Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2020-08

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Manual requests

Hijacked domain and predatory spam

Status:    Not done

I came across repeated additions of on a small wiki only to find out that this domain has more than 5000 occurrences x-wiki. It was at one point in time a reputable journal which I believe merged with en:Wiley (publisher), however the domain was sniped and it is now a host of predatory supplement spam/scams. I don't know a reasonable way to solve this problem aside from someone creating a bot task xwiki to replace the url with an archived version (if possible) or remove it entirely. I'm not sure what protocol is here because I've never seen a domain with this heavy use hijacked. Apologies if this isn't the appropriate place to ask this, I honestly am not even sure where to begin. --Praxidicae (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Cyberpower678, could you tell us if perhaps InternetArchiveBot can be of any help here? --Base (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't there some sort of way you can use w:en:WP:AWB to do this? --Rschen7754 05:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been unable to find a way to use AWB on more than one project simultaneously, but I suppose we could do runs on individual projects. Vermont (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the meanwhile, it's fine to blacklist this domain globally: the publisher never needs to be linked. On the English Wikipedia, if you use citation bot, the redundant URL is automatically removed; elsewhere, where the URL is not in a template or the bot is not available, using Citoid/VisualEditor with the DOI will usually produce the correct result. InternetArchiveBot is probably the most global of the relevant bots but may need some manual tweaking for the URLs outside templates perhaps. Nemo 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Started cleaning I'll prefer to do some by hand as in many cases I think it would be prefered to recreate the link (almost certainly in a cite template) using doi and a refgenerator as but this doesn't mean I think a bot solution won't be a good solution for our wikis.—Ah3kal (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Another problem is that the xwiki link tool is limited to 40 projects (top projects) and many of the smaller wikis that won't appear there and COIBot link report maxes out. Beetstra is there a way we can get a full report for all projects? Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Praxidicae: Full report is not really going to help you, you just have to find all existing links. Running a query on it is going to take way to much time on the server and is going to be unreadable (you would get the addition diffs .. but you don't know if it is still there). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 16:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and created this for now so we can mark off what has been fixed. I'm hitting some of the smaller wikis just by searching alphabetically through the list of projects. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Did anybody raise a blacklist request? Putting a stop to more additions would be a good idea. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Since I was pinged, the domain has been blacklisted in IABot and I ran it on the wikis it is approved to run on. They should either have an archive URL attached to it now, or they should be marked as dead.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Sadly that doesn't do much, for instance in [1] the archived version is itself broken. I know it's not IABot's main aim and strength, but the URL should just be removed outright from the "cite journal"-like templates where the DOI is already filled. Nemo 19:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Interestingly, some links to this domain were being marked as dead already in 2017. Maybe the squatting happened later. Nemo 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
      Nemo bis It happened on 10/20. Also relevant. Praxidicae (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
      Thanks! Nemo 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up manually on the Italian Wikipedia. Nemo 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, I am also manually fixing and noting at User:Praxidicae/DOI fix. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 06:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We've now got a second hijacked domain, Praxidicae (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae, could you summarise where we stand with this request, please? --Base (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Marking as not done (closed) for thread inactivity. Feel free to make a new thread linking to this one. — regards, Revi 22:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Request of global lock of ASUS motherboards

Status:    Done

@Bsadowski1: Please lock; LTA and cross-wiki abuse. - 07:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Linedwell: Anyone? - 07:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, Linedwell [talk] 07:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of en:List of Total Wipeout episodes

Status:    Done

Per en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Total Wipeout episodes. I can't delete the page as I don't have 'bigdelete'. Thanks -- Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Salvio, Yes check.svg Done --Base (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User problem at haw.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Hi, folks. There is an user removing valid content at haw.wikipedia, adding nonsense pictures and templates at articles. I already tried to talk, but the user answer with nonsense or ignores my messages ([2], [3], [4], [5])

They are removing pictures of Brazilian politicians for unclear reasons. Files are being used in other wikis and are properly licensed. As we can see, for instance, at "haw:Jair Bolsonaro" (President of Brazil), they removed the picture from the file and added these nonsense templates (haw:Anakuhi:Non-Wikimedia Commons, haw:Anakuhi:Non-free image copyright government ministers of Brazil), not to mention the offensive "messages" they add too. Now, they changed their mind and proposed deletion of the article for no reason. Sadly, this can be seen in many other articles and I don't even know what is the damage done to the project for not knowing local language.

