Anonuser4

special:diff/1336171278

What's wrong with this thread? sapphaline (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at the user’s contributions. All the answers are right there. An admin really should revdel everything. ~2026-72837-7 (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

Please do not delete or alter legitimate talk page comments from other editors. Such edits are disruptive and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Izno (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I am a private person but not the owner of archive.today. Anonuser4 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I am a private person but not the owner of archive.today: Then how would you explain You're definitely involved with the archive in some capacity. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

"[redacted]" identity used by archive.today's webmaster seems to be impersonation based on context I found. I can email it to you. sapphaline (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You are right.The owner of archive.today impersonates online.

I just tried to explain situation but I am blocked from replying. Anonuser4 (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

sapphaline,

I am sorry if some people misunderstood me here.

I have been impersonated by Denis Petrov (the only and real owner of archive.today.) He lives in Russia.

I am a victim of impersonation by the operator of archive.today.

His real name is Denis Petrov and the person is Russian.

I have nothing to do with his website,Anonuser4 (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I have made an additional redaction, and excluded the page from search-engine results. It is still on the page, but not immediately visible. (It is in an URL that is a part of evidence against "Petrov".) It is noteworthy that other websites also mention it, so it is not of much use to focus solely on Wikipedia.

I have already explained, I am impersonated by Denis Petrov who owns this domain, archive.today and the reason why name can also be visible on other websites aside from Wikipedia is not because shared it publicly. Blocking should be only a temporary one because I just tried to edit a page in a way that was meant to protect privacy but according to Wikipedia, this action was inappropriate. Anonuser4 (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline I think you should redact it from comment, and someone should probably revdel it from the history of this page. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think removing it will result in a significant loss of context. sapphaline (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It has been removed again, but it's a tricky situation. Because the name was used by the archive.today people, it appears on lots of pages all over the internet. There's nothing Wikipedia can do about that. I think we should remove the name from Wikipedia, and that's being done, but not all Wikipedia users know this. That's why some users might publish the name again somewhere on Wikipedia. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anonuser4: Do you know why the archive.today people are impersonating you? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Because I asked archive.today to remove something they archived without permission. I didn't know that he hates deletion requests and do not really reply to people. I would not say archive.today people because it is likely to be owned by a Russian individual named Denis Petrov. Anonuser4 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anonuser4: And this information you asked to redact is related to.. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

That was also done by Denis Petrov. He shared comments or something using full name on fake wikipedia accounts. I had no idea as to who is this person. Anonuser4 (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the archive.today people (I'll keep using the plural, since we can't be sure, and "Denis Petrov" probably is a pseudonym) used the Wikipedia account to post the alleged text of an email sent to the archive.ph domain provider on. The (presumably) real.. then tried to scrub the name from that talk page. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct with that. But there is evidence that archive.today is operated by the mentioned person, Denis Petrov, Saint Petersburg, Russia so it is not an alias.I tried to erase name from the talk page as I had never heard about that person and I did not have own Wikipedia accounts. Anonuser4 (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah. How do you know that name is mentioned on Wikipedia within hours? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Why do you ask these questions? Do you need to get some evidence against Denis? You know, his activity is investigated by FBI. Anonuser4 (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think CWL is asking these questions because it's hard to tell what's real and what's fake with anything related to archive.today. How can we be sure that you are who you claim to be? It would help dispel suspicion if you could tell us how you are notified when someone uses that name on Wikipedia. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Because they show up on search engines. Why don't you believe I am a decent person? I can repeat here again that I am not the owner of archive.today. What else is required for me to do to prove I am a normal human? Anonuser4 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I've marked this page as NOINDEX, meaning it won't show up in search results. You can also send me, @Chrisahn, or @Sapphaline an email. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

What information do I need to submit via email? Anonuser4 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

As @Chrisahn said, whatever you want. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I would send a private email to someone here but now this option is not visible for some reason. Anonuser4 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser/ChildrenWillListen. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I tend to believe you are who you claim to be. But you know, on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. :-) But it's no big deal really. We can't be 100% sure who you are, but that's the usual state of affairs here on Wikipedia. If you want to provide more information about yourself, you can do so by email. If not, don't. That's perfectly OK. See e.g. WP:PRIVACY. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline "I think removing it will result in a significant loss of context" – I don't think so, and WP:PRIVACY takes precedence. I'll ping @Thryduulf or @ToBeFree, since they handled this issue on the RFC page: Could you suppress the family name added in [redacted]? Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The material I removed appeared to be connecting a real person's name to multiple Wikipedia accounts and IP addresses, not because of the existence of a real name on its own. I'm too involved with the discussion, and frankly too confused about who is claiming what about whom at this point to be the person to untangle what if anything needs to be done about a real name. I will say that it is being discussed by the Oversight team. @Anonuser4 making the same request multiple times does not change anything. If the content you wish to be suppressed should be suppressed it will be. Whether it should be will be determined according to the oversight policy and other factors (for example the Streisand effect), but it's unfortunately not simple. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Chrisahn, thanks for the ping. I have received the request. (Please use WP:RFOS for future requests though.)

