User talk:ToBeFree/A/4

Add topic
Active discussions

Marcnelsonart

They've continued, [1]. Something weird going on with User:Krev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), too; possible sleeper? VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr, thank you very much for the notification. I have warned the user about problems with using multiple accounts; it's especially an issue if conflicts of interest are involved and both accounts edit the same page to insert self-created material.
I can't take action if the photo(s) are welcome and helpful, though. If you consider an image addition unnecessary and disruptive, please undo it and inform the user on their talk page. If they ignore your message, please notify me again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't have any issues with the photo. The link above was an example of them edit warring their artwork back in after your warning. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake, sorry, VQuakr. I hadn't noticed that you had objected to an image addition by the same person in this specific article before. If the new image is fine, let's keep it; I wouldn't even interpret that as edit warring. I'd say it addresses your "sketch" concern by providing a non-sketch image. That's a good first step, I hope. Regarding the apparent conflict of interest, there's an interesting situation with open questions (see "Mazen page" below), and I have tagged the article with {{COI}} for now. Please keep me updated and do not hesitate to revert any image additions that are not helpful to the encyclopedia. When in doubt, your judgement is probably more neutral than that of the image creator/uploader. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Got your message regarding the sketch image upload. If there is a problem with it, please let me know. I only operate this one account krev and rarely, typically minor typos or fact checks. The sketch artist, Marc Nelson/marcnelsonartist, has actively been chronicling the disappearances of activists and atrocities in Syria and as I understand it, there are no available photos of some of these disappeared activists. Marc is apparently new to wiki edits and had indicated publicly that he had trouble uploading an image to this page. I saw the call for assistance via Facebook and volunteered to help, and added the link to the commons image using my account. If I am out of line in this, please let me know and I'm happy to withdraw from this edit. I know the artist covers human rights issues in Syria and the art is not for profit. I am unaware of any previous communications between marcnelsonartist and wikipedia. I'll watch for your reply on this. Sorry if there was any confusion or if that edit is not acceptable. Sincerely, Krev (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Hi Krev, I was confused by Special:Diff/1061402139, which referred to an image that you uploaded – yet the file was uploaded by Marcnelsonart. I thought you might have used two accounts, one official artist account and one account for other edits. As you are two individual persons, don't worry: That looks fine to me. Thank you very much for the clarification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


Three day sentencing hearing

Thanks for dealing with the clown. It looks like he's been going around throwing out phony vandalism warnings. Uporządnicki (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Heh, and reverting everyone's edits, at a speed of a bot. No worries, Uporządnicki, and thank you very much for the kind feedback. Someone or something seems to have stopped them somehow: Perhaps a checkuser performing a rangeblock behind the scenes, perhaps they ran out of compromised accounts, or perhaps they're just waiting for silence to continue. We'll see... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
S/he's been blocked. I thought you did it. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
One of their many accounts. I think I caught three of them. Something stopped the flood of accounts, and that wasn't me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA input

With this edit, was it meant to be a numbered smiley face, or was the indented closed-parenthesis intentional? (Also, what's "scnr"?) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Both. :) A ")" is missing from the message I've replied to. "Sorry, could not resist". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
(not a numbered smiley face though! An indented one perhaps.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha, sorry! I just wanted to make sure that came out the way you'd intended. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  Thanks and no worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar of parenthetical proportions

  A Barnstar of Good Humor
RFAs are serious business. Thank you for keeping the discussion a tiny bit lighter and a parenthesis heavier. (I mean this edit.

—⁠andrybak (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly "involved" here, but seconding this 😝 -- TNT (talk • she/they) 01:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  I see what you did there! Thank you very much, this made my day.
I'm afraid it might be corrected, breaking the joke. Leaky caldron, I hope you're fine with keeping it as it is. I guess it even has the side effect of actually removing the urge for others to reply something to the message. Before, it looked like a big red button labelled "do not press".
Happy Holidays everyone!     ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Reg. ongoing vandalism

Hi, I noticed that you're one of the currently active admin. There's ongoing vandalism by Peppergoat23 on David Frawley BLP article. I would suggest an indef-block for them on the basis of WP:NOTHERE. Note: there's a reported at WP:AN3 and WP:AIV. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 02:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we properly debate the subject on the talk section? I haven't seen a valid argument from your point of view. Peppergoat23 (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
(fixed indentation) Looks like a content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page. Thank you for the notification, though, WikiLinuz; we have coincidentally sent each other a message about the report at the same time. All the best ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, that was resolved by a block. I had protected the page and removed the relevant part of the lead for a moment, but a block works too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Peppergoat23

Hey, I indeffed the user acting on a report at AIV. I didn't realize what you did at ANEW until after. If you wish to unblock, you don't have to check with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The block may well have been the best option available, Bbb23. Thank you very much for doing this, and for the offer too. I had perhaps insisted a bit too strongly on this being a content dispute without a clear distinction between good or bad editing. I'd need to look up all the historical details to evaluate this further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
(I found it via AIV too, by the way!) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't follow up further last night but I was on my tablet without a physical keyboard and typing/editing on Wikipedia drives me crazy. Blocking with Twinkle, OTOH, is fairly easy. :-) It's ironic because you seemed to have retreated from your initial position somewhat, and I too retreated from mine. I was struck by what appeared to be insistent whitewashing by a new user with a rather colorful username, which is why I acted as I did. Anyway, Merry Christmas! --Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I poked around a little and found something interesting. Pg23 was created on October 4, 2020, but didn't edit until last month. A minute before Pg23 was created, Peppergoat was created and made this obnoxious edit, which was reverted by Blablubbs with the edit summary "Don't whitewash Nazism". Makes me more comfortable with my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I have to admit I don't yet understand what the username is referring to, but the diff link and timing are sufficient to remove all doubt about the block necessity indeed. I have blocked that account now and pointed out the connection on the blocked user's talk page, just in case they make an unblock request. Thank you very much, Bbb23, for noticing and pointing this out. You have indeed found the best solution for the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that revert is a bit of a blast from the past – though I do still remember being annoyed by the edit. Anyhow, they seem to be mostly be here to edit war their own POV into articles, so I agree this is a good block. Happy holidays to you both! --Blablubbs (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Same from me!   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You were right the first time....

2409:4063:4005:2624:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

May have made a mistake in altering the block for 2409:4063:4005:2624:0:0:0:0/64 as they now appear to be engaging in real harassment. See their talk page history for more info. Naleksuh (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, regarding your proposal to name RfAs after years to avoid the 2 mark of shame, it appears people are now using them as exactly that. Is this a bad idea? And maybe I should make a requested move to the original title? Naleksuh (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Meh. Thanks for the notification, Naleksuh. I have restored the original block duration with password reset and talk page access disabled. It probably doesn't matter, but the chance of the IPv6 address being reassigned to a different internet connection is close to zero, so there won't be collateral damage to other connections. At the same time, as talk page access is revoked and even registered users couldn't have appealed the block if it affected them, I have removed the hardblock option. Perhaps the user was looking to impact other users' access from a shared network to Wikipedia for as long as possible. Courtesy ping TheresNoTime: If that made no sense, feel free to revert.
Regarding RfA numbering, well, my proposal was unsuccessful and Primefac has just followed the unchanged procedure. It also probably wasn't the numbering that made the RfA turn out unsuccessful. I'd advise against dealing with that specific RfA in any way; has had enough unpleasant experiences with it and would probably not be too amused about people fighting over its naming long after the closure.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't long after the closure (only a few days, and as soon as I found out it exists), and I haven't heard of that being a thing before (the only reason the 2 is there at all is because you can't have 2 pages at the same title, and a rename makes it diffrent titles), but okay, I hope 力 is fine. Naleksuh (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
If you wanted to talk about RFA naming, the best time to do so would have been the month-long debate in November. The second best time would have been immediately before my RFA, where I explicitly raised the question on WT:RFA (and had it resolved by bureaucrats). Beyond that, if you want to argue about rfa naming I do not mind in the slightest, though I'm probably not going to listen. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt

I spotted your comments, and I'll happily keep you abreast of further details. User:G123-34.HDU did reply, but by making a new section on their own talk page rather than just replying to your comment. ISD (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi ISD, thanks for the notification. A very strange case. If G123-34.HDU continues to add unsourced material after the page protection expires (or on another page), please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Friendship Request.

Hey dude do you want to be my friend and partner ToBeFree? DakshinBeta (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi DakshinBeta, Welcome to Wikipedia! The Christmas-related messages above make it difficult to say this, but Wikipedia isn't about social networking. We're usually only focused on building an encyclopedia; there is no such thing as a technical friendship or partnership status between accounts. I've met members of the German community at WikiCon 2019 (see the photo on my userpage), but even such meetings are rather professional business conferences than casual parties among friends.
Have you edited under a different username before? You have messaged Bbb23 and me without prior interaction, making me wonder if sockpuppetry is involved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't edited under my different username my partner. DakshinBeta (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Dude, can you help me in making my user page and teach me in Wikipedia cuz I'm new in Wikipedia and I don't know more about Wiki. DakshinBeta (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The Task Center contains more productive ideas than creating a userpage. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
They are someone you are familiar with, and I've blocked and tagged them. Take a look at their filter log. However, I don't see anywhere that they messaged me?? --Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. And "messaged" is indeed not the right term – rather, hm, "responded to a message directed at you" at Special:Diff/1062240447. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

  thanks for doing all that you do! 🐦DrWho42👻 23:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  Thank you very much, DoctorWho42! I guess we met on the talk page of a blocked IP address. Thank you for welcoming the others.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


The Signpost: 28 December 2021

It is my account and my Page!

Hi. I used to watch and try to contribute to WikiPedia. All in a sudden someone comes and deletes my page! That is my page. and it was vacant! Gunhider (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gunhider, don't worry!   I have restored your draft to Draft:Wasal Naser Faqiryar now. However, please keep in mind:
Please create a local backup copy, for example in a text document on your computer. The Wikipedia article will never be permanent unless you can prove notability and resubmit the article. Wikipedia is not a webhosting provider.
Thanks and Happy Holidays!
~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.


This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

D10s Maradona again

New report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D10s Maradona, thank you. FDW777 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

In other sockpuppet news, the Linde vandal is back and using Special:Contributions/2405:204:2283:927D::/64. FDW777 (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh joy.   Thanks again, FDW777! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you as well. FDW777 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


Barnstar

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your hard work, friendly demeanor and espescially for always seeming to take that one small extra step for others even though you don't need to, something I have not seen many other administrators do. Happy new year! TylerBurden (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Wow, thank you very much, TylerBurden!   That's heart-warming feedback. Happy New Year and all the best to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

 
A token of thanks

Hi ToBeFree/A! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


Holidays 2022/23

Happy Holidays!

