Jump to content

Meta:Requests for adminship/WikiBayer (removal)

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

WikiBayer (removal)

Not ending before 10:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It absolutely pains me to have to write this nomination, because WikiBayer does quite often do a good job with anti-vandalism. However, WikiBayer has a long-term history of making inappropriate comments, whether it be in block summaries or general comments when describing vandals and long-term abusers – sometimes they can be pale like "long-term idiot", but others more serious (I won't mention them here to keep it SFW).

WikiBayer was initially warned for this twice in 2023 on their talk page. While they did hold off from using "long-term idiot", this did not prevent WikiBayer from making other inappropriate comments, such as "offensichtlich auf den Kopfgefallen" (Google Translate gives me "obviously fallen on his head").

Earlier this year, WikiBayer also ran for stew and they failed quite miserably with a result of a mere 26 per cent, with one of the key issues being communication, especially relating to these summaries.

Now, the most logical thing to do after failing a steward election for communication issues is to fix those issues and ensure that any similar incidents remotely related to that issue never arise again. WikiBayer, however, did not do that. In June this year, they made a block summary for "idiotic thanks function use", which they were later warned on their talk page. In July, they made this comment, for which I still have not received a proper explanation on their talk page for why they thought it was a good idea to make such a comment. A few days ago, similar comments were made at SRG, which were later redacted.

Unfortunately, I think the community has had to tolerate enough of WikiBayer's poor communication; communication that is unacceptable for any user to make, let alone a sysop. It's a different story when only one warning was given. However, WikiBayer has been given five warnings, and the failed steward nomination for this issue should have been the cue to stop. The response and criticism when this issue is raised are also poor, and they have shown no signs of stopping. Sadly, with this many opportunities given and a lack of behaviour change, a desysop is the only viable solution I see going forward. //shb (t • c) 10:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I have not used the years-old blocking reason mentioned at the beginning since then. To comments "auf den Kopfgefallen" [1] is a typical German idiom (which exists in various similar contexts) and definitely not bad. The expression "wirres Danken" (English: idiotic thanks") is also a common description in German for such actions. Furthermore, this description is definitely not directed a person. To Socks: The mention of other accounts belonging to the troll on SRG or in the block log: this is definitely not inappropriate, especially since the troll regularly identifies themselves with these accounts in all projects. Special:CentralAuth/Long Term Abuse Sexually, Special:CentralAuth/Long Term Child Abuse .... Example the Trolling yesterday in Wikidata Enwiki, mswiki and swiki. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 11:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiBayer I am confused with the reports on 11th September - is "Long term sexual abuse" the name of an LTA that does not have another alias? Same with Special:CentralAuth/Long_Term_Child_Abuse (which does appear to be an LTA, but again is that how we usually call that LTA?). It's likely I'm missing something. Leaderboard (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how can you justify blocking Long Term Sexually Abuse for 'Sexual Abuser' (twice)? -- XXBlackburnXx (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaderboard and xxBlackburnxx The reason relates to the previous account names (there are significantly more than the two mentioned here) and other versions. The troll mentions these names himself in hundreds of edits and summaries. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 12:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
„wirr“ doesn‘t translate to „idiotic“. I would translate it to „confusing“ or „confused“. TenWhile6 13:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only second this, "idiotic" would be the translation of idiotisch. --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
„auf den Kopf gefallen“ is not a professional wording and nothing I would accept as a dewiki block reason. Making non-germans think that this kind of communication is normal in german communities is misleading and wrong. TenWhile6 13:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict.) You used "Sexual Abuser" three times when blocking Special:CentralAuth/Long Term Sexually Abuse. While other LTA-owned accounts end with "Abuse", I could not find any ending with "Abuser", which gives the impression that you are labeling the target account as a sexual abuser, and I believe that is inappropriate. I am not sure if any similar accounts were suppressed. – DreamRimmer ■ 12:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Example with r on the end 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 12:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!votes