If you'd like to remove something, please do so; if someone wants to perform revision deletion, they can of course do so. I personally have decided against suppressing that specific part of the RfC, and I have forwarded the situation to the other oversighters for discussion at 00:49 UTC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Izno: I think this is more complicated than "vandalism", so don't rush to block this user. sapphaline (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I can provide additional context over email if you want me to. sapphaline (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You should contact the oversight team. sapphaline (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't explain how can I email you.? Anonuser4 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have oversight rights, email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. sapphaline (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The advice given at 22:45 above was fine. Your attempts to fix the perceived problem yourself have not been. You can't remove anything from Wikipedia's history, so even if you managed to selectively remove the problematic content, it would still be visible to everyone looking at the article's history. To make matters worse, you did not manage to selectively remove content and broke the page instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You need to understand, I do not want to cause harm to anyone. Anonuser4 (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

That request needs to be handled by email. You'll need to send another email. As an administrator, I have no way to look at any offline information about you: I can't see your IP address, registered email address, nothing like that. Only Oversight has access to that information, and frankly, it's sensitive enough that you're better off to not be posting requests about it on your talk page or anybody else's.

At some point, I have to ask myself which is the most likely possibility: are you who you claim to be, or are you an imposter trying to drag an innocent individual's name further into the mud with all these postings?

When I first read this attempt to remove full name, I was skeptical and thought maybe this is a weird campaign by the archive.today people, but I searched the web and found some evidence that.. is a real person who doesn't have anything to do with archive.today. The archive.today people simply happened to use the name.

• There have been attempts (probably by the real... ) to remove full name or user accounts with that name from various Wikipedia language editions since about 2020. Some cases were handled by the WMF, and some user accounts were deleted due to impersonation, so I guess someone at the WMF had some evidence.
• In one case in 2021, there was a bit of an edit war lasting a few days. Various IPs from the same mobile provider in country X repeatedly removed full name from a Wikipedia discussion page. I think this is pretty strong evidence that this was the real... (whose mobile IP changed a couple of times over the course of a few days, as one would expect), because such IPs would be very difficult to forge, even for tech-savvy users like the archive.today people. Other users reverted the removals (one of them using a Russian IP). At the end of this edit war, the section was courtesy-blanked by an administrator, but the full name is still visible in the page history. Maybe we should suppress it there as well.
• The full name is all over the web, and that's not going to change. But we probably should remove and "blacklist" the name here on Wikipedia. Admittedly, that might make some discussions about archive.today a bit more difficult, since the name appears quite frequently. But we value privacy, so we should probably not make the name public.

— Chrisahn (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd be happy to provide more details to administrators by email. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but could you provide them to me? sapphaline (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline OK. It looks like I can't send you an email, but you can send me one if you want. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

What's your email address? sapphaline (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser/Chrisahn — Chrisahn (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to attach email to my account. Perhaps you could paste it to some pastebin and turn on "burn after reading" option? sapphaline (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You could attach a temporary email address to your account. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

OnionShare is also an option. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Who should I send email to? Anonuser4 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anonuser4 You don't have to send any emails and you don't have to prove anything. If you want, you can send me an email at Special:EmailUser/Chrisahn. I promise to keep anything you send me private. But again, you're not required to send anything to anyone. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline: I don't have much to share really. Just a few links that I found on the web, and a few Wikipedia pages. If you're interested, please attach a temporary email address to your account, and I'll send you an email. If not, never mind, no big deal. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Chrisahn - Now I sent you a private email. Anonuser4 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I sent you a reply. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: I sent you an email. sapphaline (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I sent you a reply as well. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I replied to you. Anonuser4 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline I need some help but I don't want to share it publicly.How can I send you a private email? Anonuser4 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you have an email address attached to your account? If yes I'll email you in a few minutes. sapphaline (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes,I have. Anonuser4 (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Let me know if you can see my email address. Anonuser4 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I sent you an email. sapphaline (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you re-send it? Because I keep getting an error message once trying to contact you via email. Anonuser4 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you use your email client? sapphaline (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain why do I receive this error? "There are problems with some of your input." Anonuser4 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Is this a message from your client or Wikipedia's "email user" page? sapphaline (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's email user page. Anonuser4 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Why can't you email me through your client? sapphaline (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Because I don't know your email address. Anonuser4 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It's in the email after ---. sapphaline (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I always receive your emails.But once clicking into the link to contact you, I am presented with the provided error. Anonuser4 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Try again. sapphaline (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It worked. Email sent to you. Anonuser4 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I replied to their email. Anonuser4 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I am an independent security researcher investigating into archive.today and its ownership (and its owner's questionable activities). Would you mind providing the details to me as well?

My email is iam-py-test[@]protonmail[.]com (also listed elsewhere if you want to verify my identity)

Thank you Iam-py-test (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, anonuser4, name is in a post of mine which is linked to by all the news articles on archive.today. I can't delete it without breaking all those links, but I have edited out name Iam-py-test (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Iam-py-test - Thank you for writing to me.

Of course I can provide you with more info. Let me know here or in email what details do you need? As for name being in same articles, what do you mean? I can also send you an email to your email address. Anonuser4 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I can send you links to the articles by email, if you want. Since archive.today probably knows about the Wikipedia discussion, it is probably safer to use email.