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,

Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor 15:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hey KatnissEverdeen!   Thank you very much! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Heyy!   CAPTAIN RAJU, thank you very much; Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

  Merry Christmas ToBeFree/A

Hi ToBeFree/A, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and healthy New Year,
Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,
   –Davey2010Talk 17:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Share similar holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Davey2010/MerryChristmas}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hi Davey2010, wow!   A beautiful custom Christmas box that made my day! The same and all the best to you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, Oh wow you're very welcome :), Yours was lovely too, Thanks so much, Hope you all have a wonderful day and New Year, Take care,Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 21:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,

★Trekker (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hey ★Trekker, thank you very much!   Merry Christmas and a Happy New 2022 to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wow, that's a cool one! Thank you very much, Chris troutman, and Merry Christmas to you too!   Have a Happy New Year! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Yay     Nice to meet you again, Javert2113, and all the best! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,

ItcouldbepossibleTalk 04:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

ItcouldbepossibleTalk 04:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Itcouldbepossible, thank you very much!   Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree You are welcome. ― ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,

Severestorm28 14:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hi Severestorm28, Thank you very much!   Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ToBeFree!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi Abishe, Thank you very much! Happy New Year and all the best to you too!   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

  Happy New Year!
Hello ToBeFree:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
I love this template.   Thank you very much, CAPTAIN RAJU, and a Happy New Year to you too! All the best, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ToBeFree!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hey Davey2010! Thank you very much and a Happy New Year to you too! Hoping for a great 2022!   All the best, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
Hi Itcouldbepossible!   Thank you very much for the kind greetings and a Happy New Year to you and yours too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


A barnstar you gave me

Hello ToBeFree,

You gave me a barnstar at one point, to one of the IPs I used back before I had this account, and I am wondering if users are allowed to put stars on their userpage that were earned before they had an account?

I thought I would ask you to make sure. If you aren't sure that it is me, you are welcome to look through the contribs, they quack, so to speak.

Mako001 (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The barnstar is for you as a person!    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Mako001 (C)  (T) (The Alternate Mako) 03:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
For protecting trans man. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi I dream of horses, I'm (somehow positively?) surprised it didn't have to be indefinitely protected yet! The article Trans woman is semi-protected since 2010. I hope indefinite pending changes and a year of semi-protection will do, but I'm afraid the world won't be much different next year, so please notify me if this resumes in unmanageable frequency (or severity) and I'll upgrade to indefinite semi-protection. Thank you very much for reverting the last change there, for requesting protection, and for the kind feedback.   Happy New Year! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
You seem to be the most active administrator on here. I see you every day. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Christmas vacation.   Thank you very much, Scorpions13256, for reverting all the vandalism and for the kind feedback. Have a Happy New Year! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I see I got a barnstar too :). Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Of course!   That had to happen sooner or later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone no longer needs their TPA

Good morning ToBeFree. I noticed you're online. Could you have a look at Special:Contributions/2001:44C8:424D:47C1:70BE:C258:6C33:E44C? After being blocked yesterday, they seem to no longer need access to their talk page.. – NJD-DE (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Njd-de, thank you very much for the notification. I have removed the burden of talk page access from their shoulders as requested. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: 2601:409:8400:cfd0:202a:2e1a:421f:17ff

2601:409:8400:cfd0:202a:2e1a:421f:17ff (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I don't think the user should be blocked; with further investigation the user's edits were correct. I was going to self-revert my reversion of the IP's edits, when the IP went back and added a more reliable source. Best, SpencerT•C 21:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Spencer, all right, thank you for verifying this – I have replaced the edit warring and copyright violation block by a copyright warning and a welcome message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
It was reverted again. I'm out.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Lol I think everyone's wrong, I found the "official source" (Disney Plus) that says 81 minutes so I will go with that and start a discussion on the talk page. SpencerT•C 22:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

LTA @ AIV

Thanks for this edit. You are, of course, perfectly right, and I'm a little ashamed 😳 of myself for not having checked more thoroughly. I'm afraid I fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book: burying the real change under a gigantic pile of seemingly innocent stuff, in the hope that some simple minded dupe such as myself won't see what's going on. Luckily you weren't so simple minded. 😁 JBW (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey JBW, no worries!   I didn't notice by scrolling down, I just curiously checked what the filter was about, raised an eyebrow and did what the filter does. Then I saw it. A strange LTA, this is. Persistent in a weird way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

User:219.76.15.133

I noticed you blocked this IP as a sock of User:42.98.100.27- while they do share an ISP (NETVIGATOR) and did show signs of WP:LTA/HKGW editing, (see:Tsuen Wan line immersed tube), the latter's editing in December does not seem to fit the MO of the HKGW, as they rarely edit-war outside of articles directly related to Hong Kong. The former is likely a HKGW sock though. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 04:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Padgriffin, thanks for the analysis – I'm unsure. If you compare the revision history of 116.92.226.237's talk page and 42.98.100.27's talk page, you'll see a very similar response (multi-edit denial of editing in the topic area) from an IP address that is probably part of the case and the edit warrior. Either way, if I understand correctly, the block isn't being questioned, just the provided reason could perhaps be improved. That's okay. I'll keep in mind that there may be no connection between the two IP addresses, and that we may be dealing with two separate editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
To my knowledge, we tag LTA IPs based on their behavior and editing pattern. The latter IP edit warred on articles about subjects completely unrelated to Hong Kong or typhoons, which leads me to believe that the offending editor is not the same person as the LTA. But no, I'm not disputing a EW block- but this range has a lot of collateral, which includes other editors who would choose to ignore Wikipedia policy. I'm just noting that unless there's behavioral evidence proving a solid link between the offending IP and the LTA it shouldn't be used as a reason for reverting. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 00:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, true. That's why 42.98.100.27's block is about edit warring only. It was reported as part of the LTA case, but I chose to ignore that allegation and just blocked for the edit warring. I have now fixed 219.76.15.133's block reason and the message at User talk:219.76.15.133. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You participated in the RFA RFC, and supported the creation of the new board, right?

Then why are you uninvolved to close the MFD? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam, do you disagree that the venue is completely inappropriate? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I do disagree. As I said at the MFD itself, the MFD isn't trying to overturn the results of the RFC, so much as attempting to overturn this specific version of the board, created by a small subset of editors, without ever getting consensus that this is the version of the board people at the RFA RFC wanted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
All right. Then feel free to undo the closure, pointing to the diff of this message here, where I point out that:
  • I'm fine with you reverting the closure, and any truly uninvolved user reverting your revert, at which point you can choose to run a deletion review or accept the situation
  • Three users have thanked me for the closure
  • I personally believe that you misunderstand MfD's purpose as described at WP:MfD in the "Policies, guidelines and process pages" table row.
  • The closure was considerably less pointy than the nomination.
Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Not sure where "pointy" comes into it - I didn't say anything like that - nor do I think that the number of "keep" voters who thanked you for closing it the way they wanted you to is a measure of anything. But you know what, nevermind. That MFD is not likely going to result in a consensus for anything, so although I theoretically object to your at least semi-involved closure, in practice I don't think it's in your, or my, our our, best interests to discuss/argue/disagree about a theoretical issue. If someone else wants to object, they're probably right (IMHO), but I don't want to be the person who does it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The closure coming across as "pointy" was my main concern, so I thought I should point that out as well. Hm hm.
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure either. I was probably the wrong person to make the decision. I just saw the ping, had a look, thought "definitely not via a deletion discussion", had a look at WP:MfD again, was convinced that this could not lead anywhere and closed it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
No, no, I didn't think the closure was pointy. I don't even necessarily dispute the result (I mean, I disagree, but don't dispute, if you get my meaning), just that it should have been someone uninvolved. Anyway, I've attempted to address my main concerns (other voters may have other priorities) here: Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review#Two suggestions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
On third thought, doing the closure myself was just an overly hasty reaction and waiting for someone truly uninvolved to close this would have been the most reasonable approach. My closure text should ideally just have been a comment like everyone else's. Wbm1058 has thankfully endorsed the closure; they have at least not participated in the subsection about the creation of XRV.
Complete neutral uninvolvement may be hard to have: There are of course people who didn't participate in the discussion. However, most people who are interested in dealing with MfDs will likely also have an opinion about administrator accountability, which is what XRV attempts to improve.
I have now amended the closure text to reflect that – somehow ironically, now that I type it – there are procedural concerns about the procedural closure.  
Thanks for your message and the discussion, and thanks for voicing the concerns at WT:XRV. I'll stay away for a while, I've been a bit too close to the fire today and should probably stay out of XRV-related discussions for a while. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I did have a comment at § Discussion 6C Administrative action review. Though I didn't formally oppose this – I just expressed support for a significant variant of the proposal that passed – I think this broke out of the gate as a big mess, so don't take my endorsement of the procedural close as an endorsement of the current process. It can either be modified to improve it, or marked as historical, but shouldn't be completely deleted. Those who don't remember mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them ;) wbm1058 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh! wbm1058, I had searched for your username and overlooked this. Thanks for pointing it out. Well then, two involved closers... It's open again and I hope someone uninvolved comes to the same conclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 6

Consider yourself notified. Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah okay, I should have seen that coming. Sorry, Spartaz. It's open again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Trying to shut down a discussion early when you are involved is never going to end well. Maybe something you should learn from this. Spartaz Humbug! 21:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
True, true.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Antibody-dependent_enhancement entry needs grammar check

Dear ToBeFree, I would like to suggest that a native English speaker edits the section "Technical description" of the article Antibody-dependent_enhancement. Best wishes, Niko --N1K0W1N (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey N1K0W1N, Thank you very much for the request. Is this because the section contains grammatical errors, or is it because the correct English sentences are way too complex and need to be simplified by a native speaker? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, thank you so much for the warm welcome on my Talk page. The language in the article is not too complex and does not need to be simplified. But this page contains grammatical errors.
e.g.
FcγR binds antibody -> FcγR binds an antibody or FcγRs bind (to) antibodies
e.g.
have also been shown to be trigger ADE. -> have also been shown to trigger ADE.
... and some more of these. But I am also not an English native speaker so I don't dare to change them. --N1K0W1N (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome!   Ah, I see these problems now. I'm not a native speaker either, but I have added {{copyedit|section}} (Template:Copyedit) to the top of the section now and fixed one of the errors. Regarding "an antibody" or "to antibodies", I guess we need help from people knowledgeable about biology.
If it wasn't COVID-19 of all the topics, I'd have pointed to WP:BOLD and encouraged you to fix the errors... But it's part of the COVID-19 discussions, so at very least for this reason, your cautious approach is perfectly reasonable.
You may like to have a look at CAT:COPY though! Your English is fine, and you have noticed actual errors and even provided correct replacements for them, so I'd be surprised if none of the >1000 pages currently requiring copyediting contains anything you can improve without fear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hello, ToBeFree,

I believe you placed a range-block on User:2605:E000:1524:CAF:0:0:0:0/64 because of blocked editor JoshuaArcilla2 editing while blocked. I believe that they've been using User:2603:8000:9640:A7:0:0:0:0/64 range so I've imposed a block on that range as well. But I believe this is only the second range block I've tried and I wanted to get a second opinion on its appropriateness and the length. Maybe Sergecross73 has an opinion as well. Thanks for any feedback you can provide! Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz, Thanks for the notification and for asking!
If I see correctly, JoshuaArcilla2 has first requested an unblock at User talk:2605:E000:1524:CAF:8544:A13A:E380:957D, was not noticed due to the lack of an {{unblock}} template, and has then done something to change their IPv6 /64.
Long-duration blocks of IPv6 /64 ranges are usually fine, as the probability of a different Wikipedia editor receiving this /64 is close to zero. There are so many /64's per internet provider that there won't be collateral damage to later users. You probably have seen WP:/64 already, but it's worth linking here.
The effectivity of the block depends on how long JoshuaArcilla2 stays within the range. They have been using their old /64 for over a year, then switched to a new one within a month of their block. It's probably safe to say that they know how to evade such blocks by now, unless they have been extremely lucky or forgotten how to do it.
Moving to a larger range that encompasses both the old and the new address won't be practically possible as they differ in the first part, before the first colon. And that's not because they have changed their internet provider or moved out of California. They are probably still using the same device behind the same connection. I'm afraid dealing with this user will be tiresome and tough.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Block