Just to provide another example, this is another article about a Brazilian politician. Instead of adding the picture of the politician, they added the picture of a random store with a Hello-Kitty logo... which is something I am having a hard time trying to find any possible reason. I have reverted the user and tried to talk, but they are just ignoring me and edit warring. As there is no local admin, I am asking help here. Thanks in advance.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 02:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know how to solve this, but it has to start with blocking this user or there will be too many articles to be fixed in the future. Another example: this article is filled with nonsense templates, as there are many others. We have to stop it now or it will be harder to fix.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 02:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes this is abuse. I have see he make lots of Delete request with the false Reason: "Article in another language".--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 06:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I have written to the user, since then the user has not been active. I would say we wait for the answer before we do anything.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 07:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I guess it's time to start deleting these gibberish "English" templates. --MF-W 07:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that the user is now active under IP. haw:Special:Diff/93272 --16:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to find users that speak Hawaian to help. There are many articles that need to be reviewed, like haw:Edson Fachin. They are adding Disney and Nintendo characters on articles with no reason at all. In some of them, they mention those characters on article. It may be needed to delete all articles created by T8 Expresso.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 14:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Please, someone do something to stop it. I can’t keep reverting everyday. At least, protecting the involved pages may help. Thanks in advance.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 05:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we should block IP Range Please give a second opinion--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 07:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Teles and WikiBayer: Yes check.svg Done I have revoked the user's editing privileges based on CheckUser evidence. For more information, please see my notice for the user. I have also blocked abused IP ranges. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: Thanks a lot!—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 02:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Bosnian Wikinews inactive

Status:    Done

The communities at Meta-wiki and Bosnian WikinewsWikipedia decided that Bosnian Wikinews no longer has active community. The project currently lacks admins and crats, and the project's main page is locked. I created n:bs:Početna strana/soft, so the n:bs:Početna strana should be moved into something like n:bs:Početna strana/old or n:bs:Početna strana/archived or something like that. George Ho (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

And what is in n:bs:Početna strana/soft? Ruslik (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It was translated from the English version of the notice from Norwegian Wikinews saying that the project is inactive at the moment and can be reactivated at anytime. George Ho (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I have lowered protection of all fully protected pages at bs.wikinews, to allow the community (small, and probably mainly from Wikipedia users) manage itself. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
What about performing the move request below:
  • Početna strana/soft → Početna strana
  • Početna strana →Početna strana/old (or Početna strana/archive or something else)
  • Must I do them manually? Doing the moves myself would leave a redirect. George Ho (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


    Status:    Locally handled

    The document contains two errors and several other warnings. I'd appreciate if a global interface editor with experience in CSS could take a look and assist them in fixing the issues.

    Also the following code:

    is not needed as those pages do not exist on es.wikivoyage (I guess this was a copy-paste from en.voy) and can be removed.

    Also, something strange happens to me when visiting that page that makes my PC to freeze intermitently.

    Thanks for the assistance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

    As this is a GS wiki and no active IAs/'crats, I'll take a look :) --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    @MarcoAurelio: I guess it's better to replace these Project: pages with the corresponding eswikivoyage local equivalents? --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think we have local equivalents of those so I feel it's safe to remove them. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    I've done the removal, and reduced warnings from 130+ to 57. I'm marking this as done but feel free to double check if something can be further optimized as I only fixed 100% surely safe things. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    Firstly, I agree with WhitePhosphorus that should be replaced these references to English Wikivoyage pages with the corresponding ones from Spanish Wikivoyage titles if exist, instead of deleting them all. Secondly, It's not like there is not any bureaucrat and interface admins there. There is an active bureaucrat, just there is not activity enough to use the permission, and interface admin is mostly granted ad hoc for a specific task or group of tasks. Therefore, this task could have been asked in Spanish Wikivoyage and performed there, so the best approach could have been done (replacing when possible instead of deleting them all). --Zerabat (discusión) 16:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    I've undid the controversial removal. Sorry for that. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    Just left a message on local village pump. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
    @WhitePhosphorus: Any update? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    Cosmetic changes: Just hid the long codes. — regards, Revi 22:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    I've left a message on the AN of es.wikivoyage. The project went down to have just one sysop (and bureaucrat) now. Changes were approved in the local discussion in January. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    Is there anything left to do, @MarcoAurelio and WhitePhosphorus:? ---Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    My request remains unanswered over there. It's up to you whether you think this warrants a global interface editor or we can keep waiting for a local user. It is not urgent though. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    Self-resolving, tagging as "locally resolved" (maybe one day). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Recent article from ko.wn