Thank you Iam-py-test (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

OK. E-mail was sent to you. Anonuser4 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Iam-py-test: I've also sent you an email through the on-wiki email system. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Chrisahn As you mentioned here,that would be a great idea to "blacklist" this name on Wikipedia. Anonuser4 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Hello, I'm Qwerty123M. I noticed that you recently removed content from User talk:~2026-37017-16 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, It cannot be restored I am afraid. It is part of an online harassment issue.It is defamation.Anonuser4 (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand, I will remove that content from the article then as well. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Write here once you have already deleted that content. Anonuser4 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the URLs you requested from that user's talk page, I have also added BLP other status to the WikiProject banner shell to the talk page of the article in question, that being archive.today so that other editors will take care in adding unsourced or dubiously sourced information like this. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for removing those links.It needs to remain this way. Anonuser4 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

An admin should probably revdel everything. @ToBeFree:? Also take a look on various TA edits in special:history/Archive.today. sapphaline (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

And I think an edit filter is needed. sapphaline (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Having a look. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I have had a look, blocked the temporary user account indefinitely, extended the page's semi-protection to a duration of 1 year, but I personally am not taking any further action than that at this time. If that seems wrong, it can be sent to the oversight team but I'm not required to take action and I've taken all I personally am willing to perform at this time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It appears, the temporary user account has been blocked.

Can I ask some help from the oversight team to have personal data removed from the revision history of that page too? Anonuser4 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Email it. sapphaline (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Should I send you an email? Anonuser4 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

No, send the oversight team an email at special:emailuser/Oversight or manually in your email client at oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. sapphaline (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@SapphalineWhy can't I send you an email? Anonuser4 (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an oversighter, you don't need to send anything to me (and can't because currently I have email from other users disabled in my account's settings). sapphaline (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry to hear that. It doesn't seem to be a friendly way of communicating with users. Anonuser4 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

If you have an oversight request, send it to the oversight team. Please do not send oversight requests to other users. You're once again creating an unnecessarily high requirement for maintenance, which is also what led to the previous block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want personal information removed, send an email to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org! I'm not an oversighter or even an admin and literally can't do anything to hide personal information. sapphaline (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay. An email has been sent to the Oversight Team to have personal info removed from the revision history. Anonuser4 (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@SapphalineOk. Thanks. I sent an email to the OS team in a hope that they can delete personal data from the revision history. Anonuser4 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline I am so sorry for the inconvenienves but there has been a problem with @ToBeFree

I just discussed my issue with you and other admins here and I said, I sent an email to the Oversight team as I would like to ask them to remove or suppress (personal data) from the revision history but he responded in a rude manner and the person allegedly tried to convince the OS team to stop deleting content. I think, it is not allowed for any admins to decide instead of the right team not taking action on someone's issue. All users deserve to be treated fairly.

I am not suprised that Wikipedia has a bad reputation.

@ToBeFree set their account in a way in order to filter my messages. Anonuser4 (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

My bad; I shouldn't have written "previous block" as if there was a new one. I was writing it with the possibility in mind but the words should have been "the block" or "the past block". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFreeAs it was advised, I contacted the oversight team via email because I wish personal data to fully disappear from the revision history. Anonuser4 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

That's fine and the recommended way. No worries about contacting the oversight team for an oversight request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree As I had said I have contacted the oversight team but I am waiting for their response as I requested to have the content in question removed. Personal data still shows up in the revision history. Anonuser4 (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

... yes. I am aware. You don't have to reply to every message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@[[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree] To be honest, I have no idea as to what is your problem with responding to you? It must be your job and it is the purpose of Wikipedia, isn't it?

Of course if I am disturbing you, I can stop.

But I would like to make sure the OS team will remove personal info from the revision history. Anonuser4 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Just a last thought. It should be a clear request for the oversighters.

Can you inform once they either reply or take further action? Anonuser4 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm just a volunteer switching between building virtual space stations and having a look at Wikipedia every now and then, on a far-too-hot Sunday afternoon. When someone pings me, I have a look, and I'm generally happy about every ping about matters that involve me somehow, as these pings keep me updated with what happens in the community. In this case here, I have already refused to take action, though, and repeating the same statements is unlikely to change my mind about the situation. The history of all of this is complicated and in my personal opinion, the whole matter has been too public to be suppressed already. If I remember correctly, the first public link between account and the information you'd like to have removed was published by... which formally disqualifies this connection from being suppressed to my understanding. Your way of dealing with all of this, as far as I remember, was (and is) full of ignoring advice and running against walls.

The e-mail request will be answered by an e-mail, so you'll inherently be informed. I won't monitor this, so I won't be notified, and I can't notify you then. Nor should I probably answer publicly whether your private request has been privately answered at all anyway.

There is no requirement for the Wikipedia community, of which the oversight team is also just a part, to resolve things the way you want them to be resolved. You'll occasionally have to deal with rejection of your requests, and not receiving exactly what you ask for. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Can you please explain what is that particular reason why you ignore to take further action on this case?

If I understand it correctly, you have that power to take further action and you are allowed or authorized to do so but you won't do it for me for some reason that doesn't have a logical explanation. I am sure you would not tell me why you refuse to deal with this issue.

