor was caught red-handed as described? That's certainly not clear from the checkuser evidence revealed. What was said was that the device used was rather unusual, and that IP information plus the user agent information, nailed that there was a login of Abigor's bot account, Dirt Diver, and the creation of an account at meta with a highly offensive username, that attacked another user, ostensibly one with whom Abigor had conflict, from the same unusual device.

My guess is that the device was a mobile phone, an unusual one. The IP would be a mobile service provider, explaining the earlier comments about public access, but it would be the user agent that would nail it.

Abigor has accepted being blocked, he knows he screwed up, entirely aside from this vandal account thing. He's strongly proclaiming his innocence on the vandalism charge, but, hey, the checkuser evidence looks solid. What gives?

Well, perhaps he is lying. But there is at least one another possible scenario, and it certainly can't be ruled out. Someone got Abigor's password to the toolserver account. They used this to create a login there, which created data for checkuser identifying the device used. Had this been a public library, as Guido implies, the identification would not have been so crisp, though, depending on details, it could still be pretty strong. On the other hand, this scenario still works if it access was through a public library. Perhaps with a handheld device, creating the unique user agent.

Then they created the offensive account on meta. The goal was to nail Abigor to the wall. It worked.

Now, this is what Abigor asked for, which Guido opposed as contrary to privacy policy, in which he has a sudden interest.

Abigor had requested the checkuser information, and was told, no, contrary to privacy policy. But privacy policy does explicitly allow release of checkuser information if the user consents.

Abigor is then told that, no, what if he isn't the user? But the checkusers claimed that the identification was crystal clear, unmistakeable!

Guido (and others) are claiming that the privacy policy prohibits the release of the anonymous vandal's information, which is preposterous. Release of information like that may actually be legally required, if Abigor makes a binding request. He's suffered a major loss of reputation, through charges that he made the edit. If he was the user, releasing the information to him is clearly allowed, and, I'd claim, could be legally required.

What's totally maddening is that they are then saying, no, if he wasn't the user, releasing the private information would be prohibited. Catch-22.

You are guilty as sin, but if you aren't guilty, we aren't going to release the information on which your guilt was determined, because it would then harm the other user. The person who used access to completely trash your reputation, and this could affect career, quite possibly. Cool, eh?

I understand why Guido is opposed, it's simply because he hates Abigor, who did, after all, abuse him. What's more puzzling is apparently sensible meta users who are also arguing for keeping the checkuser information private, to the extent of getting pissed off because the questions are even being asked.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sat 9th July 2011, 1:57am) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 9th July 2011, 5:40am) *
it was then claimed, by Ajraddatz, who had stated that the chance of false identification was "astronomically small" -- I refrained from pointing out the weird language -- that if he wasn't the vandal, revealing the vandal's IP and username to him would be violating the privacy of the vandal.
Yes, they could have given out the IP number. And it does not make much sense to talk about probabilities: some Dutch hacker might have become sufficiently obsessed with the guy to invest lots of time and energy to make trouble for him.
Right. They claimed it was impossible, but they were assuming that a hacker would have had to imitate Abigor's IP, which could be very difficult (though not absolutely impossible). Rather, there was a much simpler exploit possible through obtaining Abigor's password to the toolserver account.

Further, Abigor used a proxy for accessing the toolserver account, he acknowledged that (which was acknowledging violating policy). This created another avenue for impersonation. A hacker would have had to have checkuser data from the toolserver, and could then have used the same anonymizing proxy, spoofing Abigor's user agent string.

Clues: Abigor says he didn't log in to the toolserver account during the period in question, that's why he's puzzled by the identification. Now, while it's possible that he *looked* at the toolserver and that an autologin was created, what if he's right?

What I'd look for is his routine access. It appears from the evidence that there was no direct link between Abigor and Dirt Diver, the bot manager on toolserver. That implies to me that Dirt Diver and the vandal were using different access than Abigor routine access. (which is confirmed by Abigor, he used a proxy for Dirt Driver, as I read his comments.) Did the vandal use a proxy? I actually think not, this was stated as being a public access, as I recall. I'm suspecting the use of a mobile phone or other mobile device, perhaps an unusual one, with a rare user agent string.

I've argued that the meta RfC should be closed, with Abigor blocked for all the offenses, and that no more fuss should be made openly about this. But Abigor should be given the data, and he can, if he wishes, investigate. I've argued that this would be fair treatment, and would create a better resolution to this than "Get Out of Here, You Dirty Vandal!" It would simply allow him to clear his name, long shot, if he's innocent, which does not have to be done on-wiki at this point. And it would, even if he's guilty, leave him with an impression that someone, at least, was interested in fair treatment. Which would be me and a checkuser, if the checkuser provides the data. Any one of them could. It doesn't have to be revealed publicly, though I've argued (slightly) for publication, if Abigor explicitly permits it.

Abigor probably thought of me as a troll, since I'd supported Thekohser and opposed his treatment of Guido. Suddenly, it seems, he seems grateful for my support. What the long-term effect of this might be, I don't know. But it won't hurt.
QUOTE
But he has certainly made plenty of trouble for himself, using his acknowledged accounts.
Yes. However, the vandal incident pushed this over the top, egged on by nl.wikipedia users who clearly are out to get him. I think that includes Guido, by the way.