    Status:    Done

    I thought about taking this (n:ko:강제성 없는 마스크 착용 의무화 by User:아둔아제) at ko.wn’s Water Cooler (or village pump), but seems that the venue has been edited less and less. As of now, there are no sources to back up the article. What to do with it? George Ho (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

    -revi, can you take a look as a former admin? In general Wikinews do allow unsourced content, original research is one of its main features, but I agree that in this case it is better to have sources. You can either nominate the page for deletion or indeed mention it on the WC for discussion. It should not matter if it is active or not (some people might be passively checking it too). --Base (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    Reading the article, there is no source, nor does it adhere to general format of Wikinews. I deleted this article. And it is marked as done. --Sotiale (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

    Maintenance request for a jawikt gadget

    Status:    Done

    wikt:ja:MediaWiki:Gadget-CollapseExpandAll.js needs the following update to conform with the current styling of MediaWiki. Can you please apply the change below?

    Before: $( '#p-tb' ).after( '<div class="portal" role="navigation" id="p-visibility" aria-labelledby="p-visibility-label"><h3 id="p-visibility-label">' +

    After: $( '#p-tb' ).after( '<nav role="navigation" id="p-visibility" class="vector-menu vector-menu-portal portal" aria-labelledby="p-visibility-label"><h3 id="p-visibility-label">' +

    I'm guessing the need arose from phab:T249372 or one of its related changes. Thanks! whym (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

    Yes check.svg Done via [6]. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    I forgot about the closing tag (</div> → </nav>) that needs to be changed, too. '</h3><div class="body"><ul></ul></div></div>' should be replaced with '</h3><div class="body"><ul></ul></div></nav>'. whym (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


    Status:    Not done

    I would like to use my right to vanish / right to disappear.

    Please rename my Account globally to a random string of numbers and letters, move all user pages and talkpages, and do not leave a redirect for privacy reasons. Many Commons images link my full name to my Wikipedia Account. After this please proceed and lock the account globally.

    Please include also:

    Thanks in advance. Abigor talk 06:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

    @User:Abigor Renaming requests are wrong here. In addition, users are not renamed to disguise their history. Requests for global lock are handled on SRG. You can make your requests on the relevant pages, but they will most likely be rejected.--11:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiBayer (talk)
    I'm not looking to hide or disguise anything, I'm looking to use my right to vanish. Abigor talk 11:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Abigor! Nice to see you. I think the easiest would be to use Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Then you can choose the random sequence of letters yourself. --MF-W 12:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think that this should be done. The right to vanish is actually a courtesy issue and not an absolute right. I think that it is a bit rich to come and request courtesy vanishing when you were running all those accounts and avoiding restrictions placed on you, you did not display courtesy to the communities at that time. I also think that this may be problematic for some communities where you were causing issues, that they may not wish to see those accounts and the linking to discussions of issue disconnected from the problematic accounts, and no visibility of a request to vanish.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    At a bare minimum I would like to see comment from the wikis where advanced rights were held, and discussions took place for their removal. I know that nlWP and Commons being two wikis that have such discussions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Even if that is what stewards have to decide in the end, I'll leave a comment. Do you want to hide all of your abusive accounts and do you think you have the right to do so? You knowingly committed the abuse, you should also be aware that the abuse has negative effects. Read the Global rename policy "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct."--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 07:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    NB: Special:Redirect/logid/37655944 --MF-W 12:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