You are incorrect sorry. I didn't publish anything to Wikipedia. Where does this misunderstanding comes from? But you need to understand I have been a victim of a cybercrime and the operator of archive.today has impersonated me. He hides his actual identity behind the names of innocent humans like mine. But I have nothing to do with the dilemma between Denis Petrov and the Finnish blogger, named Jani Patokallio and I didn't conduct any DDOS attack against Patokallio's blog but it was performed by Denis.I hope my clear explaination will make sense to you. As it is a matter of impersonation, the oversight team should take further actions to have personal data removed from the revision history as it puts identity into risk. I had clarified situation to different admins. They do not have any reason to keep name up. I am a private person only but neither a media star nor a public figure. I do not believe that people don't understand here I have nothing to do with the ongoing dispute between Denis and Jani. Name is just an alias, in other words a stolen identity that is used by the webmaster of archive.today from time to time without consent. Thank you for your further understanding. Anonuser4 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

When you publicly refer to something as "personal info", as you did at the top of this page, and the only possibly oversightable thing is the connection between account and the information,.. have published the only part of the content that would have qualified for suppression. Factually true statements are not libel: Describing someone else's accusations as accusations, or incorrect statements as incorrect, is not libel. If someone's name has been prominently misused, stating this in a Wikipedia article may be fine, may be subject to editorial decisions, but is unlikely to be something removed from the article's revision history, especially in a way that hides it even from administrators. I will now configure my notification settings so that I will no longer be notified about messages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I didn't refer to anything. Name is posted by the owner of archive.today without permission. In order to get personal data removed, I tried to remove it from the given pages. The problem is because the admins reverted edits. That is why I am forced to explain the whole situation again and again to many admins that is risky because it exposes me to further harm. I hope it does make sense for you now.

You can block the messages you receive from me but rest assured, everyone will be able to see your malicious responses that must be a shame to you. As long as you keep ignoring me, I need to think, you support the owner of archive.today, Denis Petrov. Because otherwise why would you do it? Do you know what? I am not a vulnerable minor girl so I deserve some respect. But it seems you still have a lot to learn in life.

It is libel, right because they are false.If you put your real fu name to the web and Denis Petrov copies it to millions of pages without your control, you will understand everything.

Please leave the oversighter team alone as they are able to decide on whether they will take further action on thd issue or not. Stop talking to them about this issue and refrain from dealing with me in the future. Do you know why do you desperately hide yourself? It is because you are too scared of consequences as you do not look that innocent and outsider. Anonuser4 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree As your last response appears to be a malicious and biased one, I am respectfully requesting you to refrain from convincing the oversight team towards not taking action on this request. I am opinion they are in a position to make the best decision possible without your involvement. In case their response would be a negative one, I will have a very good reason to assume rejecting current requests or further ones in general is not because I failed to provide them with all the relevant links, proof and information they need in order for them to process the content of submission but it is due to your involvement.

Even if the OS team is part of your community, I am kindly asking to stay away from this matter and do not persuade them not doing anything.

Based on your description, I bet, you ignore all users, it is not just me and there is nothing problem with me. That is why the majority of users do hate Wikipedia.

As for not accepting the advises that was given by Wikipedians, what do you mean?

I wasn't rude and I responded to everyone very politely but it is quite time consuming to clarify the same issue again and again to many different admins and there is no progress. Once you start using your real full name on the web and someone like the owner of archive.today steals your identity, this writing will make sense to you and you will feel the same way.

I also noticed that some Wikipedians are very biased towards the admin of archive.today.They should know they support a scammer. Anonuser4 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M I need to apologize for you.

But @ToBeFree has caused unneccessary distress.

I just attempted to clarify issue and I asked some help to make sure the Oversight team will handle it properly. As I had emailed to them awaiting for an update whether they remove personal data or not, @ToBeFree suggested, they were convinced not taking further action. I do not think it is allowed for admins to persuade another team to ignore the user. Of course after that this person doesn't want to receive any messages from me but set their account to prevent me from emailing. I reached the Oversight team and they don't have any reason to reject submission but I am not sure about its outcome as there was someone who made them change their mind.

I have never seen such a malicious approach. I believe Wikipedia was a beloved platform but not any more. Anonuser4 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Seriously what is going on with Wikipedia?

(Redacted) was banned from creating temporary accounts and making edits but

he set up a new temporary account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-37277-84

I removed personal data from the page itself and I politely asked him to stop this behaviour. It looks like someone tells Denis to impersonate me.

I do not require anything else but stop doing it. Anonuser4 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to out other editors by attempting to publicly connect a real life identity to a user who hasn't published that connection. I see the irony of me now actually oversighting something here and will inform the rest of the team about it for evaluation, of course. Regarding your other comments, my identity is quite open, I am a part of the team you want to deal with the matter and I am not acting maliciously even if the explanation you had explicitly requested (Can you please explain) seems malicious to you. If it hasn't already (and you then received an e-mail), the request will be reviewed by someone else from the oversight team or even the entire team (and no, it's not my task to persuade any of the others against taking action). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

If you continue attempting to out other editors, you'll be blocked from continuing. You're protesting loudly for your rights and suddenly ignore their existence for others. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, they're an editor only technically (they're not part of the community), but that doesn't make revealing their real name OK. I assume this is revenge for them revealing Anonuser4's real name. sapphaline (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree It is quite weird because those editors do not even use their real names. Anonuser4 (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

