This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Thanks, Happy Diwali to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Happy Diwali 2020
Happy Diwali
Hello ToBeFree,
Hope you are doing well.
Wishing you a happy, safe, and prosperous Diwali. Stay safe. Regards.
--Titodutta (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Happy Diwali to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree -- just a heads up, the person behind the IP 2.203.242.68 and 88.68.182.54 is now editing under 90.186.249.134. Would you mind blocking this IP too? Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Aoi, thank you very much for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
1866 in Germany
Can I start a page for this topic? Thinking that it would be good to have a page for this topic rather than a general redirect. The page would not look much different than 1867 in Germany but in 1866 the Austro-Prussian War begins, when the Austrians and most of the medium German states declare war on Prussia.--Akrasia25 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Akrasia25, you're a godsend. By all means, please do. Finally someone non-banned, and with the experience and trustworthiness able and willing to do this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! Nice to get the appreciation. Odd but it motivates me.--Akrasia25 (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey Thegooduser, sure! :) Ideally, we could do the interview the Wikipedia way here on this talk page, I guess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Listings on category pages are sorted on each wiki for that language using a library. For a brief period on 16 November, changes to categories will not be sorted correctly for most languages. This is because the developers are upgrading to a new version of the library. They will then use a script to fix the existing categories. This will take a few hours or a few days depending on how big the wiki is. You can read more. [1][2]
Changes later this week
If you merged two pages in a namespace where pages can't redirect this used to break the merge history. This will now be fixed. [3]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 November. It will be on all wikis from 19 November (calendar).
Future changes
The Community Wishlist Survey is now open for proposals. The survey decides what the Community Tech team will work on. You can post proposals from 16 to 30 November. You can vote on proposals from 8 December to 21 December.
I see that you responded to a recent storm of vandslism (no pun intended) at Hurricane Iota. This has been a recurring issue, with an IP-hopping vandal putting the same sort of "God said to me..." vandalism on hurricane articles. Given this history, would it be appropriate to preemptively semi-protect any future hurricane articles? Tropical Storm Kappa may form as soon as this week. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(My you archive fast!) I usually do the interview on a userpage subpage, I'll let you know when it's ready, I'm really busy, but TWW will be out sometime this weekend! --ThegooduserLife Begins With a Smile :)🍁 02:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Heh, it used to be 30 days until someone complained about the huge page :) Sounds perfect, thank you very much for the offer! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Proxy IP block
Hey Tobefree, I think this IP block might be excessive; since this is allegedly a P2P VPN, it's highly unlikely that the IP will be used as a proxy for long – it will probably be reassigned as quickly as any other residential IP address. If this is the case, the block length should probably be reduced – if I haven't missed anything here. Best, Blablubbs(talk • contribs) 00:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Blablubbs, the IP address is likely static. If it is static and used by a P2P VPN user, it may well still be an open proxy many months later, as long as the software is still used. There also have never been any other contributions from the address during the existence of Wikipedia, making collateral damage seem unlikely to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
ToBeFree, thanks for the reply. How confident are you that the IP address is static? If it's based on whatismyipaddress.com, I have to say that I found that site to be less than reliable when it comes to the static/dynamic IP assessments. Best, Blablubbs(talk • contribs) 11:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Blablubbs, TekSavvy seems to offer both static and dynamic internet access. The assumption is based on whatismyipaddress.com and the difference of over 42 hours between the first and most recent edit. Perhaps it is only assigned for a week, perhaps for a month, perhaps for multiple months, perhaps for multiple years. I'm currently hesitant to shorten the block and would prefer to have a look again in a month. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
User Danedabeast5 and Nikolas Bruton again
Hi there ToBeFree. Just letting you know that User:Danedabeast5 after the block has re-posted the same information back to the Tarragindi, Queensland article. Given that it appears that Master Bruton and his brother User:Nikolas Bruton are both apparently 12 years old, can we please be gentle with them if further blocks are in order? Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey Matilda Maniac, that's a tough situation. Thank you very much for the notification and for the careful consideration. I hope to have found a solution with personalized advice messages and a partial block without a corresponding big red block message. Sadly, the user does not seem to look at their talk page, so I have linked it from the block message. This way, I hope they finally notice others' attempts to communicate with them. I'm relatively sure that if they finally see these messages, they'll understand and stop. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Unprotection on Hurricane Iota
Hi TBF. Thanks for your protection on Hurricane Iota. But a protection period of one month for the first time seems to be harsh, and it prevents a number of unregistered users on updating the articles. I can see only one IP vandalized the article, and he/she was blocked. Would you mind to reduce the protection length to one week? --116.49.138.107 (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi 116.49.138.107, there are currently discussions at WP:RFPP and WP:EFR about how to deal with the long-term problem. Until this is resolved, I think the month is okay. Please make an edit request at Talk:Hurricane Iota (using {{Edit semi-protected}}) if there is something you would like to improve. Sorry for the inconvenience and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thank you very much for your message. I have removed the incorrect statements as a first measure (Special:Diff/989970294), but you are welcome to edit the article and improve it in any way you like.
To remove the technical barrier that prevented you from doing so, I have manually confirmed your account. As soon as you have made 10 edits anywhere on Wikipedia, your account will be "autoconfirmed". Until then, the manual confirmation will have the same effect.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Done, thank you very much for the interview! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! For the last question, I wasn't specific enough, I meant that for example, China, blocks it. However, you have a very good answer for my unspecific question! --ThegooduserLife Begins With a Smile :)🍁 03:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, ah! :) Hmm. Well, I think the question would need to be phrased differently for me to be able to say something about China. Do feel free to add a follow-up question that specifically asks for my thoughts about censorship in other countries, for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Aaaah now I get it. Without the comma, I finally understand what you meant. C’est la vie. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Why are you writing nonsense about Rajput community unsubstantiated links.
What I have done is just removed the irrelevant links of some articles of 1990s. Rana of Bharat (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Rana of Bharat, confrontational edits like "why are you writing nonsense" are the reason for your topic ban. I'm interpreting your message as an appeal, but it has failed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by confrontational attitude? You would write nonsense about my community with substantiated links. I can't even remove it. Is Wikipedia your personal property. You keep your elite bias and don't promote hatred against Rajput community on wiki page. Rana of Bharat (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear, with due respect if you write nonsense about my community. I can't stay quiet for too long. I would have to confront it. You are promoting hatred against my community Rana of Bharat (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Your writers are promoting community hatred between different groups ?
Why are you adding unsubstantiated links on Rajput page, you are quoting a personal opinion writer kolf who is not even a historian but a 1990 academician. There is no consensus amongst historians about the subject. Rana of Bharat (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
(Heading converted to bold text.) Because of persistent disruption in this area, the community has authorized such measures (see Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups). Referring to another user as "idiot" (diff) and "casteist" (diff), repeatedly calling others' contributions "nonsense" (example 1, example 2), "vandalism" (diff) and personalizing the issue ("Wikipedia is not your father's property.", diff) are not acceptable and seem to confirm the need for such sanctions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kautilya3, thank you very much for the notification, and thanks for having dealt with the issue. I expected this to happen, but I wanted to give them a chance to contribute about other topics than castes, or at least to change their behavior. Well, that didn't work, sadly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Timestamps in Special:Log are now links. They go to Special:Log for only that entry. This is how timestamps work on for example the history page. [4]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Future changes
The Wikimedia Cloud VPS hosts technical projects for the Wikimedia movement. Developers need to claim projects they use. This is because old and unused projects are removed once a year. Unclaimed projects can be shut down from 1 December. Unclaimed projects can be deleted from 1 January. [5]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Emoticons
I saw that you use emoticons to comment in messages. Can you show me how you do that? I certainly would like to know how to do that. Interstellarity (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I take them from User:ToBeFree/s.css (feel free to copy the page to your userspace and adjust to your preferences). I use a .css page because these are protected against modification by anyone except interface administrators and me. Else, a vandal could insert malicious content into something I copy into my messages.
I use Unicode emoji as "alt" text to make them compatible with screen readers: If a blind user encounters these emoticons, their screen reader can read the emoji (or perhaps even adjust the voice tone).