Thanks. I definitely wouldn't have included any outing information that already wasn't self evident. Thanks for taking a look.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi CNMall41, thank you very much for the report! Yeah, I was just surprised for a moment. Someone's occupation, even if simply obtained by googling the username, could have been problematic to disclose – but they did so themselves on their user page and have not removed it themselves, so that's not a concern indeed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I actually had to go through the talk page twice as I couldn't believe how glaring the COI was. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps that's a good thing! If they genuinely had no idea that this is problematic, there's hope! Or perhaps there's no hope just because of this. Hmm hmm. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Linde vandal back again

2405:204:30F:A1F8:14C3:FE6B:612B:4775 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), thank you. FDW777 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

New year, new IPs!
  Done – thanks, FDW777. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-02

01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If you have some extra time at some point

Hello ToBeFree! I hope 2022 has been kind to you so far and you have had a nice start to the year. Since you are one of the more active administrators I have seen, I wanted to bring to your attention that WP:RFP/PCR is developing quite the backlog of requests (including mine). I know that you are busy and it's not exactly an urgent matter, but if you find yourself with some downtime on Wiki could you have a look through it or perhaps ask another administrator to do so? Again it's no rush, I just wanted to make sure an administrator knows about it at least because no administrator has been active there for some time now (since 26 December). All the best to you. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi TylerBurden, this was a pretty easy decision. Thank you very much in advance for reviewing pending changes! The backlog should be gone now, although two requests remain, marked as cases where I was not sure enough to grant the permission but someone else might. All the best to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow thank you for getting to that so fast! And the timing haha, right after I notify you about it I get blocked for vandalism. Now a vandal is a pending changes reviewer, we'll see how that works out ;). No but seriously thank you for dealing with that backlog before it really got out of hand, and for the trust in giving me the rights. I look forward to helping out with the pending changes very soon. --TylerBurden (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome!

Thank you so much for your kind welcome to the Wiki community. It has certainly been an education! ;)

I am grateful for the constructive help I have received so far, and as learning curves go... it's been a fast one due in no small part to the input and suggestions of other wiki folk.

Peace.

:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynne from Valentown (talkcontribs) 20:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lynne from Valentown, I was typing a longer response, please have a look again   And you're welcome of course! Thank you very much for the kind feedback. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You asked my request to be archived, when it was this request that made the article protected

https://i.imgur.com/MRJSsry.png and see in history it was protected 5 mins later https://i.imgur.com/FqVDiOr.png It wasn't protected when I submitted the request! it's just the editor that didn't comment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benderbr (talkcontribs) 20:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Benderbr, as you'll notice when looking at all the timestamps again, I was referring to Girth Summit's protection and archived the already-processed request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Which happened 5 mins after I posted the request. He granted the protection, there wasn't a prior request. So you commenting "already protected" is not correct, I assume the editor who added the lock should've commented with how long this protection is gonna last or something? That's how it's done usually or so I thought, looking at the archive... Also your comment implied I'm some kind of imbecile that reports an already locked article.--Benderbr (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
See? https://i.imgur.com/cEv4uW9.png --Benderbr (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, there should've been a comment "Semi Protected" for 3 months with little green + icon. Just archiving it before the comment is made is not how things are done here --Benderbr (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I should probably have clicked "already done" instead. The list of responses available from Template:RFPP is huge, but "already done" or "already protected" do seem to describe the following situation correctly: The page has already been protected, so all I can do is noting this and archiving the request. Whether the protection happened before or after the request isn't really important; what matters is that the disruption on the page has been stopped and the request has been fulfilled. No, there was no such implication. As we have a permanent archive at WP:RFPP/A now, I think all archived requests should contain a short description of what was done in response to the report. In response to your report, the page was protected, but not by me. I just noted this neutrally. If my message contained any evaluation of your request, it was a positive one (correct report, done). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding imgur, while Wikipedia's content is freely licensed, the license does require attribution at least in the form of a link to the page the content has been taken from. Wikipedia screenshots can easily be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons using commons:Template:Wikipedia-screenshot, so they don't disappear after a year, leaving the archived discussion without context. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I personally interpret the green templates as an indication of having done something myself, which didn't happen in this case. My main intention was to clean up the huge, backlogged page from already-processed reports. I'd like to continue processing them now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I opened a thread in another area, not naming names or accusing, as I understood how it happened (you declutter request page, another editor locks, everyone helps in their way), It just upsets me from the lack of uniformity. Had to say something. And now it's a thread of it's own independent of this particular interaction. The imgur is just a habit as I got FF extension that lets me copy paste images, and these images last, also this is kinda just me trying to me things clear, visual aid if you may, I can delete these if you think it's bad? I don't mind - Benderbr (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries! And also no worries about the imgur screenshots from my side, I just wanted to point out that it could be problematic if done without a link to the source page(s). The little textual content of the screenshots above probably doesn't even qualify for copyright much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
You requested page protection; the page was protected. Do I understand correctly that you are now giving a hard time to the admin who was tidying up a massive backlog at the requests page, because you didn't like the exact template they chose to apply after you had got what you wanted? We are volunteers too you know, and there are not very many of us trying to keep on top of a hell of a lot of stuff that needs doing. Go away and have a long, hard think about what you have just done. Girth Summit (blether) 22:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not what I meant. Benderbr (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ram Mandir

Hey!!! Could you extend the protection for Ram Mandir, disruption started after the last one expired couple of weeks ago. — DaxServer (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

But it's true, DaxServer! Scientifically proven birthplace of a deity!
Perhaps the best confirmation for a protection need is that the disruption continued while I was filling the protection form. Thank you very much for the notification and keeping an eye on the article.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Must have been one hell of an experiment 😅 Thanks again ;) — DaxServer (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Linde vandal again

And they are back as 103.210.146.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) again now the block on that IP has expired. Obviously they are still evading multiple blocks on other IPS though... FDW777 (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Such as the block on 223.189.27.144. Thank you very much, FDW777! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
And the others listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Linde_plc vandal#Other notes. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if you care to reply at User talk:103.210.146.85, I've nothing else to say to their laughable denials. FDW777 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh my. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

151.47.92.112

Can you please Block this ip longer because this ip is using Multiple Ip's to Distrupt Wikipedia and Just Violated WP:3RR at Palace of Venaria. Chip3004 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a blog--151.47.92.112 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@151.47.92.112: It doesn't matter, You still Violated WP:3RR, it clearly states in WP:3RR that The three-revert rule states:
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. Chip3004 (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
A pretty chaotic situation.   And I'm normally not online at this time of the day; a more universal approach would be stopping to revert, filing a report at WP:ANEW (and in cases of obvious block evasion, additionally WP:AIV), waiting for the user to be blocked and then making a final revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Test123

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Test123. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Q28 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-03

19:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Article titles on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, from efforts against vandalism to improving articles, and others!! Have a great day!! 😊👍 Kpddg (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  Hey Kpddg! Thank you very much and the same to you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

So many ways to misspell "Hermione"

Mind also protecting Hermionie Granger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Same history of vandalism as the other one you protected. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, thanks for dealing with them!   Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

File:OBA Umpire.jpg

Obviously, it is replaceable. One just has to go to any one of Baseball Ontario's games and take a photo of an umpire. So, if we are in agreement that Wikipedia should not be hosting this image, what is the correct way to tag it? --SVTCobra 12:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

...the way I did, perhaps? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks for the note. What should be done to prevent the IPs? They are persistent, it will be a tragedy to protect those pages to prevent this single person; and who know if he will comeback after protection expires or may be look for other articles. Can you individually block the latest IPs or a smaller range?--2409:4073:2094:FF07:3452:920C:D85A:CFEF (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi 2409:4073:2094:FF07:3452:920C:D85A:CFEF, this is tough, thanks for asking. Sometimes, an edit filter can help (see WP:EFR for requesting one) with such cases. I'd need to dig into the details of the case to be able to offer detailed advice; all I noticed when processing the AIV report is that it can probably not be solved by a /17 rangeblock.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, edit filter is a good idea. There one more range 27.97.***.***. Full IPs are [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. This person managed to obtain circular references for Meppadiyan[21] and Hridayam[22] that copied his own hijacked version of the article and cited it back into the same articles. If you google his name there's actually an IMDb page and other pages for this composer, but if you look deeper you can see that he's an amateur teenager who has uploaded few amateur music videos on YouTube (which is not original but altered version of existing works). I guess what he's trying to do is obtaining circular references mentioning his name as the composer of notable films so that he can promote himself as a music composer and create composer's profile (like the one in IMDb) at popular music websites that still needs more sources for verification.--2409:4073:2094:FF07:3452:920C:D85A:CFEF (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, this actually seems easy to filter. The user can't be interested in circumventing the filter by using a different name, so catching them will be simple. Thank you very much for the request at WP:EFR, which I will now support! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Page block for IP range please

Would it be possible for you to block 2001:871:210:5595:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) from the page Italo-Turkish War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) please? As soon as the semi-protection expired they are back to edit warring over the same MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE violating content, and it's probably better to block them from the page than every IP editor. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi FDW777, thank you for the request. 2001:871:210:5595:0:0:0:0/64's edit warring and lack of communication seems to have reached a level disruptive enough to justify a sitewide block.   Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
That works ever better, thank you. FDW777 (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

당신을 위한 반스타!

  관리자 반스타
Thank you for your service. I think I need to understand how to treat the edit warring.:) Reiro (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Reiro, Thank you very much for the kind feedback!   Insisting that the discussion should happen at Talk:Lilka is exactly the right approach. If the discussion reaches a point where all arguments have been made and everything has been said, you may like to request a neutral third opinion. If the content is re-added to the page without consensus, please create a report at WP:ANEW as soon as possible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, ToBeFree. Well, just one small thing. Do you think that Horang2022 and the IPs in Ko-wiki are under the same people? It is not to use at the discussion related on Lilka, but want to know WP:DR system in there. Thank you. Reiro (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I really don't know, but I also think it doesn't matter. If the suspicion was about sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia, I'd have pointed to WP:SPI, but it's fine to use separate accounts on separate wikis, and it's even fine to edit the Korean Wikipedia without logging in while editing the English Wikipedia under an account name. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

IP you blocked recently block evading

Hi ToBeFree, thank you for blocking the disruptive editor at Special:Contributions/75.133.99.177 yesterday. Unfortunately, they are now block evading at Special:Contributions/75.133.97.114 and doing more disruptive editing. Could you hit their new IP with a block as well? Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Trainsandotherthings, thank you very much for the notification! I have now protected Brookville BL20GH and re-blocked the block evading user. If this continues, please let me know; page protection on other affected pages or a rangeblock may be a solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-04

21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Linde vandal

Back again on range 2405:204:225:2A0E:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), thank you. FDW777 (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If only it wasn't a huge range with enormous amounts of collateral damage, I'd long have placed a rangeblock encompassing all of their /64s. Blocked again. At least they seem to notice their blocks, looking at 103.210.146.85. They knowingly evade them, and they know they're unwelcome to do so. My main hope is that they retire in frustration one day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't mind them popping up with new IPs, as each block increases the length of time they can be blocked for evasion (which is clear cut) rather than disruptive editing (which depends on interpretation). FDW777 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
And back again on range 2405:204:28A:591C:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log). FDW777 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hi ToBeFree.