They cannot even be idenfified unless knowing them in real life. Anonuser4 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Does that mean you know this person in real life? Qwerty123M (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M I don't know him in real life. Anonuser4 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline You are right. It is a revenge and looks like a deliberate action. If I reveal the name of person harassing me, it is redacted immediately. But if name gets posted without consent, I am not allowed to have it supressed. Quite interesting. Anonuser4 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

There is, to my knowledge, noone who has created the connection between account and that name other than.. If that is incorrect, please do send evidence of that outing to the oversight e-mail address. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree It is incorrect. I should not have created any connection but if editing without a need for an account, it would reveal private IP. Unfortunately it is the nature of Wikipedia. Anonuser4 (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

If you have referred to anonymous/pseudonymous users by their real name, please send an e-mail to the oversight team that explains where and when that happened. They can then clean up the situation. If you have used only a user's username, or an identity they have published on Wikipedia, to refer to them, that's fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I don't really understand your point.

It is a confusing situation.

Just think about this way. Can you explain how is it possible?

If this person puts name onto pages, it will never be removed.

But in case I do the same, someone redacts it due to privacy.

If it is the case, we agree that not all users are equal on Wikipedia.

Can you tell me who is this person why he allegedly have this privilege? Anonuser4 (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no such privilege. If someone attempts to publicly connect your account to information you haven't disclosed yourself, that will be suppressed. You are asking for the removal of editorial content that had no connection to any Wikipedia account name until you said it's information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree If you disagree with me, please stop contacting me and do not deal with the owner of archive.today.

You need to believe @Sapphaline

It is correct, unfortunately they do it to take revenge on me for doing nothing wrong.

It is not ok, it is the invasion of privacy.

It appears they do it intentionally without a proper reason. Anonuser4 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Please stop threatening.

I will stop all contact with you and you need to do the same thing.

I do not wish anything but leave the owner of archive.today alone.

He will also leave me alone once you stop. Anonuser4 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you should argue with the weight of policy (in this instance WP:BLP), which is supported by consensus.

Regarding your previous comments, I am sorry for mentioning name on the user talk page in question, I did not know this user has made grave mistakes, it's hard for me to tell when a user is acting in good or bad faith. Also in your previous message, you didn't need to apologise to me for anything because I wasn't as interested in this discussion as other editors have been. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123MThank you. No problem. I do not intend to bully anyone here but I just would like this issue to stop here with the person. @Sapphaline is right. Anonuser4 (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M You mentioned I should not argue with the weight of policy that is supported by consensus. What do you mean? What should I do in this case? Anonuser4 (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Strictly abide by all policies and guidelines so that you can see where the community's redlines are and what arguments you should and should not make. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Anonuser4,

I had incorrectly decided to not suppress the revisions and to argue about why above. My explanations for why it would be "unlikely" to be suppressed were incorrect and based on a different discussion about a situation not similar enough to draw this conclusion.

While I am allowed as a volunteer not to take action myself, declining action on behalf of the team would have been inappropriate, and it is my fault that I have created the impression of that happening. There was also no real reason not to just take the action. I genuinely thought there was, but I was incorrect.

I am sorry for the stress this must have caused to you and the loss of trust created both in the oversight team and perhaps the entire Wikipedia community by my actions.

I have no idea what an AI detector would say about this message but I can assure you that I composed it manually and without assistance, even if it looks awfully formal.

As this is... talk page, may like to just remove all or most of the discussions above. You may even request for that discussion to be revision-deleted at least in a way hiding it from non-administrators, and I have a feeling that may be granted, but I probably shouldn't do it myself unless you are explicitly fine with me removing the traces of my own fault in the process. Perhaps you can let this message here stand and remove the rest, and then – if you optionally additionally like – request for revision deletion of the removed part simply because it has become a privacy mess not least through my inaction.

I did block your attackers from editing and semi-protected the affected pages; I'm not sure if that may have been lost in the storm. I'm seriously not intentionally acting against you, and we share a desire for the attacks to end.

Best regards,
Tobias Frei / ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @ToBeFree

Thank you for your explanation.

It is very reassuring to know you didn't have an intent to cause stress for me and any other people here.

As for the Oversight Team, they returned to me with an update saying the revision history of the first account has been suppressed that means the content in question no longer shows up to the public.

But in response to their email, I also requested the removal of another link that belonged to a new page.

It appears to me that both accounts of the person are currently blocked.

As I had to submit a different link for deletion, I am awaiting for a reply from the OS team.

You also mentioned I am allowed to take the whole thread of this conversation down from Wikipedia talk page. While I totally agree with you at this point, I am not 100% sure whether I should do so or I have permission to perform this action or not. Back in February, 2026, I was said by @Sapphaline to refrain from removing valuable discussions even if it is talk page.

Of course I would do it because the constant public exposure of information may cause privacy issues that should not be displayed forever. If I decide to erase it, I can also send a message to the oversight team to have its revision cancelled.

You are also right when you wish these attacks to come to an end.

I would also like it to stop so I do my personal best and make efforts to sort this out. Anonuser4 (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

"Back in February, 2026, I was said by @Sapphaline to refrain from removing valuable discussions even if it is talk page" - that was before I knew why you blanked that thread on VPM. You can remove this thread from talk page if you want to (or any other thread). sapphaline (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline I considered to delete the whole thread of our discussion.