The images are taken from commons:Emoji/Table (warning: huge page, will crash some browsers).
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. It is really helpful. Interstellarity (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear ToBeFree, once again I come asking for your help. Fortaleza Airport is again on the radar of someone who insists in placing his own thing in the article. This time is IP 90.186.239.195, who lives in Hamburg, just like CBG17, alias Gabilucena, alias SeasSoul, alias 2.203.242.68, alias 88.68.182.54 (there might be others). I have been placing explanations on the history page, so that the rationale can be easily tracked. I kindly request, if possible, to protect the article for two weeks. Thanks (Brunoptsem (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC))
Hi Brunoptsem, thank you very much for the notification. Per WP:BE, I have rolled back the edits, blocked unregistered editing from the IP address for three months and protected the affected pages accordingly. Please let me know if this continues. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Any idea who User:Vajeina is a sock of?
I certainly don't want to see porn images when browsing the WP namespace. Is there an SPI or LTA that this user is associated with? Was all the anti-vandal contribs of that user legit, or bogus? - Best regards, Steve talk contribs 01:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi 4thfile4thrank, thanks for asking. This can be pretty confusing:
Reverting vandalism is sometimes done by community-banned users to put the community into a conflict: WP:BANREVERT would apply, but reverting the edits would restore vandalism. This strategy is so common that the "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad" (Banned Means Banned / BMB) section of the banning policy contains a paragraph about it.
A number of banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Even if such editors make only good edits, they will be rebanned for evasion. — WP:BMB, revision 991055764
A thorough review of the reverts would be reasonable, as such users are usually banned for good reasons, and often unable to contribute constructively even if they first seem to do so. The user page just confirmed this pattern.
Regarding the SPI/LTA question, probably, but I don't care much about who it is exactly, and they don't deserve recognition anyway. If I may predict something, we'll see a troll unblock request and a subsequent checkuser confirmation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive response. - Best regards, Steve talk contribs 02:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: Although this one was obvious, how to know if a new editor who seems to know too much is either an avid reader of policy (like me) or part of a good-hand/bad hand sock scheme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thfile4thrank (talk • contribs) 02:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There's no sure formula. Intuition, assumption of good faith (legitimate privacy concerns?), kindly asking the editor and observing their reaction to the question can help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Editing other users' pages
You removed content from my user page that has been there for 10 years. If you check the edit history, you will see that all my edit did was remove the random posts that Wikipedia puts on my page and leave this content. It was immediately vandalized by someone who blanked my page. If Wikipedia policy has changed since I put that there, you could have mentioned that policy change. I have read wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines and nowhere do I find the "policy" you cite. I do see it says "The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." I agree my user page may be a more appropriate place for this minimal personal content.
Please consider Wikipedia:Etiquette when editing other users' pages. I did not feel welcomed or respected reading your comment, even it you intended it to be. Instead of just ignoring this, I am writing to you because I think it is extremely unlikely that you accidentally stumbled across my page. Most likely, you are searching for pages that contain content you deem unacceptable and posting boilerplate comments. And you may want to revise your boilerplate messaging, and consider not blanking other users' pages but instead posting encouraging messages, e.g., suggesting people create a user page in addition to a talk page. ---Vroo (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
ToBeFree: Thanks for the info. I would never have discovered WP:AIV. I see that moonythedwarf falsely reported my account as being used only for promotional purposes and then blanked it, which looked like vandalism to me. You posted more helpful messaging and pointed out that moonythedwarf's criticism was false, which I appreciate. So some of my feedback would be better directed at them. FWIW, I still don't see where a policy says this content is banned on talk pages (nothwithstanding it being more appropriate on a user page). ---Vroo (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
And thanks for restoring my talk page. I have moved the personal content to my user page along with a minimal self-description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vroo (talk • contribs) 05:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No worries, and thanks for the honest and quick feedback. I also think that a link to a personal blog and Twitter account are reasonable content for one's user page, and arguably equally fine at the top of one's talk page. Regarding the policy/guideline question, it's not explicitly prohibited; points to consider might be the existence and reasoning of WP:U5, the general "Wikipedia is not a blog/webhost" policy and the top of WP:OWNTALK, which you have correctly cited but also contains the following sentence:
While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively.
That said, U5 does not apply (you are a long term contributor to the encyclopedia), WP:UPYES explicitly allows "limited autobiographical content", and the citation in your original post does indeed generally advise against undiscussed removal. I didn't think much about removing the links, but have now restored them. I'd move them to my user page if that was my talk page. Edit: You've done that while I typed, thanks for doing so. :)
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Vroo, I acknowledge my criticism was false, so to clear up a few things:
1) I saw your changes as part of my usual WP:RC. This means you're not Extended Confirmed, which is unusual for a 10yo editor to say the least and I assumed you were a newbie.
2) Generally, Wikipedia isn't a host for links to your blog/twitter/instagram/etc, especially with new accounts, and when I see this behavior with a new account, I absolutely have reason to remove it, especially in this form where it seems to show a lack of understanding of how userpages even work. My reasoning was incorrect here, but it still feels a lot like you're using your talk page as just a place to put your blog, and not as a talk page, which is... not great. You've been using your talk for this since 2009, but your talk page is meant as an area to contact you with.
Thank you for moving it to your user page, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Good day. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 05:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The apology is appreciated moonythedwarf. I know that there are people for whom editing Wikipedia is a hobby. I'm just a person who edits when I see something worth editing. I'd probably edit more except for the many editors who believe their viewpoint is the only neutral one. For example, I was looking for a list of Republicans who opposed Trump and found the article List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, discovered that wasn't what this list was, did some fact checking, and thought that adding a disputed accuracy warning was appropriate. It was quickly removed. That history is a part of why I was frustrated here. I apologize if either of you thought I impugned your motives. Anyway, this discussion is probably a bit much to put on ToBeFree's talk page. ---Vroo (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 December. It will be on all wikis from 3 December (calendar).
Future changes
The iOS Wikipedia app will show readers more of the article history. They can see new updates and easier see how the article has changed over time. This is an experiment. It will first be shown only to some iOS app users as a test. [6][7]
The Wiki Replicas can be used for SQL queries. You can use Quarry, PAWS or other ways to do this. To make the Wiki Replicas stable there will be two changes. Cross-database JOINS will no longer work. You can also only query a database if you connect to it directly. This will happen in February 2021. If you think this affects you and you need help you can post on Phabricator or on Wikitech. [8]
Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Appears to be back as user:C Cocaine. Same interests in school shootings and prison terms, and followed up Dylan Harris Golden's post to another user's talk page [9]Meters (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
~1.5 hours remaining to response ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, hey Sebastian. My reply was ambiguous: The community as a whole can open that page, and I wouldn't mind this to happen, but I can't change the server configuration. For that to happen, we need a much clearer consensus at a central page like WP:VPPR, or at least via a Request for comments, wait for a formal closure of the discussion, and then link to the discussion closure in a technical request on Phabricator. The small discussion at the linked talk page is very likely insufficient for a change that was previously discussed and not agreed to by a larger audience. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks! ◅ Sebastian 13:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I suspected the user is a block evasion by User:Deathismetal14 (I posted in the user's talk page). Can you take a look at comparison of the user and other blocked socks? 2402:1980:2D4:2489:4FE4:D079:7647:FB10 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Gone; please do use WP:SPI for such reports again next time ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Rollback permission request
Hi, I went over and made some improvements regarding the talk page replies, and I've been also helping around with reverting vandalism on WD items. I'd like to get the RB flag so I can undo vandalism done by IPs and misguided users. Thanks in advance, --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Having a look soon ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I had hoped for examples from the English Wikipedia, as WP:ROLLBACKUSE is about the English Wikipedia. Well, my concern about warnings has been resolved, so here you are – but please be careful with the permission. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, you know the old adage: "With great power there must also come great responsibility". I'll make good use of it. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I dug a bit and figured out that this was probably a student account, as the name corresponds to a Bates College environmental course: ENVR 209 Sustainable Cities (Hence, BatesENVR209) [10]. Curbon7 (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Curbon7, thanks for the information. That's interesting. They could also be a teacher, I guess, and they really need to take the time to read and reply to the messages on their talk page. Let's see what happens in the next few weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Lesson teaches today
Hey man, I read your message[1]
See, only article editing is enough for us. You guys do work at home. But do prevent vandalism from other users who do vandalism. If I'm that one of them, you could probably block me indefinitely. But I will follow your advice. Because you teach me a lesson today. I will create articles, do editing as I do before and I will try my level best to make you 1100+ administrators happy. It's my challenge. I hope you understand. It takes 1 or more years to habituated all rules. And I will do request permission for user access level increase when all criteria are fulfilled with.