    Comment Comment Some of this has occurred by Nadzik. Not happy. Why aren't global renamers communicating so this didn't occur?  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    • I've read old discussion pages of Abigor (including some here on meta, for example, a RfC from 2008) and got myself a bit acquainted with his situation. User asked about renaming his account and that he be blocked on all the projects. I've decided that this user (even with his history) is allowed a vanishing procedure if he wishes to leave Wikimedia for good. Other editors with advanced permissions even courtesy blanked his talk page. I hope I offered you some explanation. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
      @Nadzik: I would have accepted that you didn't see this conversation as an explanation for a move. I completely do not accept the reasoning that you saw this conversation and made a separate assessment, especially without joining the conversation. Such a decision and action is an abuse of your use of the tools. Global wikimedia actions are undertaken based on a consensus of the community based on the rules, not your opinion. It would seem that you have no comprehension of the results of your actions and the importance of consulting community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
      @Billinghurst: To be honest I have not seen this discussion until someone pinged me yesterday. If I knew about the discussion happening here I wouldn't have touched this request without prior consulting. It is one of the SR pages that I almost never visit because my work does not take me here. Since my first comment here I've added it to my watchlist to keep an eye on this discussion. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
      Thanks for that clarification Nadzik. Then I come back to my question of whether global renamers saw this discussion and are communicating properly so that the rename could have been paused. When we started with global renamers we didn't automatically rename blocked accounts, so is that still the case?  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Trijnstel: Can you please comment what is happening with this mailing list as I believe that you were coordinating that list previously. Why are global renamers not communicating? There is no absolute right to a rename.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    Request withdrawn, I will change password, remove email and let it be. Sorry to see that after 10 years people still think you have no rights. Abigor talk 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    I see this request only now and I must say I'm far from amused to see that atleast a part of this request was actually done. It broke a block message transcluded on many pages because the previous name was used. With some work I could figure out it was now to be found here. Furthermore I agree that the rename shouldn't have been done based on fact this user is not in good standing with part of this community and renaming him to disguise himself. About what Abigot said above: I would like, like other already did here above, point you to fact that courtesy vanishing is actually, you guessed it, a courtesy granted to valuable users willing to vanish from the Wikimedia projects. --Wiki13 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Wifhnwsouebwnkjebdhdjn192832901 and Abigor: Your actions of trying to close the conversation, and have comment indicates to me that you have not vanished at all. You are still wishing to have an opinion and direct the action of community. You still have rights; the right to be an adult and accept that you abused the community's trust. You have the right to own your mistakes and not slither away and try to obfuscate your actions. Your accounts and the actions that the community took are our responsibility, and the community was discussing it and attempting to reach a consensus; that is our and their right. You have rights, but not to a courtesy vanishing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: Two possible means to remedy this issue, either

    1. move the account back; or
    2. put redirects in place on all the places where Abigor had actively edited, especially where communities took actions against the user.

     — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    I am strongly inclined to reverse the courtesy vanishing done by Nadzik, as the user is not eligble for courtesy vanishing under the current rename policy. In fact, they would not be eligble for _any_ rename. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    +1 for revert renaming-𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 05:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    It was made clear to me that this action was wrong, I would also favour the back renaming. I am volunteering myself to help clean the mess I've created by accepting this request. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    As last respond to this whole discussion that I have withdrawn btw. I have permission from the Dutch ARBCOM to request a global rename. states: Then I can do a request from global rename on and that it would include a rename on all projects. A new discussion about this shouldn't be needed as there is already a ARBCOM decision here.

    And yes I explicitly asked the Arbitrage Commision if I could get renamed, and they linked explicitly that it only could have been done globally. A local rename isn't allowed.

    This is my last responds on Wikimedia. Abigor talk 05:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    Commons? There was an desysop action against you there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    I resigned on Commons on 29 June 2011. I remained active their until 2015, not currently blocked their either. It's my choice to leave that project, nobody forced me. Abigor talk 05:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    regardless of whether there is approval from the NLwiki, suppressing the redirect is wrong.

    There are many links in Commons that are now buggy.The completely exaggerated demand "lockhide" for all accounts shows that he mainly wants to hide his History. This is not possible according to our guidelines.-𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 11:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    Despite that the Dutch ArbCom ended its conclusion with the fact that Abigor could ask for a rename by either global renamers or stewards. This doesn't mean these users should do a rename based on the fact that Dutch ArbCom said so. They (the Dutch AC) have no global jurisdiction on that; the global rename policy applies here. And this policy rightly so prevents users from being renamed to either conceal or ofuscate previous bad behaviour. --Wiki13 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose Oppose,**real name remove** should not be allowed to escape scrutiny for bad actions through redirect suppression.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Jeff G.Please do not name users with the real name if they do not / no longer want to.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Noting that I received a request to revision delete the usage of the above-mentioned name. It is, however, not outing as multiple Wikimedia Commons uploads are under that name, tied to Abigor. I’m posting this publicly in the event other administrators are contacted about this. Regards, Vermont (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    Its ironic that the main issue people have with me is that I used somebodies real name on Wikipedia, a name that was also publicly tied to the user. It got me desysopped and banned for 10 years. However its fine to use somebodies full name here as a comment; And in a diff without issues. It says a lot about the law on the wiki. The name just mentioned isn't even a part of the request; As uploads under that name are fine. Wifhnwsouebwnkjebdhdjn192832901 (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    I'm gone, this request has been completed and I thank you. I enjoyed the times I still did good work on all the projects, serving the commitees and doing moderator work. I did a wrong move and I'm greatly sorry. I'm very thank full for the rename and now I'm good. Thank you all. Wifhnwsouebwnkjebdhdjn192832901 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    The whole block is for sock use; not privacy