But I will not do it immediately due to a response I received from the OS team,

You and other admins asked me about that.. linking the Talk page of this person to our conversation.

I sent an email to the Oversight team and explained why I wish the revision history of page to be suppressed but today, I received a negative reply as they rejected to suppress this content.

Unfortunately there is nothing but problem with it as it has displayed extensive personal data such as real full name and IP addresses... didn't use a VPN but it discloses real location making a main target for further harassment.

I do not feel comfortable with displaying the country and the county but unfortunately this page reveals this sensitive and confidential piece of information.

I do not think, everyone should see ISP, IPs, full name, country and county forever as they are all personal data making... identifiable.

I think there is no such rule and they should review their decision once again,

Here you can read their response,

"Dear - -,

The edits associated with request cannot be suppressed under our policy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight> as we no longer suppress legacy IP information (especially if it was through a VPN). We also do not remove signatures of renamed users. Thank you for sharing your concerns and please contact us again if you have any in the future.

Sincerely,

The English Wikipedia Oversight team" Anonuser4 (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline Can you please explain what is going on here?

There was a conversation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Archive.today_guidance/Archive_1#c-~2026-34905-21-20260614130000-Sapphaline-20260614084400

you were also involved in where someone using a temporary account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-34967-53 said Wikipedia should reach Patokallio requesting to share a new post in his blog. I can't edit this page as it appears to be protected. You and another admins should not have agreed with the idea of Denis Petrov as Jani has published the profile of anonuser4 disclosing name and identity to the public via other online platforms too. They spread lies like I am the operator of archive.today. But neither me nor Masha Rabinovich are part of this spam operation. We are just victims of a cybercrime as names (aliases) are used by the only owner of archive.today named Denis Petrov in an attempt to camouflage his real identity. The behaviour of his website, archive.is has been investigated by the FBI since 30, October 2025. Everyone should be careful with this domain since it is full of child porn images depicting minor and teenage girls and other illegal actions from copyright infringement to bypassing the paywalls of American and German news outlets.

Based on the IP address he previously used, Denis Petrov should live in Saint Petersburg, Russia.

Please stop responding to Petrov and Patokallio.

"I will notice Jani and Jon Brodkin so they write follow-up articles." Anonuser4 (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline In my opinion, Denis Petrov should reside in Saint Petersburg, Russia. The Whois records pointing out to Prague, the Czech Republic can be misleading and fictitious. Even if it is a common Russian name, it must be a real full name representing a living person, rather than a random alias. Anonuser4 (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be 100% fine.

Policy does not prohibit users [...] from removing comments from their own talk pages [...]. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so.
— Wikipedia:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree

I attempted to reach the Oversight team requesting the deletion of the revision history as it has displayed too much personal details like full name and IP addresses revealing country and the exact county but they replied with a refusal. I do not believe there is such rule preventing them from taking further action.

In February, 2026,I was asked by the admins here to determine connection.

As the revision history reveals personal data, I would like you to talk to them in order to change their mind.

It is a privacy concern as it exposes to further attacks and they tell, it cannot be suppressed? Is that serious?

Here is the message they sent to me,

"Dear - -,

The edits associated with request cannot be suppressed under our policy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight> as we no longer suppress legacy IP information (especially if it was through a VPN). We also do not remove signatures of renamed users. Thank you for sharing your concerns and please contact us again if you have any in the future.

Sincerely,

The English Wikipedia Oversight team" Anonuser4 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The reference number of ticket that was given by the OS team,

"[Ticket#2026062810003831]"

They have to re-consider their decision as sensitive personal details are involved that cannot be displayed to the public.

I don't want to believe the Oversighters are unable to see it is a privacy issue and they cannot suppress sensitive personal data. Anonuser4 (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree

@Qwerty123M

@Sapphaline

I sent a response to the Oversight Team in a hope that they can understand concerns and take further action.

I will not give up until personal data fully disappear from the revision history. It also hurts as some admins called me as a vandal in front of the public. Since this statement is false, it is defamation. I apologized for the harm it may have caused to the admins or the page itself but they rejected request without a valid legal base. May I know is the reason why I am refused is because it is forbidden to delete my details by the person who originally placed name onto this page? Anonuser4 (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

That seems very unfair to call you a vandal when I have only seen you act in good faith during this conversation. You can take this decision to the arbitration committee as that is recommended on the Wikipedia:Oversight#Complaints page. Sorry I don't currently know any other actions you can take at this stage but I think the arbitration committee may be sympathetic to your cause. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123MThank you for your reassurance. My innocent actions should not be regarded to be vandalism as I feel like being unfairly treated. If it is the case, how can I contact the arbitration committee in order to make the Oversight Team change their mind about this decision I disagree with? Anonuser4 (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You can contact the team via email at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. There are more instructions on the pages that I have linked, the team requests that you concisely state your claim and provide evidence of wrongdoing. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M