With best regards,
🇮🇳DRCNSINDIA (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi DRCNSINDIA, thanks. The main goal should be improving the encyclopedia, not making administrators happy. For most improvements of the encyclopedia, no permissions are required. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok as you say bro. Good bye hope your health would be good in future. 🇮🇳DRCNSINDIA (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time. Some wikis already had this function. [11][12]
Changes later this week
Information from Wikidata that is used on a wiki page can be shown in recent changes and watchlists on a Wikimedia wiki. To see this you need to turn on showing Wikidata edits in your watchlist in the preferences. Changes to the Wikidata description in the language of a Wikimedia wiki will then be shown in recent changes and watchlists. This will not show edits to languages that are not relevant to your wiki. [13][14]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 December. It will be on all wikis from 10 December (calendar).
Looks like a Deathismetal17 sockmaster, plus Binksternet also found other sleeper accounts, Kishkish3839 and Florencediva6654576666. Btw can you semi-protect Ritual (In This Moment album)? 115.164.61.44 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
This talk page is not a replacement for WP:SPI. I will ignore such reports in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Urgent! Sock puppet multiple accounts created by Abdiurangsunda
@ToBeFree: Please BLOCK this users, both of these users account is doing the same vandalism edit thing Stopcyberbullyingindo#1#2#3, User:Willykelly#4#5, User:Longround120#6#7, Adachiii#8, Lara Hatsumi#9#10 & Jonasrivaldoakaronaldowati#11#12 (There's a lot of same edits behaviour proof as they did and they're appear together). They're vandalizing Francisca James page, they seems very suspicious with their edit (same edits by a newly-fresh created accounts), suspected as an sockedpuppet users, their edits are not based on the current legitimate references. These all users having the same edits and all user accounts was made by Abdiurangsunda as suspected before for vandalizing without sources and having multiple accounts that does the same edit behaviour. It's all started by Abdiurangsunda by creating multiple accounts from Jonasrivaldoakaronaldowati at first and now already spotted red handed by creating multiple accounts for the sake of vandalism without reference and now creating Stopcyberbullyingindo, User:Longround120, User:Willykelly, Adachiii, Lara Hatsumi & so on. Please be blocked all of them ASAP. 36.85.1.184 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@36.85.1.184, until we see all things you say are proved, they can't be blocked. @ToBeFree: will block them when he will verify these account's editing pattern are same according to your information. So be patient on this. Thanking you. 🇮🇳GoWB🇮🇳 (ask me any questions) 06:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Please move the report to WP:SPI. I won't start an investigation myself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
aiv
Hey, TBF! I answered a query at AIV this morning, and wasn't sure how to mark it (for bot archiving?) as resolved. I tried poking around a bit but I'm not seeing an 'instructions for admins' section. Or I'm just stupidly missing it. —valereee (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey Valereee! A small, agreedly pretty hidden link at the top right of the page Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Administrator instructions. I like responseHelper. The bot ignores these templates, but other administrators are more likely to remove declined reports than unanswered ones. I personally try to remove all declined reports after having had a look at them. This ensures that at least four eyes agree with the removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
OMG, I'm so stupid! I swear I was looking just for that lol! Thanks! —valereee (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Haha, no worries, I'm not sure how long it took me to find it the first time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Wait, so the AIV helper bot just removes (rather than archives) reports, and editors checking AIV can just do that same to sort of indicate, yep, agree with this disposition of the case? Sorry, wasn't paying enough attention before. :) —valereee (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
No worries again – yeah, the bot just removes them like any administrator may do. There's no strict policy about what to remove when and how, but I usually ping the reporting user in my edit summary when there's something they may like to be notified about (e.g. Special:Diff/993469231), or when the declining administrator took the time to write a custom message that lacked a ping. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
What's happening
Hiho, thanks for being interested :-) We are a Webinar for a Berlin based public research institute for freshwater ecology and inland fisheries (part of the Leibniz Association). I am normally the Wikipedian User:Southpark but right now facing the real world with me real life name. All the other ones are scientist who hopefully one day will update and write wikipedia articles about freshwater ecology and what else interests them. They just have to learn how Wikipedia works - that's what we are doing right now. You can follow the whole course via The template. The biographies - this is just for a test to accomplish a "real article". It is more about the editing then the content. In case anything useful comes out of it, we will be thinking about moving it with the proper process into the proper namespace. But right now really the process is the goal, to get some scientists into the process to edit at all. -- Dirk Franke (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick and detailed reply – and I'm pretty impressed by the course templates. Sounds like a cool plan, thanks for doing this. Feel free to let me know if strange dewiki/enwiki related policy questions arise. The username-related block of Aquakulturinfo might be an example, but I see you have already mentioned this at User:Dirk_Franke/IGB-00#Additional_resources. I think this block could be converted to a {{uw-softerblock}}, allowing the creation of a new account for the same person. If the blocked person is interested in continuing to edit, I'll ask Nihonjoe for input. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi ToBe, that would be really nice. I did not see his userpage but I am definitely sure it was created with good intentions (and I mislead about the naming policy which is rather different in en than in de.). I hope the class turns out well - it is a first "real life" test with these modules and we will see how it continues. Rule help is great - but - alas - normally one only finds out about the differences in the moment it is too late. But I will give a thorough read again and check what else i was not totally sure of when writing it. -- Dirk Franke (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: Hi, could we interpret the deleted content of User:Aquakulturinfo as a disclosure of affiliation rather than advertising, and would you agree to convert the block to a soft WP:ISU-based one? They're part of a long-term editathon for scientists and mentored by de:User:Southpark. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi TBF. While reverting selected edits by Killtobefree6673, I noticed your reversal of previous socks in the prior edits of said articles. It's clear this user is just a sock of Sixsixsixstuff994 / Deathismetal14, names noted in your edit summaries. Could I trouble you take a look please. Robvanvee 07:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Robvanvee, done :) Thanks for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Done and a whole lot more. Thank you ToBeFree! Robvanvee 16:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
No worries ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Message by 124.43.255.135
need to be unlocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.255.135 (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Your IP address is not blocked; you would else not be able to write messages on this page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a Wikipedia app for KaiOS phones. It was released in India in September. It can now be downloaded in other countries too. [15]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 December. It will be on all wikis from 17 December (calendar).
Hi ToBeFree! I cannot believe I actually saved my test edit. I meant to click cancel, but I am so used to clicking on save changes I must have done so. I honestly have no clue what was going through my head... thanks so much! HouseBlaster (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ToBeFree: sir, last time I tried to request for confimed user but 1day less and reason is can be uploading a file. I know it's WP:Commons. But some files I want to upload locally on Wikipedia. Leave that part. I'm now having 100+ edits with a completion of 4 days but I am not granted autoconfirmed users. Please see to it.