Thank you for your message. I am trying to update the page Emma Sinclair so that it conforms to Wikipedias standards of formatting, sources and references. However, my edits are constantly being reverted back to the previous, incorrectly written, sourced and referenced version and I am now involved in an edit war. Please can you help me as I have now been blocked from making any further changes. Many thanks. Keeley Dann (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Keeley Dann, Thanks for asking! I'm currently checking which parts of the biography are disputed, and I intend to remove them for now. Please create a discussion on the article's talk page arguing in favor of your changes. This could be the start of a productive discussion and perhaps resolve misunderstandings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree. Thank you again. I have taken your advice and have asked for help on the article's talk page. All I wish is for the page to be correctly written, sourced and referenced. Thanks again. Keeley Dann (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome! Keeley Dann, I think I have finished removing the disputed content now. If there is something left in the article that you'd like to see removed, please specifically tell me which and why, ideally with a reason based on policies (green checkmark at the top of the page) such as WP:V or WP:BLP. For the addition of content, please create a section at Talk:Emma Sinclair requesting a specific text to be added to the page. If there is an agreement (or a lack of opposition for a while), it can be added to the article. If there are objections, these should be resolved first.
My primary concern at this time is to keep the article in a state that is somehow agreeable to you and those who have reverted your edits. It should not contain content that is being objected to for policy-based reasons.
If everyone is fine with discussing the content at Talk:Emma Sinclair in a productive way, there is no need for additional dispute resolution. However, if the discussion comes to a standstill, the page WP:Dispute resolution contains advice for inviting neutral feedback from other editors. For example, if talk page discussion doesn't help, a neutral invitation to the discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard may help to gain the necessary attention from uninvolved experts.
If you have a connection to the article subject, please clearly say so on the article's talk page. If any of this is completely unagreeable to you, please let me know so we can find a solution.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree. Many thanks again for your help. I hope this helps the article to refrain from further dispute. If I have any other problems I will come back directly to you. Thanks again. Keeley Dann (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries, thank you for reaching out.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Kugan1997

Hey - you blocked Kugan1997 the other day in large part because they never responded (or addressed) any concerns raised on their talk page. Thank you for that!! I started looking at some of their early edits, and realized that this is just the latest sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vasan20, and I'm miffed I didn't connect the dots earlier (easy clue, see Kugan97). Would it make sense to file an SPI to get them tagged and on the case? Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ravensfire, You're welcome – thank you for having tried to talk to them. A sock? Oh. Sure, creating an SPI can't hurt. Sometimes, there have already been hundreds of SPI entries about a sockpuppeteer; it would then not make sense to create another one when the account is already blocked. But in the case of Vasan20, yeah. Please notify me when you have created it; I'll tag and close. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Done - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vasan20. Thanks again! Ravensfire (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Done :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion

The editor whose range you blocked at 2001:871:210:5595::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is back on a new range of 2001:871:210:D8F8:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log). FDW777 (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks FDW777, blocked the /48 for 3 months. Let's see if that works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis

Hi again ToBe. :) I noticed you just indef-ECP'd 2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis‎‎ under DS. No objection here. However, that page had just been move-FPP'd a few days ago after two extendedconfirmed editors moved it without consensus in the span of a month. Should the move FPP through 28 April be restored? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Oooh that was a full protection. My fault! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Tamzin, thank you very much!   That should be fixed now. I have additionally set up a reminder using de:User:ErinnerMichBot ("remind-me bot") to restore ECP when the FPP expires. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Funny enough, earlier this week I caught an erroneous move ECP that needed to be downgraded, so I guess now I break even. :D
Also, this is not the first situation I've run into where it's been an issue that you can't set protections to gracefully "slide down" to another, and there's a similar issue with pblocked users getting a siteblock and then the pblock getting lost when that expires or is undone. Maybe there's an adminbot to be made here? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, true! A bot for automating this is an interesting idea; for me personally, the reminder bot on dewiki that can be used in such cases was a very delighting find! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I thought about it before, after a few cases where a pblock or semi got lost in a siteblock or ECP/FPP. If one were to implement a bot, I think the best way to do it would be:
  • The bot maintains a userspace .json file of all active temp-protections that superseded indef lower protections and all active temp-blocks that superseded indef blocks of narrower scope.
  • There's some codeword an admin can use in a block/protection summary, like !restore, that instructs the bot to set "restore indef on expiry?" to true in the .json file.
  • If an admin doesn't do that, and doesn't manually edit the .json file within an hour, the bot messages them, DPL bot-style, to say "Did you want that to restore to the indef when the temp expires? Reply with 'yes' or revert with 'yes' in your edit summary if so." and updates the .json file if they do.
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps worth a bot request, although I've never created one and am unsure if we should request a reminder-bot or an adminbot as described above. Ping El C who has expressed a similar wish in Special:Diff/1068848173. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
OMG YES! El_C 13:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  Okay, I'll create a bot request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Nice, thanks! So many times I put a please remind to restore the previous semi [etc.] in the protection summary after a full protection, and then no one reminds me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 13:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This is now at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Reminder_bot (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Turns out it already exists at {{PleaseRemindMe}}! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, this looks complixcated. I done go night night. Oh well. El_C 17:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
To me personally, installing a userscript to make this work isn't an option, so I might try writing the JSON myself. From my perspective, that removes unwanted complexity, but I guess it's just worse from others' points of view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
What's next? Wikidata? Fuck that!   El_C 17:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Heh, you could use the dewiki bot like I did in the following diff: [24]
But I'm not sure how the community reacts to users whose only edits are using their talk page in this way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oooh, that's what I'll do, El_C! I'll create the perfect secondary watchlist bot for you, but I'll set it so it only works if you make at least 5 edits a month to Wikidata. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
😂 That's cruel. My heartfelt sympathies for poor El C. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Community shmemunity. But that dewiki bot is local, anyway, right? Even then, it'd be a hassle just to have to post it there. RE: WikidataNever!   but secretly  . El_C 17:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
(Yeah, that's a local bot only, sadly. I was very happy when I found it, though, and I'm using it for enwiki-related notifications since a few weeks.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh come on, El_C, it's not so bad. Yes it has some systemic flaws—the main reason I haven't re-RfA'd there is that I feel I could only justify doing so if I'm prepared to make Wikidata BLP issues my raison d'être for an extended period of time—but it's quite good at keeping pages on different wikis connected and providing useful basic information for search engine results and for infoboxen on smaller wikis. And, y'know, Wikidata can always use more multilingual editors... -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I mean, I'm not philosophically opposed to contributing there —especially since I have a poor grasp of what it does and possible ramifications— mostly, it just doesn't sound like something that would hold my interest. El_C 17:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Denver harassment guy

Thanks for blocking the IP (97.118.110.70) and revdel-ing the content. Is there any way you could give 2607:FB91:1100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), their main range, a longer block than just 1 week? They're likely to continue the behavior after being unblocked. They also used 174.16.104.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) once so you may need to watch that IP. wizzito | say hello! 19:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Unregistered editing is a high good on Wikipedia; we can't require every new contributor to create an account. We can, however, make a decision of valuing active high-quality contributors' presence higher than the hypothetical typography fixes prevented by a /40 rangeblock. The risk of collateral damage, and its severity, seems to be miniscule compared to the amount of harassment prevented by extending that block to a year. We can, by the way, name harassment as such instead of using a cryptic abbreviation unintentionally downplaying the issue.
Regarding 174.16.104.19, I'm unsure if that IP address will ever be re-assigned to the harasser. If it is, please notify me.
Thank you very much for all you do, Wizzito, and for being a bastion of calm. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

Tech News: 2022-05

17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Heads up

Those puppets with the fixation on the personal lives of certain Japanese women are back.Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh my, this went undetected for a while. Thank you very much, Skywatcher68! An SPI exists now, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stardussst. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Quite welcome. By the way, I added another suspected puppet there; they made one edit two weeks ago. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Help page protection

Seems like protecting the Help page for two weeks is pretty long time? It's supposed to be available to brand new users after all. Maybe you can block the offending IPs for a couple days instead, or something? Herostratus (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Herostratus, I'm afraid if that was an option, a checkuser would already have done so. If it wasn't the Help Desk, I would have chosen a longer duration in the range of months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Nah. Herostratus, you're correct. I've looked through the history of the page again and semi-protection doesn't really work for it indeed. The amount of disruption is too small compared to the amount of helpful questions that would be prevented by it as well. Most of the edits that led to revision deletion are unrelated to the sockpuppeteer, so what seems to be high-frequency sockpuppetry first is just a few sock edits mixed with clueless publication of private data et cetera. Thanks for pointing this out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Yay teamwork! Herostratus (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sundhi

You have protected this page if a full of wrong info I belong to sundhi/soundik In this page it’s Mis leaded sunri with sundhi both are diffrent. Remove word Dalit and scheduled caste in West Bengal. Even the supportive document of West Bengal talk about sunri not sundhi 2405:201:1007:A0B0:5527:3D57:9492:DDAE (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi 2405:201:1007:A0B0:5527:3D57:9492:DDAE, you may like to propose changes on the talk page of the article, Talk:Sundhi. If you are certain that someone will implement a specific edit for you, please click here to submit a formal edit request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Linde vandal

Since the block on 1.38.216.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) has expired they are back on that range again. FDW777 (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reblock. FDW777 (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
No problem, thank you for the notification, FDW777! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  Done :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Looking at List of the largest software companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) they appear to have been active there as well using 2409:4040:E82:F682:288B:488F:3A69:291E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2409:4040:E87:3291:204E:1F96:C820:5A69 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). FDW777 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Add 2409:4040:D9B:4931:249D:F44E:7B62:5362 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the list. FDW777 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hmm hmm, okay. Two blocked. 2409:4040:E82:F682:288B:488F:3A69:291E is stale and unlikely to return. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. If you have a minute could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cypriot Chauvinist please? All you need to do is compare the content of a new draft with a deleted one (ignoring some cosmetic tidying up someone else did). FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Done as well, thanks for the report   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. In future I wouldn't waste time preventing any drafts from creation like Operation Gronthos, as Draft:Rangers (Cyprus), Draft:Mountain Raiders Cyprus (LOK), Draft:Mountain Raiders Squadron (Cyprus), Draft:LOK (Cyprus), Draft:LOK, Cypriot Special Forces Groups, Draft:LOK show they try and create the same draft at different places to avoid detection (while remaining completely oblivious as to how they are being detected so quickly). FDW777 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah, oh.   Okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rollback Power Abuser, Please Mediate