Thank you for providing me with the contact details of the Arbitration Committee. I have now sent them an email requesting to have sensitive personal data removed from the revision history. I provided them with all information including evidence in order for them to proceed with this matter. The decision of the Oversight Team needs to be reviewed as some admins called me a vandal innocently. It is unacceptable. Do they usually reply within a few days? Anonuser4 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't have experience with the arbitration committee but the page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit#Procedure says that you in most cases you will get a handwritten response within two days. Qwerty123M (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M Thank you for providing with that piece of information. It is very good to know if the Arbitration Committee normally responds to such inquiries within 2 days. I am hopeful they will accept reasons and reply positively as I didn't wish to cause harm to anyone but my previous actions were mistakenly supposed to be vandalism. I would like to have the reported contents removed from the revision history. Anonuser4 (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M It has been 2 days since I sent an email to the Arbitration Committee. Personal data are still available in the revision history. Should I resend this message if I do not hear back from them within a short period of time or do I need to wait for an update? Anonuser4 (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

After two days, you should send an email following up on your request per the page I have linked. Have you checked if a response from the arbitration committee might be in your spam folder? Qwerty123M (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M As 2 days passed without receiving a reply from the Arbitration Committee, I re-sent the initially submitted message today. Unfortunately I double-checked the spam folder but there is no confirmation email from them. Anonuser4 (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M I received an email from the Arbitration Committee yesterday confirming they received my inquiry. But as I had to re-send the original message, they asked me to refrain from spamming their system and apologized for not replying. It was also said that the content of my submission is still under review but they have not made a decision yet.

"Our apologies for not getting back to you. But please don't spam this address.

We are considering this matter.

Sincerely,

Izno" Anonuser4 (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M The Arbitration Committee (arbcom-en@wikimedia.org) returned to me back on Friday saying my issue is being reviewed at but their decision has not been made yet. I was kindly asked to stop sending emails to the given email address as they are allegedly filtered out as spam by their system.

I hope they will inform me on their decision.

I am still awaiting for an update from them.

The message they sent to me,

"Our apologies for not getting back to you. But please don't spam this address. We are considering this matter. Sincerely, Izno" Anonuser4 (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M I have not heard anything back from the Arbitration Committee since Friday. It was said they would consider my issue but there is no reply on their end. The contents I submitted for further review are still publicly available. Will they come back to me with an update? They should send a follow-up reply as I have not been informed on their decision yet. Anonuser4 (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The process you are using at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit#Procedure says that the process should take at least one week but not more than three so this request is still in what the committee may consider a "reasonable timeframe". I would also prefer a speedy resolution but that cannot always the case, especially with cases that have a lot of issues at play such as yours because this privacy violation has occurred over a long period of time. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M Thank you for informing me on the process itself.

If it is the case and as it is a complex privacy issue where the Arbitration Committee needs to take numerous factors into account before making a decision, I just need to give them more time among 1-3 weeks as you advised. I also wanted a speedy resolution, but I don't mind if it takes longer. Of course I wish them to send me a follow-up reply via email along with the final outcome. Anonuser4 (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M I am regretting I have to inform you about this problem as I think you may not be involved in this incident yourself.

But I realized, back in June when other Wikipedia admins had public discussions with the operator of archive.today and banned his temporary accounts as he revealed name in Wikipedia topics on a daily basis without consent, he also asked admins to contact Jani Patokallio requesting to write a new blog entry. I wish everyone here to stop doing so.

In response, Patokallio has published handle, "anonuser4" as an embedded and clickable link via his blog that contains references to actual identity. I think the owner of archive.today wanted Wikipedians to reach Patokallio. They should not have done this because it leads up to doxxing.

I wish to prevent or minimize the constant public exposure of name on the web. There is evidence that in this particular case, it is not an unrelated issue but it was performed by Denis and Wikipedia admins.

There should be a way notifying Jani Patokallio here as I would like him to remove all associations including first name and links from his blog. Anonuser4 (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M

Here is the proof,

"I will notice Jani and Jon Brodkin so they will write follow-up articles" ~2026-34967-53 (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Anonuser4 (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Archive.today_guidance/Archive_1#c-~2026-34905-21-20260614130000-Sapphaline-20260614084400

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-34967-53 Anonuser4 (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M I have been waiting for a response from the Arbitration Committee since July 3, 2026. I wish personal data to be removed from the revision history but there is silence on their end. Will I get an update once they make their decision? Anonuser4 (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Per the page I linked, they should send an email. If you sent this email on 3 July, that means it has been just over two weeks, not within their advertised three week maximum timeframe yet. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M I am sorry if I didn't specify this situation. But 3 July 2026 was not the date when I initially sent an email to the Arbitration Committee but in response to my inquiry submitted on 1 July 2026 someone using the handle "Izno" confirmed they received my request saying they will consider my issue. But since then I haven't heard anything back from them. I wish personal data to be deleted from the revision history. They can send a follow-up message to my email address. Is that possible it takes a bit longer for them to make a decision if the case I reported is quite a complex one? Anonuser4 (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you're right that they might take slightly longer to decide this case if they deem it more complex than previous cases. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M I have now sent an email to the Arbitration Committee in a hope that they would send me an update about further progress. I would like them to come back to me clarifying whether what they can do for me. As I received a confirmation from them, they should not leave my case open without any response or taking actions. I still believe they haven't deleted my original message from their mailbox. Anonuser4 (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M

@ToBeFree

@Sapphaline

I have a negative opinion about Wikipedia and I will never change my mind. I received a response from the Arbitration Committee but it looks like they made a decision without reviewing the issue once after I appealed for the unfair treatment I got from the Oversight Team. It seems they are very biased because @[[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree] and sapphaline or the owner of Archive.today named Denis Petrov talked against me.