I've been a prison chaplain, I've worked with people who were truly guilty of major crimes. What pisses them off more than anything is when they have been treated unfairly. Being convicted of what they actually did, they understand that, they are not angry about it. But if the prosecutor broke the law, they hate him or her and the society that allowed that. Even if they were guilty!

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

I'm not going to try and explain it again, Abd. If you want to be daft, so be it.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Sat 9th July 2011, 5:53pm) *
I'm not going to try and explain it again, Abd. If you want to be daft, so be it.
You get what you give. Permission to be daft, granted.

But I'll make it clear what Guido is saying, because most people here know easily as well as I, or better. Guido is saying that if I'm editing Wikipedia through some portal to the internet, as I am editing here, the IP of that portal does not "belong to me," it may belong to someone else, therefore it should not be disclosed to me.

Specifically he cited a public library, that the IP is that of the public library, not of the user.

However, Wikipedia, to route responses back to the user, must have an address which is unique for the device the user is using. I'm not sure exactly how that is done, but it's obvious. (This is more than raw IP. My router is connected to my DSL modem, which is assigned a temporary IP address from Verizon, for my normal access. That's the IP address that Wikipedia sees, but Wikipedia also must know which computer in my local network is requesting the information. I think port numbers are used, but, as I say, I'm not certain.

I'd assume that checkusers get the full routing information that the server receives. If not, opportunities for error would be much larger.

The point is that IP information is actually shared between the server and the user. That IP may "belong" to a library, or more likely to a service provider, but it is not, in itself, private information. It only becomes private when a user uses it, because it is "individual identifying information." When we have school blocks for certain schools, it is routine to identify the IP as belonging to the school, this isn't considered private information at all, and it is a matter of public record, you can get the whole owned block from a whois server.

If I'm at a local coffee house, and use their wireless, and someone else uses that same access point, we will both have the same IP (but different port numbers). Both of us can easily get this information, but if we are both editing Wikipedia, logged in, Wikipedia will not tell us the IP, routinely, unless we edit logged-out, in which case IP is openly revealed. The argument that this is "someone else's IP" would apply there just as well.

Only the connection between the IP and a logged-in, registered user is private information. And by policy, this can be revealed with the permission of the user. The permission of the "owner" of the IP is irrelevant, there is no privacy protection like that. (This information is often revealed, casually, for example, Moulton edits from an MIT IP. So?)

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 9th July 2011, 10:25pm) *
Abigor was caught red-handed as described? [...]

Abigor has accepted being blocked, he knows he screwed up, entirely aside from this vandal account thing. He's strongly proclaiming his innocence on the vandalism charge, but, hey, the checkuser evidence looks solid. What gives?

Well, perhaps he is lying.

There is solid proof that he had problems with saying the truth on severeal other occasions.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sun 10th July 2011, 6:24am) *

There is solid proof that he had problems with saying the truth on severeal other occasions.
I really worry about the word "proof." Sometimes it can be shown conclusively that a statement was false. Sometimes it can be shown conclusively that the "error" was deliberate. But "proof" gets used far too often to mean something far less than that.

Abigor made evasive statements quite a number of times. I haven't noticed, so far, something that was clearly a lie. Now, I'll agree that there is strong evidence that, in some cases, Abigor "had problems with saying the truth." That's true for a lot of people, and for lots of different reasons.

He has firmly and clearly claimed that he was not the vandal, in response to a direct question from me.
QUOTE
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 nl.wiki 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)

He's not correct that it's impossible, even if he didn't do it. For those without a program. Dirt Diver was an account Abigor created to run a bot, GlobalEditBot, designed to create user accounts globally. (There is a legitimate use for this.) He knew that he take flak for Dirt Diver, my story, so he did not acknowledge Dirt Diver as a sock, and apparently used a proxy to conceal the connection with him. When Dirt Diver was questioned, Abigor acknowledged the account with little fuss. Dirt Diver had created accounts on nl.wiki, thus he was violating his block there. He did not have permission to run the bot. He was nailed, but there was no nefarious intention behind Dirt Diver, as far as I can see. However, users on nl.wiki saw this activity, very likely, saw the connection, and someone there may have started digging.

So then someone we'll call "the vandal" created an "attack account." It was promptly oversighted. See http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker%3AAbigor%2Fblockmsg&action=historysubmit&diff=26320003&oldid=26268381

My point is actually quite general. If a user has been found to be socking, definitively, based on allegedly clear checkuser data, if this finding is made public, the user should *always* be allowed access to the checkuser data. That does not create a *requirement* that any particular checkuser do it, only that a checkuser *may* provide it, if the user explicitly permits the disclosure, per policy.

I'm suggesting that there may be a legal requirement on the WMF if the user demands the data, because the user has been publicly defamed and therefore has a right to demand the evidence used to legitimate this, this could be a part of legal discovery, the part that can precede actually filing a suit for defamation. Given that, practically by definition, this release is relatively harmless, it would avoid a lot of fuss if it's routinely done unless there is strong reason not to release it under these conditions.