Dear ToBeFree I noticed you grant Rollback privileges to users. I am not interested in having them but must say that some of the people that have this authority do abuse it, like Barry Wom. Today and I can see in history he has some alternate interest in the article I have been working on and in the area that I am specializing in, I am an attorney as well however I only appear in US Federal Courts on my own behalf, to write Amicus briefs for friends and experts in several areas, then I have my own life and my fight for the indigenous people of South America to possess equal rights and respect in the law. When I write, I write with passion for the topic I am writing about, always in GOOD FAITH, with references and in accordance with the Honor Code which is a must because I am a colonel. I do not like being bullied, broadsided and told that I am wrong about something that I know everything about; either does anyone else. Wikipedia is not a place for abusive or incorrect fanatical stuff or ignorance. User_talk:Barry_Wom#Types_of_chocolate maybe you will weigh in, maybe not, but really having Good Faith edits that you know should be there has upset me greatly today, and Wikipedia is not about that it is about What I Know and the Creative Commons, with people in authority like Barry is a huge deterrent to people like me and the other editors that he has reverted or rolled back their work in this article. Not enough people believe in Freedom for everyone or telling the truth, but I do. Thanks for reading my message and sorry for the rant against Barry, I hope I don't piss you off about what I wrote on his page; he is probably a pretty nice person but really I don't want to know him. Problemsmith (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with Problemsmith's conduct. I've blocked them for 48 hours for disruptive editing and some other stuff.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Problemsmith, there was technically no rollback involved; a comprehensive list of Barry Wom's rollbacks can be found here.
Regarding the content dispute, if you are genuinely interested in having a civil discussion about the subject, please have a look at WP:Dispute resolution for possible approaches. "Slapping" people with accusations of ignorance, of a lack of education and of foolishness to "boggle their brain"[26] isn't part of the recommended processes and is unlikely to lead to any solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Need some advice regarding aggressive reverts

Hello,

I was wondering if you could help me with an issue I'm facing with a specific user. He refuses to acknowledge the sources provided and continues to revert my edits on two pages. I'm not sure what to do since they keep reverting any attempt I make to add a reference as well. Unfortunately I just learned about the 3 revert rule, so I'm in violation of that, which is I why I don't want to bring to bring it to WP:ANEW.

Mamady Doumbouya - birth date has multiple sources, including BBC, but they refuse to accept any source.

Mike Hurst (politician) - birth date has been cited, but he's removing my citation without reason, aside from calling me a terminal moron.

I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm frustrated and not sure what else to do since I don't want my own behaviour scrutinized by reporting it. As I said, I just became aware of the 3 reverts rule. I don't want to post on their talk page either because they don't behave civilly and I don't want to get into a big fight about it. I just want the edits to stick. They seem to have a history of aggressively reverting so I don't think my talking to them will bring about any resolution since they're ignoring sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hey man im josh, thanks for asking! :)
Please start a discussion on the talk pages of the affected articles, and invite Mewulwe to it with a short neutral invitation message at their user talk page. Make sure the discussion is about content, not user conduct. Just neutrally describe your intended addition to the article, and your policy-/guideline-based reasons for it. Please keep in mind that, per WP:ONUS, it's your responsibility to gain a consensus for inclusion before re-adding the material. The page WP:Dispute resolution contains advice for continuing afterwards, and the essay WP:DISCFAIL may be helpful in case the other user refuses to discuss.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-06

21:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Hi ToBeFree, we blocked this user in deWP as likely block evasion of Friedjof and/or meta-sockpuppet [28]. Comparing his page creations in enWP [29] with deWP articles of Friedjof-sockpuppets I have no doubt about this user being Friedjof. I didn't want to report him right away because I'm not sure if he's broken any enWP-rules yet, but I still thought you should know, in case you notice something. Best regards -- Johannnes89 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Johannnes89! I've had a look at all the "SUL" links at de:Benutzer:Seewolf/Liste_der_Schurken_im_Wikipedia-Universum#Friedjof, but none of these accounts has been active or blocked on the English Wikipedia yet. I'll keep an eye on the situation and guess others will, too; the warnings on their talk page indicate a direction this is going into. Thank you very much for your notification and feel free to keep me updated about any disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes Friedjof used to edit in deWP almost exclusively but if that's a Friedjof sockpuppet this might have changed now [30]. Thanks for keeping an eye on the user. Johannnes89 (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

AfC at Draft:Hypergraph container method

Hi ToBeFree, I was just sifting through the maths drafts to see where I can improve sourcing, and noticed that you declined the submission of Draft:Hypergraph container method on the basis of it being a WP:neologism. That strikes me as odd, since by the sources given on the page it has been used as a method since 1980, with plenty of secondary coverage and significant applications in extremal graph theory. Could you be somewhat more specific to help other editors improve the submission? Thank you very much for your time! Felix QW (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Felix QW, the term "Hypergraph container method" appears to be an invention by Saxton and Thomason (reference 5 of the current revision) or Balogh, Morris and Samotij (references 6-9). The entire draft read like a mathematician's attempt to publish their original research to me, and I was unaware that the extensive use of first-person pronouns is acceptable on Wikipedia when occurring as a part of scientific writing, so that added to the impression. If there are multiple secondary sources using the term "Hypergraph container method" independently of the authors that created the term, feel free to move the draft to mainspace and ignore the hasty decline. If the described topic is notable under a different name, feel free to move it to that name, or to merge its content into a related article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the quick reply, that was very helpful! Felix QW (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for asking and re-reviewing!   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-07

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Watertown (city), New York

The discussion for moving Watertown (city), New York to Watertown, New York has concluded with support for moving but I can't move it myself because I was involved in the discussion. Could you end it and move it yourself? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 14:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lallint, the page that strongly discourages closing the discussion yourself (WP:RMCI) also contains the following advice:
"If you wish to solicit a closure, go to the Closure requests noticeboard and ask for an impartial administrator to assess consensus. Such an administrator should be familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines (especially WP:AT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) and move request procedures. Do not ask for a specific person under any circumstance, and do not ask for a closure before the one-week period has expired." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
well oops then Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
No worries! :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom Request Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jonathunder's use of admin tools in content disputes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification!   I have removed myself from the parties list, but provided a non-party statement and am thankful for your creation of this case request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-08

19:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems we have another editor starting to create multiple accounts for an edit war

Khaled1918 & Mohammed Mussa420 at Abune Petros; both have made similar edits there and used the exact same summary for their first edit. I've added the page to my watchlist and will report to SPI if anyone returns with more of the same. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you for noticing this and informing Mohammed Mussa420 about the sockpuppetry policy. Your described approach sounds good to me, as a third account after the warnings would practically rule out good-faith explanations. Please notify me if/when you create an SPI about this, and I'll probably deal with it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Will do. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine edit

Hi ToBeFree yeah you were right it was to poltical I will try to keep things neutral from now on as things should be Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Anonymous contributor 1707. Thanks for your contributions.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • And thank you for your prompt intervention on the Snake Island vandal. Chores for everyone today! Ravenswing 21:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, I forgot to protect the page. You're welcome and thanks again for dealing with them. What a day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    It is busy, especially with this on the news, and lots of crazy stuff going on today. Severestorm28 22:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

98999 edits

I happen to be here before 99k. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  You're 6 away from 9,999! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Linde vandal again

They have "progressed", and are now using a variety of IPs in Dubia for unclear reasons. Presently we have 37.245.214.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 217.165.249.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 176.204.127.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), despite their dissimilarity they are all on the same ISP and they are all making the same edits to the same articles, so clearly them. FDW777 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hm hm. Blocked independently of any connection to the Linde sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll explain a bit more, just so the connection is a bit more obvious. At Eaton Corporation we have original and new. At Del Monte Foods was have original and new. At Coca-Cola Europacific Partners we hace original and new (both making the tax inversion argument). At Hellmann's and Best Foods ‎we have original and new. At Dove (toiletries) we have original and new. Except for one edit which I'll get to next, it would beggar belief that every single change just happens to be to articles previously targeted by the Linde vandal, and making the same changes with regard to nationalities. The one non-Linde edit was this one, displaying the same comma error as detailed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Linde plc vandal#Habitual behavior. I realise the change in apparent location is a bit unusual, but unless they have a clone in Dubai they are displaying remarkably identical behaviour. FDW777 (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, these are actually pretty convincing and clear, FDW777. Thank you very much for providing the side-to-side comparison. Perhaps they have found a proxy network in that area or something. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
FYI the range you blocked at 2A02:AA12:D57F:A200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is actually a different editor in Switzerland, albeit one who has been edit-warring in very slow motion at Dove like you said. I've actually been tracking them for WP:OVERLINK issues like this, not sure if you want to reconsider the block or not? FDW777 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh! Well, FDW777, I think the block is about an actual issue independently of any sockpuppetry concerns, so unless you object, I'll leave it in place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I've no objection, since all they generally contribute is adding lots of low value links on articles relating to Unilever. FDW777 (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

Tech News: 2022-09

22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Message by Keeley Dann

Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree! I wondered if you could help me again please regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Sinclair

The edit ban has been lifted and once again the page has been edited by someone who seems keen to add defamatory comments.

The following sentence has been added and is in contention:

In 2008, Sinclair was forced out of her public company for "consistent failures to achieve company forecasts and a failure to disclose financial information" and lost her High Court reinstatement fight.[4][5][6]

On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnterpriseAlumni , the following has also been added, which is also in contention.

In 2021 an investor group led by co-founder Emma Sinclair, Mike Ettling, CEO of Unit4, Andre De Haas, Partner at Backed VC and John Botts, terminated Mr Sinclair as CEO, replacing him with Emma Sinclair and her fiancé Owen Geddes as COO. The company and individuals are now party to litigation.[3][4]

Reference [4] links to the following which appears to have been created especially to cause defamation

(link removed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC))

I do not wish to simply delete these two sentences as I am sure I will be involved in an edit war with the main perpetrator who appears to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BonaFide88

Please can you advise me on what I should do.

Many thanks

Keeley Dann (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Keeley Dann, thanks for asking, and thanks for specifically pointing out the violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I hope this has been resolved now; if there is block evasion, please notify me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
It is a fact that Sinclair was forced out of her public company in 2008. This is covered by reliable sources including Financial Times. Being forced out of a company that one founded is a notable event and worthy of inclusion. Statements of fact are not defamatory. I encourage you to restore the sentence 'In 2008, Sinclair was forced out of her public company for "consistent failures to achieve company forecasts and a failure to disclose financial information" and lost her High Court reinstatement fight.' or propose a rewording / discuss your rationale on the talk page for Emma Sinclair where no one responded to my section on the content.Dialectric (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Dialectric, I have replied at Talk:Emma Sinclair in parallel. Keeley Dann, you'll probably need to discuss this at Talk:Emma Sinclair or it might be re-added after a lack of discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Indef semi-protect request

Hi, ToBeFree! Could you please indef semi-protect the articles in the 2022 beauty pageant category Link, as well as the newly created Miss Grand Thailand, per WP:GS/PAGEANT? Thank you so much. Thomson Walt (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thomson Walt, Thanks for asking! I've had a look and:
I hope that helps. If there are other articles that meet the criteria described at WP:GS/PAGEANT, please specifically point them out together with at least one example username or IP address. If there is sockpuppetry that did not yet lead to a block of the socks, please create a report at WP:SPI (or wait for an existing investigation to be closed) before doing so.
Please note that the criterion "edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet", to my reading, excludes even sockmasters' edits unless their first block was before the edit (cf. WP:BE). WP:GS/PAGEANT is a highly blunt instrument, throwing indefinite semi-protection at everything that has a tiny sock edit in it. Not strictly adhering to its criteria would be severely problematic.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-10

21:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Emma Sinclair

Hi ToBeFree

Thank you for your message, and for explaining.