Hi Shinyedit, there's a noticeboard for such complaints at WP:ANI, with instructions about other noticeboards if there's a more specific issue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
User talk:Iconman1
has an unblock request on UTRS. --Deepfriedokra(talk) 19:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Deepfriedokra, I rarely use UTRS, but this was a very helpful ping :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
User behaviour
Thank you for noticing that disgusting behaviour with the Fahrenheit issue. It's utmost dreadful :/. Kind regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Oliszydlowski, I'm sorry for not having taken action earlier, and for initially having dismissed your reasonable concerns about this user. I assumed good faith too much and am glad they're gone. Sorry again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Not a problem :) One can't always judge a user by his/her first actions. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you banning
Thank you for banning scottrichard3 :) TigerScientistChat 21:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi TigerScientist, You're welcome :) Just saying: Banning is something different; compare WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. Best regards ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
need a semi-protection for notable person
our Miss Universe 2019 -> Zozibini Tunzi page has been vandalized by non-user (user with ip address from the Philippines) that trying to delete her bio and images. Please semi-protection the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.246.252.47 (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Can we remove it based on WP:BURDEN? "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed"? the sources aren't really that mainstream and its old. The group itself wasnt even anything more than a meeting. The articles in are overblown in small towns. Im surprised this made it in for such a small town since it never worked out. Oijdgoijg30jg (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)oijdgoijg30jg
Hi Oijdgoijg30jg, thanks for asking – maybe we can, but I can't decide this unilaterally. A discussion at Talk:Bring New Orleans Back Commission is needed; please create a new section there and state all arguments for removal. Afterwards, we can invite the others to the discussion, and I'm relatively sure they won't object, as they likely don't have a strong opinion about the topic. Perhaps they were just concerned about the undiscussed removal without having a close look at the specific situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News
Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 11 January 2021.
Recent changes
The {{citation needed}} template shows when a statement in a Wikipedia article needs a source. If you click on it when you edit with the visual editor there is a popup that explains this. Now it can also show the reason and when it was added. [16]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week or next week.
Future changes
You can propose and discuss what technical improvements should be done for geographic information. This could be coordinates, maps or other related things.
Some wikis use LanguageConverter to switch between writing systems or variants of a language. This can only be done for the entire page. There will be a <langconvert> tag that can convert a piece of text on a page. [17]
Oversighters and stewards can hide entries in Special:AbuseLog. They can soon hide multiple entries at once using checkboxes. This works like hiding normal edits. It will happen in early January. [18]
Last time I used SP in similar circumstances, DESiegel had a number of unpleasant words for me. --Deepfriedokra(talk) 00:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, interesting Whatever one does, someone will find a way to criticize it. Cheers ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Help Need LONG PERIOD of Semi-protection for notable person to Stop Vandalism
Ayu Maulida page was totally damaged by haters, as you can see here -> 12345 & more!! it was edited by several non-user (user with ip address from the Philippines) this past few days and it's getting worst day by day. Please Semi-protection this page until May 31, 2021 or more longer protection to stop vandalism potential. Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.71.229 (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe who is the LeonChow99,you can refer this page https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LC99 .But who maybe another one,like CaradhrasAiguo.
LeonChow99 use too much proxy that anyone can not sure who is who in first time.
By the way, he last IP at zh.wikipedia.org is 85.206.175.219 and 45.154.138.22.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:5D5:1BB0:0:0:7BB9:2EBC (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the link, 2402:7500:5D5:1BB0:0:0:7BB9:2EBC – I lack insight into what happens behind zhwiki's scenes. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
ToBeFree, not sure if you saw this SPI yet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LemonadeDrinker. Apparently someone created two throw-away socks (Lexus220 & LemonadeDrinker) with separate proxies/VPNs to cause fuss in these Chinese politics related topics. And what this IP did was quite interesting, too. I guess CU policy won't allow those to be revealed, but there's certainly something orchestrated here. --Pudeo (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Pudeo, indeed I didn't! Thanks for the notification; that's strange. Mh. I'm out 😅 Thanks for dealing with these. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Removal
I hope you are having a nice holidays. I saw on the bring new orleans back site that the sources are a personal website with a lawyers adversitment on it. The sources arent real. you can check them yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oijdgoijg30jg (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Oijdgoijg30jg, thanks for the information; let's see what happens in the next few days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sebastian, thank you very much for the notification – I have had a look again and actually do still see the need. Thanks for the uncomplicated offer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Your blocking me
This is interesting. The only edits I have done is (1) removing non-notable self-promotion at Chitungwiza and (2) noting on the reference desk that so-called "arabic numerals" were indeed developed in Europe based on Indian numerals - a fact you can fact check in the relevant Wikipedia article. And that you label reference desk edits as "harrassment". And that you feel warrants an immediate(!) no-warning(!!) two(!!!) year(!!!) block(!!!!).
Comments discussing facts on reference desks are "harrassment"? Really? Really really?
Do you consider this standard Wikipedia operating procedure? 85.76.76.98 (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The block has nothing to do with you and does not affect your contributions in any way, but I'm pretty sure you're trolling and might need to be blocked as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
How am I trolling? Noting the fact that the european numeral "7" is not related to the arabic numeral "٧", in a discussion talking about how these numerals are drawn on paper, and these numerals being clearly visually different. Strictly relevant and to the point: clearly not visually similar! That european numerals were created based on various indian numerical systems, as documented in the relevant Wikipedia article. Please show me how I am trolling in stating these facts. I am really asking so I can improve my apparently horrendous manners. And, if you have the time, please explain how comparing these numerals constitutes "harrassment" and warrants blocks on talk pages that I have ever never touched. 85.76.76.98 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The block really has nothing to do with you. It is limited to these pages because someone else from the same IP address range has previously harassed other users in pretty ugly ways. Regarding the numbers, if you'd like to rename the article Arabic numerals, feel free to attempt gaining consensus for your proposed change on the article's talk page. Until that has happened (i.e. never), don't bother those who use the common term. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Yet I was blocked, personally. I note you give no evidence of claimed harrassment. I will not attempt to rename Arabic numerals, since being grossly misleading is not considered to be a problem on Wikipedia, as long as there is a "reliable source" somewhere. And there are people who read the article title and, without bothering to read the fine print below, consider themselves to be experts on the subject, and therefore anyone who pipes up is "harrassing".
Yes, you are "using the common term", but in this particular case, the "common term" in "arabic numerals" says the glyph (which was the exact issue being discussed) for "seven" is "٧". You see no problem in that whatsoever? Like maybe "common term" might be just flat out wrong? Perhaps stating that simple fact is not "harrassment", worthy of two-year blocks? 85.76.76.98 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The block and the term "harassment" are not directed at you. They have nothing to do with your contributions. The alternative option would have been semi-protecting the user talk pages for a long time, which generally is not done and would prevent edits from every non-autoconfirmed user including all unregistered editors. If you are uncomfortable with visibly editing from an IP address range that has previously been used for harassment, feel free to create an account; an e-mail address is not required.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The block and the term "harassment" are not directed at you. Yet you explicitly blocked me for harassment. How is that not directed at me?
I never harassed anyone. I discussed the difference between the arabic and european numerals, in particular the difference between the arabic glyph "٧" and the european/indian glyph "7". In a discussion exactly centered on that glyph. Yet you block me for "harrassment". Because discussing arabic vs european vs indian numerals is "harrassment".
If someone doing what you are doing were to apply for adminship on Wikipedia, would you vote for or against them? Considering what you are doing here, are your an honestly impartial admin? If you take an honest look at what I said, do you genuinely say I harrassed people? Really really really? What I did was genuinely harrassment? 85.76.76.98 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Your IP address 85.76.76.98 is within the CIDR range 85.76.0.0/16. The block is on 85.76.0.0/16 and was originally created at 2020-12-17T19:24:26, in direct response to harassment from 85.76.74.215 at 2020-12-17T18:03:23. See the block log: [19]
The block has accidentally been modified to a full block by SebastianHelm at 2020-12-29T19:23:42; see the section above and WP:AN#I blocked a range instead of a single IP address. After the accident was noticed, the full block was removed. All I did was re-instating my original block, and my actions never had anything to do with you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
You did not block me for some technical reason, you blocked me for fictitious "harrassment" on very specific pages.
This may need more eyes on it. Random drive-by blocks by a Wikipedia admin due to accusations of fictitious "harrassment" are not a positive thing for the project. 85.76.76.98 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The block existed before you made the edits you claim to have been the reason for the block. QED. If you have further concerns about the same topic or would like to request "more eyes", feel free to ask for community input at WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I am going to do a first on all of the Internet here. Here goes: I am probably uttertly totally in the wrong in what I have said here!
Sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry ever so sorry!
Sebastian (talk·contribs) said that my comments regarding the arabic glyph "v" and the european glyph "7" are trolling, and he wants to block me from all of Wikipedia.
Somehow I confused his accusation with whatever you have been doing (fighting the good fight I am sure!)
Sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry ever so sorry!
For the life of me I can't figure out how I confused Sebastian and you! How on Earth did we talk past each other for so long?
The discussion of "v" vs "7" should be between SebastianHelm and I.
I can't figure out how we did not see this earlier! Mea culpa, mea ultima culpa! 85.76.76.98 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, I originally called it "trolling" above as well, so I'm not entirely without blame. I take that back, though; I didn't look closely enough at the situation to make such an assessment. Sorry for the hasty judgement. All the best and no worries, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Christmas & 2021
Sections merged to one big celebration with a cute kitten at the end ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy holidays
This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the beautiful poem, Interstellarity. Happy holidays and a happy new year to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
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 2021. Happy editing, KatnissMay the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey KatnissEverdeen, thank you very much! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Merry!
★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey ★Trekker, thank you very much! Merry Christmas to you too, and thanks for the advice. 😆 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
That's very kind, thanks! Happy Holidays and a prosperous new year! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
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 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The same to you! Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
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 2021. Happy editing, MRRaja001(talk) 09:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey MRRaja001, thanks! Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021 to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
A Joyous Yuletide to You!
JACKINTHEBOX • TALK is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi and thanks, JackintheBox! Merry Christmas and a prosperous new year to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas ToBeFree!
Merry Christmas everybody!!!
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you very much, Jerm! Merry Christmas to you too, and a happy new year! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy Christmas
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
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 2021. Happy editing, HurricaneTracker495 18:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey HurricaneTracker495, thank you very much – both for the kind wishes and the friendly feedback. And thank you very much for your numerous hurricane-related contributions! Merry Christmas, a Happy New year and best regards, 🌠 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2020 (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 19:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi TobeFree, Apologies for the late greeting!, You were on my list so not sure why you never got one!, Anyway late's better than never :), Hope you and yours are having or had a lovely Crimbo and wish you a happy and healthy New Year, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 19:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
25 December ain't late! Hey Davey2010, thank you very much, and the same to you and your family. Can't wait for having the first appearance in the scripts newsletter, ever. Can you do a one-time delivery here? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Haha well to be fair the day is nearly over in the UK :), Many thanks! :), Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 19:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!
Hello ToBeFree/A, 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 2025. Happy editing,
~~~~
ToBeFree, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010Talk 00:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
MRRaja001(talk) 01:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you sir and same to you. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Empire ASTalk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2021. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2021. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey Empire AS, thank you very much! The template code is a bit weird, I have substituted "2021" for an automatically generated "2022" now. Happy New Year to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not weird. When you sent me this then according to the UTC, there was 2021, therefore, it happened. Thank you very much. Empire ASTalk! 06:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh I just noticed. I forgot to add includeonly tags within the CURRENTYEAR template. Therefore, it happened. I've now corrected the template. Thank you. :) Empire ASTalk! 07:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah You're welcome, thanks for the fix! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I was saying incorrectly that you were late to wish me the new year (have striked). But that wasn't the reality. My time zone isn't UTC, I just guessed that there would be the new year started when you wished me. That was due to a mistake in the template. I forgot to use <includeonly> tags within the {{CURRENTYEAR}} & {{NEXTYEAR}} templates. As a result, the template was substituted but not that 2 year templates. However, after realizing my mistake, I corrected it but till then it was very late as the template was substituted on a lot of talk pages. Thank you for wishing as well as notifying me. ;) Empire ASTalk! 19:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Whatever! No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
ToBeFree, Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours!~Destroyer🌀🌀 18:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
How cute! Thank you very much, and a Happy New Year to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Message by 112.135.194.140
we are new to this platform pls unblocked it we will fix this soon thx you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.194.140 (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi 112.135.194.140, which account name? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Block this weird user
can you please check on this user history (Sandy Anugrah), he loves to delete images from wiki biography page without any reason which is weird. I try to revert on Elvira Devinamira but yet he's doing the same thing again and again. I think this user should be blocked from wikipedia, its very disruptive ... (12345678910111213141516)--Terrence Tan (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi please check about this and give a comment since this 2 users are very suspicious. Thanks--Terrence Tan (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Had a look. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you encouraging people to stay active and keep Wikipedia pages current?
Just today I've had to update the pages of 3 top Nigerian Artistes who released their albums last year. 2 of them released their albums over 6 months ago and it hasn't been updated on Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are looking so outdated and old and. Yet y'all aren't interested in keeping them updated.
Instead you're more interested in making active editors feel unworthy. What we Wikipedia editors need is a nod and a nudge. The rollback option isn't different from the undo option all extended users have but yet I can't have that adminiship? Lol Amaekuma (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Amaekuma, thanks for keeping these pages updated – especially biographies require constant care, and I'm happy to see that you're donating your free time for this. While Wikipedia has a huge community of editors, keeping over six million articles up-to-date is an overwhelming task. There will always be articles about non-notable topics, there will be promotion, there will be biased paid contributions, there will be embarrassing hoaxes and even ugly attack pages about living people. Yesterday, I have reverted vandalism to a biography that went unnoticed for weeks and might already have appeared in Google's search results for the person's name. Coincidentally, the section below is about my response to the situation. So I'd say we're interested in the same things, or at least we do it for the same reason.
Regarding the rollback permission request at the bottom of Special:PermanentLink/997907232, I'm not sure what else to say – a clear requirement stated at the top of the page is a "measurable track record of counter-vandalism", and that isn't there yet. If rollback was identical to the normal "undo" process, there would be no need to apply; the application was done because you see rollback as an improvement over the currently-available tools. The two main problems with rollback, as opposed to Twinkle (which you can use right now and may do exactly what you're looking for), is the lack of an edit summary when reverting (WP:ROLLBACKUSE), and that rollback enables access to the powerful tool Huggle. If you're interested in reverting edits without providing an edit summary, or interested in using Huggle, please gain experience in the area first.
Rollback is not a reward for active editing, and declining a request for rollback is not a negative comment about your article edits. All I'm saying is that countervandalism seems to be unrelated to the (helpful!) contributions you have made so far. It really can't hurt to slowly start when entering a new area of Wikipedia. If I'd been playing basketball for years and were now interested in volleyball, I'd enter a volleyball club with modesty, not entitlement.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Message by Elliott David
Thank you for your kind welcome. It takes some time to navigate but will learn more about the workings of wiki from the information you sent. Stay well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliott David (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
(Original title: Thank you!)
Thank you for your kind actions, your welcome message and for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliott David (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey Elliott David, thank you very much for the kind feedback! Take your time; Wikipedia is a huge world with some possibly surprising policies and guidelines. Reading through the "no original research" policy alone, for example, was extremely informative for me the first time. The general message is obvious, but the details made me say "Oh. I didn't know that, but it makes a lot of sense" to myself multiple times. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again for helping me to understand wiki and for your input. It is much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliott David (talk • contribs) 23:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, thanks again for the kind feedback – feel free to ask if any questions arise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Secularism in India
Hello there!Can you please put 2021 Secularism in India under protection. It's been repeatedly subjected to vandalism. --> – Addie666 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addie666 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah, thank you very much for the information, and for dealing with the request as well as detailedly explaining the issue in response to Addie666's message on your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Addie666, thanks for creating a request at WP:RFPP. That's the correct page to ask for protection; my talk page is less suitable for such issues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorizedfor all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Hi, ToBeFree, hope you're fine. I want to ask a question that can I create an article on the List of awards and nominations received by a tv series? Recently, I've created some awards and nominations articles that were received by an artist (here). I don't know whether it would be fine to create such an article. Another question, Is it appropriate to create an article named List of most-viewed (singer)'s music videos on YouTube? There are some most viewed articles by country present like List of most-viewed Pakistani music videos on YouTube. Thank you. Empire ASTalk! 07:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey Empire AS, be bold 🙂 I'm not an expert on list notability, but the people at the WP:Teahouse can probably help deciding. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for suggesting. I'd try to create both. Empire ASTalk! 12:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Problem
User:Tayi Arajakate is frequently restoring the disruptive additions on Namaste Trump. Even when he was told by other editors (NavjotSR, Brie, 1990sguy, Wareon, and others) to comply with the requirement of medical sources for medical claims. He is violating this norm by using outdated statements of politicians which were nothing more than political attacks. Apparently, you had told him not to restore the claims without gaining consensus on talk page through RFC but he is not listening and thinking that no one is watching so it would be okay to restore all of that now. 2402:8100:2401:8297:4C36:B96E:244C:1940 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi 2402:8100:2401:8297:4C36:B96E:244C:1940, I'm not too fond of your reverts there either; they were the final straw for a year of semi-protection. Perhaps this was bound to happen, and the horrible end is less disruptive than endless horror. That said: Done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Semi Retired user can edit on wikipedia?