  • Remove Remove as nominator. //shb (t • c) 10:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Remove. Unfortunately, I am going to have to agree with the removal due to DreamRimmer’s stated reasoning, and per the fact I warned WikiBayer to not repeat this issue, but they have disregarded this and other warnings. Codename Noreste (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove per TenWhile6. I'm not convinced the way WikiBayer defended this request.🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 14:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the good work you are doing on Meta and other projects, but summaries of this kind should be avoided because they are sensitive and can easily be misinterpreted. People may not know what you mean when using such wording, and it is your responsibility to make summaries clear enough to prevent any misunderstanding. As SHB has pointed out, the history shows that this has been a recurring concern, and many users have already tried to warn you about it. That is why I do not believe another warning will be sufficient in this case. I Support Support the removal until there is a strong and clear assurance that this will not happen again. When blocking LTA accounts with offensive usernames, it is best to mention only "LTA" or "Long-term abuse" in the summary, and if necessary, the specific username can be shared privately with those who wish to know which LTA it was. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove. After re-reading some of the threads on WB's talk page, it doesn't appear that the block reasons are done maliciously or to cause harm. Maybe there is a language barrier issue going on. If the block reasons were a one-time thing, it would be no big deal. WB could apologize and learn from it. Unfortunately this has happened multiple times now and the responses I've seen have not inspired confidence. Yes, it can be annoying when LTAs return and cause havoc, but it isn't a reason to insult them or encourage further vandalism. As w:Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals says, Insulting vandals is the surest way to increase vandalism, so it is never a positive contribution to the project when we have admins insulting vandals. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ternera (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove. Regrettably, the repeated doubling down on trying to justify their behaviour, by referring to the letter rather than the spirit of policy, suggests they are not willing to follow the advice given by fellow community members and are likely to continue using inappropriate block summaries in the future. I would expect better understanding from an administrator. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     17:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove. I truly admire the fact that you are engaging in anti-vandalism since years. But being active as an administrator also means acting very very responsible due to the extended permissions you're holding and using. Considering the fact that you have years of experience but still continue with your unprofessional communication style, defending it after critisism instead of changing your bahaviour (details above), there have to be tangible consequences. Sadly, tons of constructive feedback weren't able to prevent this from happening. --TenWhile6 22:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep --A.Savin (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? //shb (t • c) 09:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove sadly I support removal as I agree with the comments the users before me stated above.--Plutus 💬 🎃 — Fortune favors the curious 09:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove I think WikiBayer has been given enough rope and patience runs out. It's fair to notice this isn't a local problem either, multiple of us GSs have been noticing similar block requests in other xwiki blocks performed by WB. It's sad to see this saga evolve into this request, however policies are clear. Calling vandals names doesn't help anyone and is unacceptable, it might even have opposite effect on their prevention.--A09|(pogovor) 11:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral I don't know what to make of this. I took the following points into account:
    • The issue is very easy to fix (something like "LTA" or "LTA Bentuzer" or "LTA {a common name used for the LTA, such as GRP}" will be enough), but WikiBayer hasn't taken that into account.
    • I carefully considered potential translation issues, especially since TenWhile6 pointed out that WikiBayer mistranslated a key phrase ("wirres Danken") which does make a material difference (because "confusing thanks" is significantly less insulting). I don't know whether that's what made WikiBayer think that "Sexual Abuser" is a valid reason to use. But others have challenged their claims that their German responses are valid.
    • I echo other users that this is one disappointing reason to remove someone from Meta adminship (especially since I've seen no evidence that they do this to normal users), and that this is likely to lead to a loss of global sysop rights if continued.
    • I also note positive comments like A Cry for Help and a Timely Rescue on Swahili Wikipedia – Muddyb Mwanaharakati - look at the irony. Leaderboard (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I only used the account name/word for this vandal, as he repeatedly referred to himself in this name. This can also be seen in summaries andedits in a large number of accounts. [|1], 2, 3 ... 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 16:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiBayer Notice the edit summaries when these accounts were blocked/locked. They are standard templated summaries (eg "Long-term abuse") - why can't you do this as well? That's all we are asking from you. Leaderboard (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove this comments are a nogo. should not be an admin --ɱ 22:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Moral keep per Leaderboard. The points brought up are reasonable, and I hope WikiBayer considers it and works on resolving the issuee. I do appreciate his constructive anti-vandalism work, and would support if he reapplies once the problems have been taken care of. – Svārtava (tɕ) 06:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove. You have made a lot of good work, but these blocking reasons are not acceptable and you have not changed anything about this altough there have been multiple requests to do so. --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak keep I've noticed improvements regarding SRG requests and edit summaries since this request for removal was opened, so perhaps this was finally an eye-opener about community expectations. --Johannnes89 (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove 2 years is a lengthy enough time to change. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  weak remove Sadly, as WikiBayer does quite a bit of good work, and I was neutral in the steward election this year. But here I will be saying remove as it is apparent that the issues thoroughout the years, which were also raised at the SE candidacy, are still present, and with this kind of controversy around them I think it's best both for WikiBayer and for the community to have the tools removed for now. I would be OK with supporting a future RfA if there were to be improvement. EPIC (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep If the only complaints here are either months old or do not involve the use of admin tools then there isn't sufficient cause to revoke adminship. * Pppery * it has begun 19:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LTA naming referenced above is from last week. A09|(pogovor) 20:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Block summaries also involve the use of sysop tools. //shb (t • c) 23:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove De-adminship is truly a last port of call for an admin. I have noticed quite a few de-adminship/removal of rights candidates improve their behaviour during the "recall" process over time, only to go back to those same issues once it's finished - regardless of whether they retain adminship or not. So I would like to see a longer period of better judgement given they have been told about this numerous times, both through talk page messages and rights requests. Admins are expected to be accountable and responsive throughout their tenure so the fact we are here is already grounds for desysop. --Ferien (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Remove sadly, this is going the wrong way. I hoped WikiBayer could improve since concerns raised in SE2025, but he didn't and this demonstrates clearly what I do not expect, let alone an admin. --Stïnger （会話） 01:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral because I don't want to pile-on. But I do think the concerns are well-justified. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep per Pppery; and the candidate's vigorous edit-summaries. —Fortuna imperatrix 10:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear consensus to Remove, I'll file a request to Stewards. --M/ (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/WikiBayer_(removal)&oldid=29474452"