I'm very sorry for not understanding Wikipedia correctly; you have been nothing but a help to me.

I work with Emma Sinclair; I am her VA.

Her Wikipedia page, along with the EnterPriseAlumni page, have been under constant attack from someone known to the company who has been creating defamatory websites in order to use these as references on Wikipedia.

All I want to do is to stop this from happening and to make sure that this page is accurate and neutral. As you can see I have not opposed / attempted to edit the sentence about being ejected from a past company. This is true and should be included. However, linking specially created webpages that included biased and untrue information does not seem fair. You have helped stop this happening, so I thank you.

Again, I apologies for my lack of Wikipedia experience. I will not further edit this page as you have suggested. Please can you help me, all I wish is for this page to be accurate. I did not create it and I have no financial gain from editing it. Please can you help me to keep this page on Wikipedia. Please tell me what to do.

Many thanks

Keeley Dann (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Keeley Dann,
Nice to meet you again; no worries. The situation is chaotic, and that's at least not entirely your fault.  
As you're open about your identity – to my understanding, through your username, further than you'd have to, and from the moment you've created an account on – my interpretation was always that the current lack of a proper formal disclosure is rather a mistake than intention. However, I had to use vague terms to request a disclosure from you, as Wikipedia highly values anonymity and you had not released this information yourself yet ("I work with Emma Sinclair; I am her VA"). When another user attempted to publicly out you, I sent a message to the oversighters to get this removed from Wikipedia's records, and warned the user for doing so. At the same time, I always hoped for you to disclose this information as WP:PAID requires you to.
Wikipedia has two FAQ pages that may be helpful in your specific situation:
We need to differentiate between two types of edits. Some edits are about companies, about non-living/historical subjects. In almost no circumstances, you may edit about these topics directly if you have a conflict of interest. There's hardly ever a justification for doing so instead of seeking a consensus on the talk page of the article. Removing clearly factually incorrect information from the article is fine, but already replacing it by new information is strongly discouraged. Remove unquestionable nonsense, but keep it at that.
Some edits are about living people. That's where the chaos starts. Wikipedia values the integrity of biographies above any conflict of interest formalities. This goes very far, in ways that you have witnessed: Clear and obvious violations of the biographies of living persons policy are so undesirable on Wikipedia that they may be removed by anyone at any time. There's an exemption for doing so even in edit warring situations, and there's a requirement for administrators to remove them even from fully protected pages in the middle of a heated dispute (WP:FULL, "duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content"; WP:BLPADMINS).
So when you and BonaFide88 both asked for help, we had a situation of two people – let's say "not exactly adhering to" – the guidelines in a heated dispute at Emma Sinclair, the biography of a living person. This would have been manageable if there hadn't been a third user, experienced editor Dialectric, who also had a strong opinion in favor of including the disputed negative content. That's pretty rare, or at least it doesn't happen often to me in such situations.
Separating the single-purpose account whose only contributions are pushing negative material about one specific person onto Wikipedia, from Dialectric whose intention is to ensure neutrality by including some of that material, was tough and chaotic to a degree that I'm now probably formally "involved", and thus unable to act as an administrator in this dispute anymore. If a new edit war ensues, I'd rather report it at WP:ANEW than attempting to fix it myself again.
You have probably seen, and would like to see removed, the text "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use." above the article about Emma Sinclair. This can happen in two steps.
  • To fix the lack of a disclosure, please click your own username at the top of my message, then create the page (your user page) with the content required by WP:PAID. I'm not a lawyer and this is legal stuff, so I can only point towards WP:PAID instead of providing more specific instructions. The template {{paid}} may be helpful; you can click it for usage instructions.
  • When the lack of disclosure has been fixed, please notify me so I can remove the statement about "undisclosed payments". It may be replaced by the {{paid contributions}} template while Wikipedia's cleanup processes are running, and this may take an unspecified amount of time as it's done entirely by volunteers in their free time. The eventual goal of placing such a template is that someone takes the time to fix any remaining article issues and removes it.
For the future, the ideal way to request changes to an article is as follows:
  • Create a new section on the article's talk page. You can do so even if the article's talk page is a red link / doesn't exist yet. Simply click "New section" at the top of it.
  • Describe clearly, in a format like "Please replace X by Y" or "Please add X after Y", or "Please remove X", which changes you would like to request.
  • Provide reliable sources for any text you'd like to add or replace. There is a huge red/yellow/green table at WP:RSP that is very educative about the reliability of sources.
  • Provide a guideline- or policy-based reason for any proposed removal, such as "undue weight", "lacks a citation", or "based on a self-published source". Policies and guidelines are currently marked by green/blue checkmark icons at the top of them.
  • Save/publish your request. Check if the result really looks as expected; check if it's readable and well-structured.
  • If you are certain that you have made an uncontroversial request that does not require discussion, you can afterwards edit your request, place {{request edit}} directly below its heading and save/publish again.
Thank you very much in advance and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
PS: You may be, or become, interested in editing Wikipedia completely unrelated to WP:PAID/WP:COI. This would be very welcome. While you're still logged into your current account, you can open Special:CreateAccount to create one for private / free time use. As the publicly logged reason, you could enter "Separating non-paid from paid contributions" at the bottom of the form. On the user pages of both accounts, please mention the connection (and difference) between the two accounts. This avoids accusations of "sockpuppetry" and ensures transparency. Please make sure not to edit any of your work-related articles using the new account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Digvijaysinhji Mori

Hello, you blocked Digvijaysinhji Mori for 1 month for OWN violation, but they also made a legal threat. Please look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Digvijaysinhji_Mori&diff=next&oldid=1076621554 Naleksuh (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, legal threat was withdrawn in a later edit, was going to remove this thread but I will leave it here just in case. Naleksuh (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Naleksuh, thanks! :) Yeah, I had seen that after the block and chose not to address it for now, as it was retracted after a warning. It just confirms the block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Community banned users allowed to email?

Hey mate! I've got some questions for ya. I just received an email from a community banned user, raising an issue in some article. I checked the article and the info in question was not sourced, not BLP tho. 1. Am I allowed to improve the same and/or start a talk page discussion (to ask/tag others who might be able to source it)? This doesn't seem WP:PROXYING to me as I independently verified that the issue exists. 2. Are community banned users allowed to email other users with such errors? 3. If I resolve the unsourced issue, and if I receive another email in the future with another issue somewhere, will this now be WP:PROXYING? Thanks ;) — DaxServer (t · c · m) 19:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi DaxServer!  
First of all, my position about proxying, banning et cetera is usually stricter than others'. For example, I'd long have said that a truly community-site-banned user is no longer part of the community and shouldn't be allowed to communicate with members of the community that has thrown them out. That used to be reflected by the table at WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, but when I actually told a community-banned user that they're no longer part of the community, Swarm (if I remember correctly) complainingly asked for the policy basis of that statement, and the policy basis was later actually removed by ProcrastinatingReader.
In November 2021, there was a discussion about perceived "proxying" for a blocked user allegedly done by Gerda Arendt, generalized at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_170#WP:PROXYING_(banning_policy):_Clarification_needed. I think the gist of that discussion is that "proxying" is generally not seen as a problem unless the resulting edits are actually problematic.
If it was a BLP – and I guess that's why you specifically point out that it isn't –, the answer would be obvious and simple: Of course, you can remove or discuss that material. As it isn't a BLP, the answer may not be as obvious, but to me personally, it still is "yes". The volunteers at IRC and the public-facing email queues probably do this all the time, removing material that actually lacks a citation and is challenged off-wiki. Whether a banned user wrote the e-mail or not is a matter of their own disclosure; they could probably easily have chosen not to identify themselves in their request. And we're building an encyclopedia after all, so if your work truly improves the encyclopedia, I'd say go ahead. I might not say that to a new user, but I trust your judgement.
Note, though, that some community-banned users can be highly deceptive and may trick you into accepting their point of view even when this point of view is at odds with the community's view. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Arbitration_motions_from_the_declined_case_request_Warsaw_concentration_camp contains a note about Jehochman's self-requested desysop that should, depending on who the community-banned user is, make you very careful when dealing with banned users' input.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
No comment on the underlying question about proxying, but "Still a member of the community?" is such a vague statement such that I don't think it can be a policy basis for this, or for anything else. For one, 'community' is so poorly defined (is a driveby IP editor suggesting a change on talk a 'member of the community'?). We should refrain from vague notions like these in policy IMO. If we're trying to restrict or empower certain groups of editors then the groups and the privileges should be clearly defined, otherwise we're writing meaningless statements that everyone will interpret in different ways. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much stock in that arbitration request. My desysop request is mostly unrelated to ArbCom, and it centers on my prior lack of activity, resulting in my feeling a little too out of touch with community norms and circumstances that have evolved since I was more active. "Proxying" has been used as a nose of wax concept that is molded to suit the situation. I will give this advice: if you are a free thinker, be careful not to cross the conventional "wisdom" that is created by groupthink-prone organizations, such as ArbCom, if you wish to have power around here. I prefer to do my own thing and not have power. Jehochman Talk 17:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-11

22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for stepping in to deal with vandalism. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm hm. Thanks Richard Nevell; this might not have been vandalism as in "intentionally/maliciously causing damage to the encyclopedia". It's just a 24-hour edit warring block and my usual 1-year semi-protection for contentious topics attracting disruptive edits from newcomers. I'm curious to see what happens after the 24 hours; Knstm's further actions might help to understand their motivation. Ideally, they should explain their position on the talk page of the article. That rarely happens, but we'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Their behaviour is ... interesting. They've made similar edits on the Ukrainian and Russian versions of the same article. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I just had the same thought and found these. I mean, if we want to assume good faith as far as possible, we should probably interpret this as a positive message. They might genuinely believe that what they're doing is helpful and necessary. It's highly disruptive, though!
The removed IP message on their talk page seems to have been directed at them, not you nor me, and is part of a cross-wiki logged-out response from someone upset by their contributions. That's not okay either, of course.
Weird, heated times. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for protecting those articles. Also a .. belated Happy New Year  

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Fylindfotberserk, thank you for the cute kitten!   You're welcome, and a Happy New Year to you too!   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Welcome. Wishing 'happy new year' in March is kinda weird, but I had to  . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
It's never too late for a happy year! ^.^ Also, whether the year starts with March is probably even debatable. Chinese New Year is in February! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Very true...   - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for blocking Thomas the train 22 indefinitely for only vandalizing Wikipedia! Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions | block) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Faster than Thunder, thank you for the kind feedback!   In case you wonder, a warning is usually preferred to a quick block, but the filter log contained many correct "Disallow" entries for clear vandalism, so the user intentionally attempted to damage the encyclopedia, had been warned, and continued again and again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faster than Thunder (talkcontribs) 22:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


Needs an AN-archive link before archival. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

:) --Blablubbs (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! :D ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The sun crosses the equator today

Happy First Day of Spring!
 