Hello, how are you?
Quick question, do you have any idea if a semi-retired user can still edit on Wikipedia?
Thank you, Best Regards Ramy5077 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Retirement is not a technical status. It is a user's expression of the words "I won't edit anymore". Retirement is often announced in anger by users who do return later: If they had actually stopped caring about the encyclopedia, they would also not have seen a need to announce a retirement.
Semi-retirement is not a technical status either. It is a user's expression of the words "I won't edit as often as before anymore". Semi-retirement is often announced by users who care about the community but suddenly lack the time to participate regularly.
Asking a user "Why are you even editing during 'retirement'" or similar things is incivil, even if not intended to cause offense. It is effectively hurting someone for giving Wikipedia a second chance.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can choose to be reminded when you have not added an edit summary. This can be done in your preferences. This could conflict with the CAPTCHA. This has now been fixed. [20]
You can link to specific log entries. You can get these links for example by clicking the timestamps in the log. Until now, such links to private log entries showed no entry even if you had permission to view private log entries. The links now show the entry. [21]
Admins can use the abuse filter tool to automatically prevent bad edits. Three changes happened last week:
The filter editing interface now shows syntax errors while you type. This is similar to JavaScript pages. It also shows a warning for regular expressions that match the empty string. New warnings will be added later. [22]
Oversighters can now hide multiple filter log entries at once using checkboxes on Special:AbuseLog. This is how the usual revision deletion works. [23]
When a filter matches too many actions after it has been changed it is "throttled". The most powerful actions are disabled. This is to avoid many editors getting blocked when an administrator made a mistake. The administrator will now get a notification about this "throttle".
Bots using the API no longer watch pages automatically based on account preferences. Setting the watchlist to watch will still work. This is to reduce the size of the watchlist data in the database. [25]
There was a new version of MediaWiki last week. You can read a detailed log of all 763 changes. Most of them are very small and will not affect you.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 January. It will be on all wikis from 14 January (calendar).
Hello, ToBeFree/A. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Normchou💬 21:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
is this necessary?
Seriously? Why did you had to talk on my talk page like bro why? Do you consider that is a violation of Wikipedia terms of service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBSKidsFan2006 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi PBSKidsFan2006, I'm afraid your response confirms my concerns. Please wait a year or two before joining the encyclopedia. There is no need to rush this; the encyclopedia will still be there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
RevDel request
Hello admin, sorry to bother you but could you please revdelete the edit summary of this edit? Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For, inter alia, being kind to User:PBSKidsFan2006 and generally being nice to people! Caius G. (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey Caius G., thank you very much for the kind feedback! And especially thank you for reviewing pending changes. It's a silent action that only leaves a secluded log entry behind; it is rarely positively noticed, and when an understandable mistake happens, it sometimes backfires disproportionally. I stopped doing it after a while because there was absolutely no feedback about whether my near-invisible actions had actually helped anyone. Let's change that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Aww, you're being too nice! How did you notice me doing PCR? Oddly enough, I was actually thinking about this today: Why even review pending changes if it doesn't increase your edit count (and we both know that this is the only number that matters ;))? Best, Caius G. (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Hoping you're having a good time. I'm requesting for a protection for the page Philippines at major beauty pageants as unregistered users (IP users) keep on vandalizing it. Thank you. Lukewin (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 January. It will be on all wikis from 21 January (calendar).
MassMessage posts could be automatically timestamped in the future. This is because MassMessage senders can now send pages using MassMessage. Pages are more difficult to sign. If there are times when a MassMessage post should not be timestamped you can let the developers know.
Hi King Archer, thanks for the request. The usual place for such requests is WP:RFPP. I make an exception for general-sanctions-related protection requests, such as regarding WP:GS/PAGEANT, and my bar for applying indefinite semi-protection to pageant articles is extremely low, but you need to provide proof of sockpuppetry for these sanctions to apply. The page has been edited by sockpuppeteers, but they are blocked for having created sockpuppet accounts next to their main account, not for having used sockpuppets to edit the page.
For protection requests unrelated to general sanctions, please use WP:RFPP.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.
Research notes:
As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
We have preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[29]
The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[30] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
A large A/B test will start soon.[31] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. You can still turn it on or off for your own account in Special:Preferences.
During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at notifications-talk.
What a mess. Thank you very much for the notification and the detailed source research. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting that out. You would think after being blocked for two weeks and previous articles being stubbed they would have made some effort to avoid copyright problems, but they just did the exact same thing again. Baffling! They also have a version of the article at User:D10s Maradona/sandbox that needs deleting as well due to the same copyright issues. FDW777 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Bracket matching will be added to the CodeMirror syntax highlighter on the first wikis. The first wikis are German and Catalan Wikipedia and maybe other Wikimedia wikis. This will happen on 27 January. [35]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 January. It will be on all wikis from 28 January (calendar).
If you look at ANI, I was the one who first reported this phenomenon of notable people spam, so I'm impressed at the ability of the filter 1112 to detect and stop it. Thanks for the details. Alansohn (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh Well, thank you very much for noticing and reporting it then. Sadly, the filter is not perfect; it catches the first attempts by users who often continue to try evading the detection afterwards. I'm blocking those who try repeatedly, or those who add clear violations of the biographies of living persons policy, to prevent damage. I've tried page protection a few times, including on the page you've asked about, but the problem is so widespread that page protection is often not the right tool unless we want to semiprotect the entire encyclopedia. If you like to, I'll remove it from John F. Kennedy Memorial High School (New Jersey), or perhaps after a few days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alansohn: You can see a clear attempt to evade the filter at Special:Diff/1003216675; I find it quite interesting. Someone read the filter code (or a tutorial somewhere) and dodged it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The battle between vandals, counter-vandals and counter-counter-vandals is a never-ending cycle. At least until the TikTok fad wears off. Thanks again for your efforts i dealing with this particular vandalism crisis. Alansohn (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello ToBeFree, could you please block and revoke the TPA of Grows a nose? It's Evlekis again. Pahunkat (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
K6ka's has just done that. Sorry to bother you :-) Pahunkat (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Pahunkat, no worries :) Thanks for the notification, and do feel free to keep me updated about the LTA. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all the work you're doing to deal with the TikTok vandalism! ~Swarm~{sting} 07:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey Swarm, thank you very much! I've seen you deal with that wave of vandalism too; you definitely get a barnstar as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! This is crazy, I wonder if this is the biggest vandalism campaign we've ever had. And ironically, I don't even think most people realize it's happening thanks to the edit filters. Thank god for those, I can't imagine how bad this would be if we didn't have them. I wonder if the WMF is aware of the situation. ~Swarm~{sting} 07:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Will do, thanks! ~Swarm~{sting} 23:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
For blocking the vandal accounts. This is to let you know that it is very much appreciated. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 19:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
Bro, you are so fast for those vandals! Shinyeditbonjour. 19:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey Ashleyyoursmile and Shinyedit Three of them. Made my day. Thank you very much! Currently got no time to add them to the topicons... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
A goat for you!
You got enough barnstars; you get a goat, cause you're the GOAT.