    I want to respond anominous to this topic. I do believe that the community of the Nederlandse Wikipedia is having a double standard. We had MMaerk that visited some Wikipedia users, released private information, and did personal attacks to Abigor ( That user just had to say sorry and he was welcome again after saying sorry. But Abigor is forced by the Nederlandse Wikipedia to leave all projects. And this while placing his name on a dossier page knowing it will be indexed. When the user wants to leave after a decade there is new drama. Let's grow up, how is leaving danger for the Encyclopedia? Why don't we remove his personal information when asked? What are we gaining by violating privacy after 10 year? 15:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    I can't help but think by how this reply has been written that this is Abigor talking about himself in the third person. But to get back on topic here.... I don't think that the Dutch Wikipedia really has a double standard. I can't say much about whether it is true or not that MMaerk visited people, as this happened quite some time ago and makes it hard to find anything written about that time period. Regarding the block, for me there is no double standard here. The user in question got an indefinite block for a severe personal attack. This one is certainly one that could give you a long block right now, but no indefinite block. I am therefor of the opinion that the reduced block, which still nearing 2 years in time, was reasonable. The person wasn't let of that easy.
    Abigor on the other hand knowingly and willingly violated an users privacy by linking a picture onwiki with an IP address of this user, gotten by using the CheckUser tool on a wiki under control by him. For privacy violations our policies are clear: long or indefinite blocks can be given depending on the severity of privacy violation. The block duration for this can be decided by the blocking administrator. Doing what he did violated the trust he had from quite a lot of people. It was later decided by the Dutch ArbCom, after a unblock was requested, that he could not appeal the block again within the next five years.
    Furthermore your statement that the page is indexed is simply untrue. Noindex is on the page, therefor it won't be indexed by search engines
    Regarding the drama: that drama, is in honest opinion, created by the user himself. There was no issue with all this as far I'm aware of before this request came through.
    Trying to downplay what happened by turning him into a victim seems hypocritic to me and is not a good way to argue for this request. --Wiki13 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

    I think you didn’t read the full history either. Abigor was blocked for a privacy violation. The ARBCOM decided that the block would remain 5 years, Abigor did his time and is currently blocked for using sock accounts. ( So why do we keep bringing that up while he is not longer blocked for that. We are here talking about a user currently blocked for using sock’s to edit while blocked, those account weren’t even vandalizing the Wiki, they all got barnstars for the good work. So wouldn’t that say he had a bad period, but did good work before and after that? - got credits for good anti vandalizing work.

    The full dossier of his accounts that are socks included renamed account that in the old style remained as account and bot accounts.