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom
 
Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2022! Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)







If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2022!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hey Iggy the Swan, that's a beautiful greeting, thank you very much! I wish you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2022 too. Winter is over!    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh yes, thanks for reverting an edit made by a random IP address which has been trolling my talk page header in my user space. Can confirm that I don't have the disease earlier this month, and on that subject I'm glad you've survived yours which you've admitted. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  I was about to wish you all the best and getting well soon, but when trying to find the diff to point to, I finally realized what had happened. No problem, and thank you for the kind words! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

ASAP

You are recklessly wanting to forbid me from writing to another user as we are in the same project (sport) and he sometimes comments on my suggestions. Take it back ASAP! Atlantico 000 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh my, Atlantico 000. You're probably referring to the current interaction ban proposal. I wanted to provide a link here, just for the record, before addressing your concerns in this message. Sadly, Special:Diff/1078294557 at ANI removed any chance of a helpful discussion and ideas for continuing to edit. I have blocked your account for now, but I'd be fine with the block being removed as soon as the interaction ban has formally been enacted, provided that you understand what led to it or at very least credibly indicate that you will abide by it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-12

16:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Linde vandal

Back as 5.178.202.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Hi FDW777, can you file an SPI? I'll have a look later then. The geolocation is odd (Tbilisi, Georgia) and the edits are numerous. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I can if you really want, but I'm not sure it's necessary. I never noticed the gelocation on that IP before, but it's definitely them (and it's their original IP). I've had it listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Linde plc vandal since the very start. If you look at the top of User talk:103.210.146.65 (which is a Mumbai IP) they've already been established to be the same editor (as does the block log). There's also the substantial intersection between the first two IPs listed at the LTa page. FDW777 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, FDW777. I've had a closer look and I agree it's them. And because the behavior is disruptive on its own and the IP address seems to be used pretty statically, it's now 2 years instead of 3 months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Don't apologise, thanks for the action. FDW777 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Antimony12 block

I converted your partial block of Antimony12 to sitewide based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Android 1123581321. Just wanted to give you courtesy note. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi LuK3, thank you very much!   I had visited the IRC SPI channel in parallel with blocking, having a quick chat with Bsadowski1 and Vermont who confirmed and locked the account. What I mainly lacked was an enwiki-blocked sockmaster to point to; thanks for identifying them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

Pardon my impatience I just would like my rollback request to be reviewed as I feel like I would really benefit from rollback permissions and I currently have a few days that I am free from everything with nothing to do ahead of me so I was planning on reverting vandalism on Wikipedia more during those days with possibly with Huggle so I could learn the software more. Also have a good weekend! SkyTheWolf (Talk) 20:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi SkyWolf369, my granting of Dove's talk's rollback request was due to me noticing them positively during their work, guessing they might have made a rollback request and having been correct with the guess. I am currently not reviewing rollback requests in general, but I might do so later. Don't wait for me, though, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Resolved in Special:Permalink/1079344486. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The title of the article needs to be changed admin sir

Hello Sir, It is a court order that the title of this article Dhobi should not be used by enough people, but is it appropriate for Wikipedia policy to call Wikipedia moms by the same name? I request that.And I'm repeatedly asking senior Wikipedia administrators to change the title of this article, but that has not changed, so I ask that you change this.

https://m.thewire.in/article/law/calling-people-harijan-or-dhobi-is-offensive-supreme-court

And these people are doing agriculture and so on in most of the states, But Way shows these people as laundresses, The real name of this community is Dhoba, Rajak not Dhobi.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=6h2Gm1gPZZQC&pg=PT1212&dq=dhoba+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixv9rU8c3yAhVNyGEKHYIwDIU4ChDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=dhoba%20caste&f=false Baba God (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Baba God, this might be controversial, and a good way to invite arguments from other editors is to create a move discussion on the talk page of the article, using a formal process. Please read the introduction of Wikipedia:Requested moves, and then the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial, carefully. If necessary, please read the instructions multiple times. Make sure you understand the process before doing this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Many times I have appealed to change the name of the article on the talk page, but there is no response yet, I request you to change the title of the article yourself and protect the Wikipedia policy,Rajak is the exact title of this article Baba God (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Baba God, as you have actually been waiting for a response for almost two months now, you may move the page yourself (with WP:BOLD in mind). The formal "requested moves" process is usually a good way to invite opinions, but as the page has never been moved yet and you have been seeking others' opinions since January, I'd say you can go ahead and move the page; see if someone complains. If someone complains, however, please do discuss instead of moving the page again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have said many times on the talk page that this is the response, the administrators did not accept my request, Wikipedia seems to be acting contrary to the truth, I ask them to correct it and change the name Dhobi banned by the court.I request that the name Dhobi which was banned by the court be changed to Rajak

Do not vandalize the article, as you did, by adding a fake protection symbol, since that page has never been protected. Finally, I was not threatening you, nor saying that I would block you - I can't because I am not an Admin - I was forewarning you what the likely result would be, if you continued vandalizing the page. [[54]] Baba God (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Baba God, you can move pages yourself. You don't need an administrator to help with this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I can not change the page Dhobi Sir, we ask you to change it to the name Rajak yourself Baba God (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You can. There's a "Move" link at the top of the page, hidden behind "More". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem now, you can't overwrite the existing target page. Okay. Well then, please have a look at WP:RMT. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

Ginni Thomas

Hi, ToBeFree. I removed the move protection from Virginia Thomas yesterday due to a successful requested move. I also noticed that you had protected it in January under discretionary sanctions; the move protection had stemmed from 2014 as a normal administrative action. The way I saw it, your protection was purely to add [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access]. However, looking back again, this seems to go against the letter of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § sanctions.outofprocess (and believe me, I have no desire to be desysopped after less than – checks watch – two-and-a-half days). I will be happy to reinstate the move protection if you wish and sorry about all of this. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hey Sdrqaz, thanks for doing this, and thanks for asking. The move protection wasn't mine, yup; the logged AE action at WP:AELOG/2022#Biographies_of_Living_Persons is a semi-protection. But that's nowhere near the end of possible complexity: Sometimes, I increase protection above an existing sanction and note that only the "underlying semi-protection" is affected by sanctions. That's commonly the case with WP:GS/PAGEANT pages that are edited by autoconfirmed sockpuppets after semi-protection.
So no worries at all. To actually annoy me, you'd need to do it the other way around: Apply full protection, but combine it with shortening, leaving the page in an unprotected state at a time when no administrator would have been allowed to remove the protection. That has actually happened a few times, but my only reaction was to silently fix it.
Congratulations to the successful RfA, well-deserved: It's good to have you around.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, those pesky pageant pages. Thanks, ToBeFree; it was an experience, with misleading voting totals. I thought I was reasonably-prepared for adminship given my prior pseudo-administrative maintenance work, but even on a superficial level there are a lot more buttons cluttering my screen. Blocking users on mobile is fine when it's a simple {{uw-spamublock}} situation, but it took me a while to find the right template for this temporary partial block. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Twinkle and the desktop design do sometimes work well on mobile devices. You may, however, like to copy the removal of the one-click "VANDAL" button from User:ToBeFree/common.css. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking IP again

2A02:AA12:D57F:A200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is carrying on pretty much the same way as before the block, see this and this for example. FDW777 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Reblocked for a year. :) Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-13

19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Waldemar Skrzypczak

Hello, Which facets of Wikipedia’s BLP policy my referenced contribution to this article allegedly violated? Why did you choose to lock the article for 3 months (a bit long, no)? Usually discretionary actions I’ve seen only extend to 1-2 weeks even for much more heated and notable topics than this one. Finally, why the entire referenced material was removed even if you felt that calling it historical revisionism and irredentism was original research? --213.222.183.137 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi 213.222.183.137, I commonly choose long protection durations for contentious topics; 3 months is less than my usual year. The reason – somehow ironically, if you like – is identical to the reason you're implicitly asking for a shorter duration: You'd probably like to continue editing the article, and waiting two weeks is more convenient and practicable than waiting for three months. However, the idea behind the protection is exactly to prevent you from directly editing the article until a consensus is found on the article's talk page. So any protection duration that encourages you to seek a consensus instead of waiting for the protection to expire is fine. The protection can be lifted at any time; it just doesn't automatically expire in the near future.
Special:Diff/1079809890 is a violation of the BLP policy's requirement for neutrality and verifiability. While we may both agree that "unreasonable" is a kind term for describing military aggression, "unreasonable" is a subjective term by itself that isn't suitable for an encyclopedia even if most of its writers share this opinion. That aside, "in the future World War 3 which may happen if Russia continues" is original research at best, as it would combine sources into something neither source said even if you were able to provide a source for this part of your added content. Without such a source, it's a plain verifiability/neutrality issue.
As for why it was removed, I removed nothing. The removal was reasonable, though, as the BLP policy mandates that such material is "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for responding.
1. I was not the one who added “unreasonable”, referenced to WW3 and anything else in the paragraph that sounds like an opinion - I’m too experienced on Wikipedia for that (15 years, give or take). I have almost zero interest in the topic and have never returned to edit any topic for the second time unless I met unreasonable (censorious) resistance.
My contribution was simply to say that the general said x, referenced by a credible source y, and I later even changed the paragraph from saying him being “notable” for this opinion to him simply “expressing” opinion x which was irredentist and historically revisionist.
The reasonable solution would have been to leave the fact (x said y referenced in z) in place and remove what sounds like an opinion or original research to you. In my view the removal of the whole sentence instead of the 3 words you may disagree on was heavy-handed. It deprived Wikipedia’s users from a key fact about this person. Furthermore you removed the person’s affiliation to a Swedish heavy-metal band (added not by me and probably years ago), which together with his latest media pronouncements make him suspect of extreme right-wing sentiment.
So: why did you remove the heavy-metal affiliation? 213.222.183.137 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
My mistake - another user removed the heavy-metal reference.
Overall looks suspicious to me simply because what the end result of this editing is, namely:
1. The subject of the biographical article has been whitewashed via an all-or-nothing consensus enforced by yourself.
2. There is zero incentive for the other party to engage constructively and reach a consensus. 213.222.183.137 (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I have overlooked that, while you have edit warred ([57] [58]) exactly this content (yes, with "unreasonable") into the article, you have later removed the part that raised the most obvious objections. The actual removed content at the end of the dispute was less problematic (Special:Diff/1079815327).
Still, I can understand GizzyCatBella's concerns about the policy compatibility of that material. As explicitly cited in their edit summary, from WP:BLPSTYLE, claims such as "notable for his irredentism and historical revisionism" need to be backed by (multiple) reliable sources. One source is cited at the end of the sentence, but it does not directly support the material as required by WP:BURDEN, and it's just one source.
You call it "whitewashing", I'd call it caution. A caution reflected by WP:BURDEN (requiring you to prove verifiability) and WP:ONUS (requiring you to gain a consensus for inclusion). If the other editor actually refuses to discuss this with you, or if the discussion comes to a standstill, you may like to request a third opinion or start an RFC about the matter. I usually link to WP:DISCFAIL as the best advice I've ever seen for dealing with such cases, but I have yet to see GizzyCatBella actually refusing to discuss the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@ IP 213...137 --> you wrote above: make him suspect of extreme right-wing sentiment ... you continue WP:BLP violations. Seriously, please read WP:BLP that apply to talk pages as well. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
One cannot violate BLP in article Talk pages. Your manner of communicating seems to be all about message control and not about good-faith engagement or suggestions.
So, why did you remove the heavy-metal reference? 213.222.183.137 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
213.222.183.137, please carefully actually read the first sentence of WP:BLP. Its last three words are "any Wikipedia page". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
So I looked into GizzyCatBella’s Wikipedia editing history and what do I find?
1. Previous topic bans
2. Interest primarily in Polish nationalist topics
That’s all I needed to know.
ToBeFree, are you ethnically Polish? 213.222.183.137 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy. No. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. It is a logical fallacy in the logical space. If Wikipedia was of such a high standard we would not be having this conversation. 213.222.183.137 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
That the heavy metal reference makes the general suspect of extreme right wing sentiment is my opinion. It’s clearly too vague and speculative to fall under BLP. BLP is run with reference to US law in particular, and so I would urge you to consult the relevant constitutional amendment. 213.222.183.137 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
... oh Gosh .. and with this what you wrote above - Your manner of communicating seems to be all about message control and not about good-faith engagement or suggestions you violated WP:NPA. Look, Wikipedia is full of regulations we all have to follow, please read WP:BLP, seriously. I'm certain you will understand where I'm coming from. PS. - the heavy metal song thing was not referenced at all and it's not important for such a short BLP article. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Well I’ll get off Wikipedia for the next 3 months then. In 2022 there is a Polish general wanting to bite off a piece of Russia but differently from 1922 the “consensus” of 2 vs 1 is to whitewash his Wikipedia page. Good for you. 213.222.183.137 (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Sincerely, I believe you deserve one of these. Keep it going! Volten001 14:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  Thank you very much, Volten001! I hope you enjoy editing; it's good to have you around. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
You're most welcome. Yes indeed I am....and thanks as well Volten001 18:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you plan this?