This is Wikipedia. I wish no one else would ever use this bad service. I am sure this website will be shut down one day. Until then, I will not delete anything from my Talk page and my decision is also a final one. Anonuser4 (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M

@Sapphaline

@ToBeFree

The message that arrived from the Arbitration Committee today,

"The decision that was reached already by the members of the oversight team in regard to your request was neither unreasonable nor in violation of policy.

We accordingly will not overturn it.

Our response is final.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Izno"

I think no one should ever trust Wikipedia as it is biased. It seems @Sapphaline

@ToBeFree and the operator of archive.today persuaded them to stop taking further actions. Due to the unfair treatment towards decent users, this service will shut down very soon. Anonuser4 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for this difficult situation you are in, I am struggling to think of what you should try next. At this point, the only option I have found is to contact the Trust and Safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M Thank you for taking your time helping me with this hard issue. If it is the case and my last resort is to contact Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Satefy Team, should I mention the incidents that had occured with the OS Team and the Arbitration Committee or do I just need to request the removal of personal details. Anonuser4 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea to mention the details of those previous times you have tried to resolve this issue. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M

I sent an email to the email address of the Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety Team today describing issue without mentioning the previous conversations with the OS team and the Arbitration Committee. But of course I can provide them with this piece of information later on if it is required by them. Anonuser4 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree

@Sapphaline

Hello Tobias Frei, Can you explain, what is your problem with me? In case it is you, please stop writing negative comments via other platforms aside from Wikipedia and do not search for the names of our family members through search engines like factually.co. It is an AI based website and it falsely claims I am and one of my female relatives are transgenders. You also copied and pasted an article about her once we had a dispute here but it was suppressed very swiftly as you realized, this person doesn't belong to archive.today in any possible ways. But we are neither transgenders nor lesbians. They are very rude allegations as without a valid legal base, you do not have any proof. You apologized for your behaviour last time so I am just not sure abour what is going on again. I submitted the revision history last time for the Oversight team so that they could remove personal data like name and IP addresses but it was rejected for no obvious reason. Did you talk to their community? Since then, an issue has been escalated to the Arbitration Committee in order to review the decision of the Oversight team as I need to appeal. I haven't received any reply with the final outcome yet but it was confirmed by "Izno", they received my inquiry and will consider it.

As I had said, I can delete the whole thread of this conversation with Wikipedia admins from my own Talk page but I do not wish to do it until I get a response from the Arbitration Committee as I am awaiting for them to remove personal information. Anonuser4 (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline

@ToBeFree

As I had said, stop conducting searches for me or family on search engines and factually.co. Also refrain from making harmful comments about us outside of Wikipedia.

I am sure it is done by you as you do not even dare to reply. Are you that cowards?

I am not stupid so I can see your inappropriate actions. Seriously what is your problem with me? Stop calling me and female relative as transgenders. We are neither gay nor transgender. Does it make sense for you? It seems to be as I had a dispute with Tobias Frei that was allegedly sorted out, @sapphaline sided with him. I am waiting for your explaination. As long as you are silent, I will warn the public about what you do it against us without a valid legal base. Of course you can always clarify if it is not you. It is better to be honest. If you feel you have issues with me, write it here but stop that doxxing and defaming us online. I bet you cannot even give a reason of your behaviour. As we are decent people, we don't deserve to be treated like this. Once I get a confirmation from the Arbitration Committee saying they can delete personal data, I will remove our conversation from my Talk page. Thank you for your further understanding. Anonuser4 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline

@ToBeFree If it is done by you, please stop asking questions on Factually.co like why I want to re-write Dario Hunter's biography. Refrain from spreading false information that can cause reputational harm. It is not true. I have no intent to alter the Talk page of Dario Hunter but I wish personal data to be removed from its revision history. Factually.co won't answer your questions properly as it is an AI generated site only. I am requesting you to stop searching for this name online. Anonuser4 (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You may also want to consider archiving these messages if you think there is a benefit in keeping an easy to access record of these talk messages. If you need any more guidance, that can be found in WP:BLANKING, that page also expresses a preference for archiving, but since it is your talk page it's completely up to you as to next steps from now on. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M

I decided to remove our conversation. But I won’t do it at this time I am afraid as I wish to retain it for further evidence.

I tried to request the Oversight Team very politely to have the revision history of removed as it contains loads of personal data like name and IP addresses that were not behind a VPN at all as they disclose the exact country and county but they rejected to take further action. It is a privacy concern and back in February, the admins also asked me about what is the connection to this person. It was done by the same person so the constant public appearance of personal data can make vulnerable to further threats.

I am requesting you to talk to them.

Here is the response I received from the OS team,

"Dear - -,

The edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight> as we no longer suppress legacy IP information (especially if it was through a VPN). We also do not remove signatures of renamed users. Thank you for sharing your concerns and please contact us again if you have any in the future.

Sincerely,

The English Wikipedia Oversight team" Anonuser4 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree How can I explain to the Oversight team, the problem is because the IP addresses were NOT be behind VPN? My IP, ISP, country and county have been leaked out without consent. Please help suppressing sensitive personal data. Anonuser4 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)