Thank you very much, Drmies, that's a nice surprise. Never had a goat before! It's cute, I hope it gets on well with the kittens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I seriously didn't know...
TIKTOK would be the platform to incite a Wikipedia raid. Shinyeditbonjour. 17:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. Me neither. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks :) Not yet, as I like my personalized one, but perhaps soon ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You're on fire
Can't keep up. I'm stepping away from filter 1112 - you're owning it! GirthSummit (blether) 19:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the work on this, Girth Summit. If you like to, I'll notify you before I go to bed... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree, ha! I think we're in similar time zones though, we'll need to let our American friends take over... GirthSummit (blether) 19:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah well, this is why I love the English Wikipedia in particular. A city that never sleeps. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ugh but I'm having coffee with ricotta pie. Thank you both; I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
You might be surprised though that Americans are in all sorts of time zones... even in America. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
About SPI
I do not have the right to initiate an SPI investigation. Your suggestion is a bit difficult for me to implement. Who can I ask to help initiate an investigation?2402:7500:5D0:D16F:0:0:3C13:D3D (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi 2402:7500:5D0:D16F:0:0:3C13:D3D, please click in the following order: WP:SPI, "How to open an investigation: Show", "If you are an anonymous (IP address) editor, and the case page is protected or does not exist, please click "show" to the right and use the box below: Show". Thanks and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
No worries :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Possible Concern Regarding Blocked User.
Hi User:ToBeFree. In regards to a user you recently blocked, User:Manz_Orale_Taib, I fear that they are evading the block by utilizing the following IP address, 49.149.220.87, since the latter is working on pages that the former worked on before they got blocked such as Power Rangers Dino Fury and Draft:Pagadian Explorers and continuing to add unsourced information. Could you look into it please? Blazewing16 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Blazewing16, thank you very much for the report; please make such reports at WP:SPI. Luckily, Mz7 has seen the report and solved the problem. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Please revert the edits that just made by by Filipino fans Kenneth Saclote on Ayu Maulida page, he is deleting all of the references, information and photos of Ayu Maulida without any reason. Please block Kenneth Saclote! He is a sockpuppet user of Panikilicious who did the same deletion on Ayu Maulida a month ago! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.253.61.99 (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Message by Sasha240
Original heading: "ToBeFree" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Stimate domn,
Olga Cobel (1928-1941) fiica ofiterului roman din armata autro-ungar, Ion Cobel (K.K. Landwehr-Infanterieregiment Czernowitz Nr.22) si a Mariei Cobel (nascuta Aronet), din Patrautii de Jos, a cazut victima in timpul masacrului de la Fantana Alba. Va rog sa va informati, faptul ca i-am adaugat numele in lista de victime ii face dreptate copilei Olga, nu este vorba despre niciun scam sau altceva. Dar numele ei trebuie pomenit cu cinste printre ceilalti cazut victima in nemiloasa tragedie.
Cu mult respect,
Daniel Alexandru Cobel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha240 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing but bluelinked talk pages in the filter log...
so ToBeFree must be awake! Widr has been taking all your money while you were napping. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Heh Even at the weekend, the frequency is high. I thought they do this at school. Thanks for dealing with them! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Now that you're back Ima go play with the dog a bit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi CLCStudent, I guess they have now been hit by an autoblock. Not directly blocking the IP address for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
That IP edited again. CLCStudent (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked, thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, wanted to mention how useful the "CSD tag removed by page creator" tag is when wading through a watchlist. If there are any plans on reopening that discussion from last May about setting it to disallow then I would be in support of that! (Doesn't seem like anyone was really opposed to it) – Thjarkur(talk) 22:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 7 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Harrassment
"14:32, 30 December 2020 ToBeFree talk contribs changed block settings for 85.76.0.0/16 talk preventing edits on the pages User talk:Aeengath, User talk:David J Johnson and User talk:Abc10 with an expiration time of 2 years (anon. only) (Harassment)"
I don't understand how can anyone can blame me for harrassment. I have never even heard of these people, nor have I edited their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.18.162 (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi 85.76.18.162, the block applies to a very broad range of IP addresses and is not directed at you at all. It also, as you have correctly noticed, does not have any effect on your editing, as it doesn't prevent edits to any pages you'd imaginably edit on Wikipedia. If you would like to remove the red block notice above the contributions list, feel free to create an account. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
IPv6 addresses were written in lowercase letters in diffs. This caused dead links since Special:Contributions only accepted uppercase letters for the IPs. This has been fixed. [36]
Changes later this week
You can soon use Wikidata to link to pages on the multilingual Wikisource. [37]
Often editors use a "non-breaking space" to make a gap between two items when reading but still show them together. This can be used to avoid a line break. You will now be able to add new ones via the special character tool in the 2010, 2017, and visual editors. The character will be shown in the visual editor as a space with a grey background. [38][39]
Wikis use abuse filters to stop bad edits being made. Filter maintainers can now use syntax like 1.2.3.4 - 1.2.3.55 as well as the 1.2.3.4/27 syntax for IP ranges. [40]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 February. It will be on all wikis from 4 February (calendar).
Future changes
Minerva is the skin Wikimedia wikis use for mobile traffic. When a page is protected and you can't edit it you can normally read the source wikicode. This doesn't work on Minerva on mobile devices. This is being fixed. Some text might overlap. This is because your community needs to update MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to work on mobile. You can read more. [41][42]
Cloud VPS and Toolforge will change the IP address they use to contact the wikis. The new IP address will be 185.15.56.1. This will happen on February 8. You can read more.
Hello ToBeFree, I wanna say that I want to get my old account (KamilAleeBhat) back. If it is possible, could you please help me get through this? -- Kamil Ali Bhat (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Kamilalibhat: If you want to use "KamilAleeBhat" as your primary account name going forward, you can request the current account to be renamed to something else and then your "Kamilalibhat" account to be renamed to "KamilAleeBhat". If you are in control of both accounts and have enabled email on both, you can use Special:GlobalRenameRequest to make both requests (the second once the first was done for which you will be notified via email). Regards SoWhy 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kamilalibhat, if you have lost access to your old account, WP:USURPmay perhaps be a possibility, but the account has edited already, making this a tough decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I got it back via email! Thank you for your advice ☺ –KamilAli 17:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Protection preventing necessary edit
You imposed protection on List of longest-living members of the British royal family with the result that nobody who cares has been able to update the relative position of the Duchess of Kent (who has now lived six weeks longer than but remains listed below Princess Patricia of Connaught). The "disruptive" editing you cited (always quickly reverted) is probably motivated by the difficulty some have in loading updated date counts (which is triggered by revisions but can otherwise be inhibted by browser caches). 96.250.80.27 (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi 96.250.80.27, feel free to submit an edit request by clicking "View source" and then the big blue button. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Wikipedia app for Android now has watchlists and talk pages in the app. [43]
Changes later this week
You can see edits to chosen pages on Special:Watchlist. You can add pages to your watchlist on every wiki you like. The GlobalWatchlist extension will come to Meta on 11 February. There you can see entries on watched pages on different wikis on the same page. The new watchlist will be found on Special:GlobalWatchlist on Meta. You can choose which wikis to watch and other preferences on Special:GlobalWatchlistSettings on Meta. You can watch up to five wikis. [44]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 February. It will be on all wikis from 11 February (calendar).
Future changes
When admins protect pages the form will use the OOUI look. Special:Import will also get the new look. This will make them easier to use on mobile phones. [45][46]
Some services will not work for a short period of time from 07:00 UTC on 17 February. There might be problems with new short links, new translations, new notifications, adding new items to your reading lists or recording email bounces. This is because of database maintenance. [47]
Last week Tech News reported that the IP address Cloud VPS and Toolforge use to contact the wikis will change on 8 February. This is delayed. It will happen later instead. [48]
It's been over 2 years now I just want my accounts back (including the Jakohl account) I have tried so many times but nothing happens, I follow the guidelines and moderator/admin suggestions but they still say I don't do it right but I've given up now so please reconsider and help.