My userscript says you have 100,000 edits, and your most recent was on the page 100,000. Just a random thing I saw. Anyway,Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Xtools, 104,000 edits were made. Lots of edits. Severestorm28 11:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  I was wondering whether someone would notice it. Yeah, at about 99k, I wondered what the 100,000th edit would be, and then knew it had to be on that page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
You have 104,000 edits, according to this. Deleted edits-3,000?! Severestorm28 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, there are different counting methods. For example, protecting a page is an "edit" in some tools, and not really an edit in other tools. Deleted contributions are also a factor, but MediaWiki itself counts these as if they had never been deleted in the Preferences, and at Special:CentralAuth. The high number of deleted contributions is from moving files to Wikimedia Commons and tagging them with {{NowCommons}} afterwards. The page is then deleted, and the contribution becomes a "deleted edit". The toolserver has access to a copy of the Wikipedia database, just with private data removed. It can apply different counting methods directly on the database and doesn't always rely on MediaWiki's, hm, "official" edit count. MediaWiki says 100,000; this is displayed on the toolserver page at the very right, at "Global edit counts (approximate)".   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Ha, well done. And thank you for your service! Drmies (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Very confusing, but congrats on 100,000 edits! Severestorm28 19:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Linde vandal

And back in Dubai again as 91.73.121.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (and also 86.98.159.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) used yesterday). FDW777 (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done, thanks :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Although I did enjoy the rant about Putin, communists and the vague threat. FDW777 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

And back again as 91.73.98.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Given they've also used 91.73.97.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well as the first IP in this thread, perhaps a range block? FDW777 (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have now blocked the two IP addresses you've mentioned, but a range encompassing 91.73.121.117 and 91.73.97.52 would have to be as large as 91.73.96.0/19. If someone manages to write a good edit filter, that could be more effective than blocking an active /19 range from editing all articles. Something category-based, perhaps. For example, it would be possible to create a filter that prevents an entire IP range ("ip_in_range") from editing pages that contain any of a list of categories or keywords ("old_wikitext").
I'm not really sure what to do about this sockpuppeteer. Their weird patriotism and derogatory attitude (Special:Diff/1080295727) is annoyingly persistent and disruptive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not even sure it is patriotism, since that's feeling for one's own country, and there's no evidence in their globe-trotting they are American. Their insistence on labelling any company possible as American while simultaneously downplaying the nationality of non-American companies is contradictory and disruptive though. Any technical help dealing with them would be appreciated, their current editing rate (at least, the ones I notice) isn't that difficult to deal with though. FDW777 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Petition I asked them to change their name

hai sir I have changed my page but none of the executives should block anything, they have to confirm this name change, I told you two weeks ago the name Dhobi was banned by the court to change it to Rajak several times on dhobi talk page Registered Nobody found it I told you do it yourself You have just done My modified page Please confirm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajak_(caste) Baba God (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Baba God, thank you for being bold. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfair blocking

You have blocked my ip stating it was edit warring. I was updating the page accurately, and was being warred by Binksternet. He is continually reverting the page back to outdated information causing the warring. The information currently on the page is outdated by 2 years. The company name referring to RITTZ record label is incorrect. He has had many new collaborations with many artists after the page last update. He has released 4 albums since the last update. I have sited references & web addresses that are publicly verifiable information to justify the updating of information. I have requested an appeal to have my ip's unblocked as I am a freelance journalist that interviews artists regularly about the status of their progress & most recent body of work. This is an unfair personal attack on my updates to the page. I appreciate your attention this issue. My appeal id # is 821e5b5f65392919b8165479c237467e. I have also been blocked from creating an account for future updating to information. Thank you, OnlyAccurateUpdates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:9F00:8801:3500:90F:E517:F534 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP obviously has a conflict of interest, and the insistence on using tell-tale sentences which showcase this indeed confirms that. "Freelance" simply means "not necessarily committed to a particular employer long-term", and that of course doesn't exclude them being currently employed by the subject or somebody closely related to them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi 2603:7080:9F00:8801:3500:90F:E517:F534, as "2603:7080:9f00:8801:c0e4:e0b0:8630:586c", you have claimed to "represent the artist" using plural pronouns. I thus need to assume that your contributions, including the one here on my talk page, are in violation of the paid-contribution disclosure policy. Disclosure is easier with a registered account, as registered accounts have user pages that can be edited to meet the disclosure requirements. However, to prevent you from using an account to circumvent the block, you'll need to wait until the block expires before you can create an account yourself. Please do so instead of resuming the edit war, and use the account (with proper disclosure) to participate in discussions at Talk:Rittz.
That said, thank you having created an edit request at Talk:Rittz. This is a good first step. The request sadly currently lacks reliable citations and is unlikely to be accepted; I have now explained this issue in response to your request.
As long as you do not have an own user page with a disclosure, please make sure that at least your edit summary contains any required disclosures (WP:PAID). I may silently remove any further messages that lack the required disclosure.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting for rollback rights

Hello ToBeFree,

I am requesting the rights again as you had advised. I know you had suggested I do so in April but we are almost there. I believe I have gained more experience in anti-vandalism work as evidenced in my contributions and the right will be essential and helpful. I'm hoping you will reconsider my request. Thanks --Volten001 22:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

April is April.   And that's when I'll have a look. I'll prevent this section from being archived in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks Volten001 21:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-14

21:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Mirabelle

Hi,ToBeFrei .I'm Mirabelle,like you and want us to be friends,just joined the website newly and I think I have some problems understanding the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirabelle heavens (talkcontribs) 20:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused, Mirabelle heavens, when looking at your global contributions, especially those on Wikibooks. I'm afraid all advice I can provide at this point is that Wikipedia is not a social network, but offers ideas for helpful contributions at the Task Center. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Dusty8686

I suggest that we start going hard against Dusty's tactics. These might include the following:

1. Immediately ECP any article that he starts targeting (when we find out that it's a target of his), probably for about a month or so. Semi-protections are completely and utterly useless in this case because of his ability to game AC.

(Seems like his new tactic is to target an article with vandalism from multiple proxies for a few days, then target it later using a more obvious sock or a Florida IP. It's kind of hard to find out which articles he might target until he targets it with an obvious sock because of the wide range of topics, including video games, transportation, a Tamil action film, a skyscraper, some Wikipedia humor pages, etc. etc.)

2. Semi-protect the Dusty8686 SPI page for now for obvious reasons. ECP might be needed if he tries gaming to disrupt the SPI, but I doubt he will for some reason.

3. Rangeblocks. The two Florida Verizon ranges he's used, 2600:1006:b040::/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2600:1006:b060::/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), are a good start. Perhaps we should get a checkuser to see if hardblocks on those are needed. Any proxies he's found to be using should be hardblocked as well, and if they are part of a range, we should hardblock that whole range.

I still can't believe that this Florida kid is gaming AC and using proxies just to fiddle with some stupid stats and do childish vandalism. Icewhiz, Yaniv, and Projects would be proud. lol wizzito | say hello! 21:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

btw, there is a new sock, I went to AIV instead because I don't wish to clog up SPI with a 3rd report. wizzito | say hello! 21:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi wizzito, I can't unilaterally ECP unprotected pages just because one specific sockpuppeteer might be discouraged in the process of causing heavy collateral damage. Imagine I did that with full protection, to understand the impression this has on 99% of Wikipedia's editors. The introduction of ECP to Wikipedia was met with fears that would come true if administrators skipped semi-protection on non-contentious topics regularly. Yes, there are exceptions granted by the Arbitration Committee, but they don't apply here. The ECP section of the protection policy limits its use in a way that requires me to decline this request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I guess...? I'm just incredibly frustrated to know that this kid keeps creating sock accounts and getting away with his vandalism. wizzito | say hello! 22:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
If age is a factor, there's hope. :) Age changes. Don't let Wikipedia frustrate you too much; attempt to consciously invest your efforts in a way that makes you happy to look at the results. I'll have another look later this week, but trolls won't keep me up at night. The main difference between editors who stay forever and those who leave in frustration appears to be the ability to remember WP:NOTCOMPULSORY when it's needed the most. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I've dealt with a lot of trolls, vandals, LTAs, etc. but I know that a lot of them probably want me gone so that's what keeps me going. wizzito | say hello! 22:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Just sent another sock of theirs to AIV. They are very much ramping up the disruption lately and something needs to be done. wizzito | say hello! 23:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
They just made a sock w/ a username that's a threat against you; Special:Contributions/ToBeFree Wants ToBeImprisoned. Luckily it is now globally blocked. I'm tired of watching admins sit around while this disruption is ongoing and severe. wizzito | say hello! 23:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I was sleeping and working, not sitting around. :) Thanks for dealing with them, but don't let them take over your life. The community and the encyclopedia are huge. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)