    We making a massive deal about nothing here. 09:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Everyone is entitled to opinions. Communities make decisions, not everyone agrees with the decisions. I just don't think that it is relevant to this action. This is about whether a global renamer should take the action with the consensus of the community. We are not here to rehash an old story.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    I know that, hence I referred to this request a few times in my reply. Some of the comments by the anonymous user in regard to this request were simply untrue. In order to explain why it needs some backstory. Calling it rehashing is not very civil in my opinion, as that wasn't the intention of why I wrote it. In regards to whether a renamer should do renames based on community consensus: I personally think most renames are uncontroversial and can be done without any community consensus. However, rename requests like these do not qualify for that. In this case we have an user that has quite the backstory with local blocks on their accounts. For these cases I would personally look at policy to see if rename is allowed. If a global renamer or steward still isn't completely sure if he should do something, put it up for discussion so the commuinity can decide if it should be done or not. I don't think asking community should be the first step in the process, but a later step. TLDR from this: First use common sense to see if the request should be done, if unclear then ask the community for input. --Wiki13 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    My comments were general to the subheading, not specific to yours Wiki13. I have been arguing the whole way that we do things by a community consensus. What is implicit in that is that a simple request non-controversial the community approves, and anything complex should be declined/deferred and be put before the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    That's good to know, didn't know you intended it to be specific to the heading and not to any specific user. --Wiki13 (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Comment comment to stewards there is no consensus for this rename. The preference seems to be to return to the status quo, rather than to leave it and add redirects. Would a steward please return undo the rename  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    So the community overrules ArbCom decission? When we read the links the ArbCom pointed to the right location for the rename. Besides that, there is nobody here from the Dutch Wikipedia opposing? 13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    I have said this before: Local ArbCom only decided that Abigor could rename at the mentioned links. Nowhere it is said it must be done by the stewards or global renamers. Also, local Arbcom have NO jurisdiction on global renamers as global rename polcy applies. And if that says renames shouldn't be done conceal or ofuscate previouws bad behaviour and the community agrees with that then that's how it will be. --Wiki13 (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    Exactly. ArbCom told you it doesn't have jurisdiction to decide, and redirected you to global renamers and/or stewards. English translation of the ArbCom message (by Brimz, a ArbCom member): The Arbcom is not assigned to rename accounts. This is to be done by global renamers and or stewards. A request to this end can be submitted through this page ( Please take into consideration that a rename has effect on all projects and need to be requested per user name. Stewards are not expected to determine the accounts the request is applying to.. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    That is funny, when a user asked the ArbCom if he can be renamed and the ArbCom goes ahead and tells him where to go for that; but then says we didn’t mean we would approve. This whole process is just crazy. 13:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    No this processs exactly goes like it supposed to. ArbCom says you could ahead and ask here, but that that doesn't neccesairly mean the request will be done. We have global renaming policies in place which should prevent abusive rename requests. According to the community this is one, so a reversal is done. Considering multiple people have tried to explained this, you seem to fail to get the point made by them. Please stop the disruptive behaviour on this page. --Wiki13 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    I see your point, but when here is said there should be community approval first on the NL.WIKI... that would be kind of hard for a blocked user, and that is exactly why there is a ARBCOM to answer question by blocked users. 14:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC) @TonyBallioni, Track13, and Xaosflux: Could one of you please raise this matter with the global renamers mailing list. The silence from the list itself of noting community concern and resolving this by that group I see as initially troubling to me. Seems an element of tone-deafness.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Well, actually, that was already done - through there were no comments. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Vanishing reversed

    I went ahead and reversed the vanishing per the above. There’s enough controversy and opposition that having the reversal occur at this point in time makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    It’s good to know that we will behave like hotel california if people made a mistake, unless you have lots of friends then everything is possible. I think that we as community can be very proud. I will reconsider my Dutch Adminship; I can’t support this community anymore. 13:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


    When the redirect is back in place it should be fine right? Let a steward rollback the remame and the rename it back to Deleted User XXX and the problem is solved? When I read the whole discussion the main thing is the full name on Wikipedia. When an account is closed that shouldn’t be needed? I would propose to rename it with redirects, and then remove the full name on Dutch Wikipedia? 13:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    No. Per Global rename policy, a global rename is only possible when "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct.". That's not true, as you're AC-blocked. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    Community blocked, not ArbCom Blocked. And per previous comment; I just felt that commenting under my username will get me kicked-out of that same community. 13:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    If there’s consensus on the Dutch Wikipedia (and possibly Commons) to allow a rename, that’s fine. As you pointed out, they’re blocked for community socking now, so the community should have the final say. My reversal restores the status quo. It can also easily be re-done if the Dutch community decides to allow it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    This isn’t status quo, I have been informed that one of the stewards assisted the vanish and removed the email and changed the password. So the situation is now that a rename can never be asked for again. 14:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Stewards can't remove email or change password. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    @Martin Urbanec: assisted Abigor with removing the emailadres and password to complete the vanish. So your saying he didn’t do that? 16:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    I did – you (I believe you are Abigor) disclosed me your password via IRC private message, and explicitly asked me to remove your email address from the account, as well as to change your password. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Status Quo

    Are we also going to give back the Account Abigor to the owner? The stewards are still the owner of the password and email to this account. 16:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    I'm wondering on who did give you that information, if it's actually true... Seeing as only two people can know this and that I doubt a steward would say anything about this, you must be Abigor talking about himself in the third person. I base this on the fact of all the information that has been supplied by the IP addresses on this page and the way they word their replies. So please stop misleading people. --Wiki13 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    I’m sorry this has occurred. The issue with the password and email is not something that I anticipated and is not normal as stewards don’t have the technical ability to do that. If the original operator of the account wishes to gain access so that they can resolve any local issues on commons or, they should be able to email ca(at)wikimedia(dot)org with more details and control of the account should be able to be restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    I don't understand what your romping about here is supposed to be.Why do you close your account when you still need it. You must have been aware that the discussion was still going on. On the one hand you want to disappear, on the other hand you are drawing a lot of attention with this discussion.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


    Een echte vos verliest zijn haren, maar niet zijn streken, nietwaar? Ciell (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

    OAuth permissions