Hi Parakeetman3905, do you still have access to your account? I'm generally willing to consider an unblock request, as it's been a long time and people change over time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not really sure since I can't sign up or do anything since its an ip thing. I think I can enter but I have to use device out of my ip and account 2601:249:B80:7840:95C0:998C:73A3:D59B (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Your current IP address does not appear to be blocked – if it were, you couldn't edit this page. I'm sure we can find a solution even if you completely lost access, but that would be unnecessarily complicated if you can somehow log in. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thinking about nominating someone for adminship...
I was thinking about nominating Ed6767 for adminship as they seem to be very interested in anti-vandalism work with their script RedWarn. Do you think they would be a good candidate for adminship? Aasim (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I guess wait for them to have 5000 contribs before asking you again :) Aasim (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Heh. Well, there is no fixed limit, but it was 20,000 for me. Much more important is continuous activity for a year or two. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, I do not think I would be a good candidate for adminship at the moment. Plus, I see adminship as a little pointless unless if for some reason we do not have enough admins to handle all the admin backlog. Plus, we are all admins of our own PCs as well. Sorry bad pun but you know what I mean :) Aasim (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Block evasion of globally locked user
Hello admin, can you please take a look at Szczepan76? This is sock of the blocked user Szczepan777 and Szczepan67, both currently globally locked by Ponyo and Nthep. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for both notifications! Please let me know if this continues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Additional note: Ashleyyoursmile, global locks are done by Stewards and can be requested at meta:SRG, in addition to the English Wikipedia block(s). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I see, thanks for letting me know, and for taking care of it. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 10:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Elliot Page page
Hello ToBeFree! I'm only an occasional editor, but I have a major question about some edits I made today to the Eliot Page entry. As you may know Page recently came out as trans and makes it clear that they use he/him and they/them pronouns. However, the Wiki page uses "he" exclusively, which I believe is inaccurate. So I selected a few paragraphs and changed the pronouns to Page's other preferred pronoun. Within a few hours, my edits were changed back and the page was locked.
I am not an expert on either Wikipedia protocols or Elliot Page. However, I would like to open this up to further discussion. Of course, if Elliot himself has weighed in or would like to, I could completely respect his decision! But as far as I know he has specified use of both pronouns and has also mentioned nonbinary identity alongside being trans.
I would appreciate your advice on what a next step might be in accurately and fairly reflecting what is still a complex (and apparently controversial) issue. Thank you. Ananomal (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ananomal, the short answer is "please avoid editing and even caring about this area of conflict until you have made at least 500 contributions to other Wikipedia articles about non-controversial topics." The long answer can be found on the article's talk page. As a rule of thumb, if you disagree with the result of the discussions there and in the talk page archive, your input would be welcome if you have gained the necessary amount of experience to engage in this area. I mean this seriously; this topic causes experienced editors to stumble and is thus completely unsuitable for your first steps. Stay away at all cost. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you ToBeFree. I can and definitely will follow that advice. Thanks for your quick reply. Yours, Ananomal (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This relieves me. You're welcome, and thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
You forgot to turn off pending changes on this page.
Aasim (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Awesome Aasim, per WP:PC, "it is a good choice to leave pending changes enabled when other protections are applied." Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
With honest respect, I feel the warning notice that landed on my talk page was bit heavy handed WP:NOBRICKS :) for a single good faith edit, were i quickly admitted given good evidence i had made an error and agreed with the correction as soon as it was presented. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey Bodney, I can understand that impression, but these alerts are important to ensure awareness as defined by the Arbitration Committee's procedure, and they do not imply that any misconduct has happened. You are welcome to remove the notices at any time, now that they have fulfilled their purpose of ensuring awareness. They may, agreedly, seem pointless if you were already aware about their content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Our friend from Shelbyville
He may need his TPA revoked if he keeps at it.[49]davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi davidwr, thank you very much for the notification; at the moment their talk page edits seem to be relatively harmless. WP:UP#CMT is about declined unblock templates; removing the block notice is theoretically fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
EC protection
Hi, I see you've applied indefinite EC protection to the Wuhan lab leak theory article. Could you consider reducing this to, say, three months or six months? The problem with indef is, of course, just that. When all this COVID stuff is over and done with, new editors still won't be able to work on the article. Okay, they can request a downgrade, but I guess most don't and just move on. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Arcturus, thanks for asking. This is not a normal indefinite protection. There was a discussion at WP:AN about disruptive editing by autoconfirmed users in this area, and the disruption likely has no fixed end date. All protections listed at WP:GS/COVID19 will be removed by the community in one single discussion as soon as the area does not require special treatment anymore. Additionally, I can remove or downgrade my numerous protections if the community takes too much time before doing this. Feel free to remind me to have another look in a few months or 2022 or so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, I can't access the article since you protected it, but I had a quick look at the promotional section devoted to the principal. I'd have cut the whole thing anyway, but additionally it's a copyright violation of [50]. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:85B0:B2F8:1934:3327 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi 2601:188:180:B8E0:85B0:B2F8:1934:3327, thank you very much for investigating the origin of that section and for the notification. I can't remove it from the article's history as it is a list of things that can hardly be written in any other way (Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Creative_expression), and because deleting all affected revisions would remove a significant part of the article's attribution (cf. WP:RD1). However, I have removed the unduly weighted section for now, in Special:Diff/1006639614, crediting you for finding this. I hope semi-protection for two weeks is okay with you, after the filter log entries and the edits that got through. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit Update
Hallo frei... ich habe einen Interessenkonflikt.
Kannst du mir bitte helfen?
Here is what I wrote to a wikipedia staff
whom sent me a link that lead me to select editors from a list whom
can simply update the changes:
I am Cleopatra Fitzgerald a NYC Mayoral Candidate.
Please update my political
affiliation from Republican
to Democratic Party since
I just changed parties to Democratic.
Also include this updated article and photo as
reference in wikipedia https://ipsnews.net/business/2020/12/22/cleopatra-fitzgerald-nyc-is-making-an-impact-with-new-sensations/
My contact information is publicly available in my website and press release if you have any questions feel free to contact me.
Hi Cleopatra Fitzgerald, Thanks for asking, and welcome to Wikipedia.
Sadly, I wasn't able to find reliable, secondary sources for the replacement, and the linked websites also do not seem to contain the information at the moment. I personally do believe you, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarizes what other sources, preferably independent secondary sources, have published.
I have removed the contested information from the article (Special:Diff/1006656365). If I understand correctly, your concern was about the "(R)" next to your name, so I hope this approach is similarly acceptable while also complying with Wikipedia's policies.
To request the addition of content, please click "Talk" at the top of the Wikipedia article you would like to add content to. On the article's talk page, you can click "New section" and then use the code {{request edit}} to draw attention to your request. An experienced reviewer will answer the request. However, the request needs to comply with Wikipedia's policy against original research, specifically the section WP:PSTS, which deals with the distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I would copy the request to the article's talk page on your behalf, but it seems to conflict with this policy by citing primary, non-independent sources. An edit request citing only primary sources as justification for adding content about a living person to Wikipedia would quickly be declined (cf. WP:BLPRS).
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi CLCStudent, what a weird account. :) Thanks and Done~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleting user space material
Hi again TBF, could you advise me on deletion of content from userspace? I have some material at User:Arcturus/Lab leak that I'd like to delete, if only to save space and tidy up, but I can't see how I can do this myself. It is already flagged for page deletion, along with other similar material, but it may not actually get deleted. Could you remove this for me? Many thanks, Arcturus (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Arcturus, if a regular deletion discussion is already running, please just let it run its course. Do feel free to state your agreement with deletion, specifically pointing out that you are the author, in the discussion. In some cases, this can lead to a speedy deletion, but it likely won't in this case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Valentine Greets!!!
Valentine Greets!!!
Hello ToBeFree, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing, D💘ggy54321(xoxo😘) 03:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear ToBeFree Thank you ever so much, it is deeply appreciated.
I can send you a screen picture of my current party affiliation but I do not have a wikipedia email.
My party affiliation can be found by going to the State BOE website: https://voterlookup.elections.ny.gov/(Redacted)
I would like to be under the blue Democratic party line and be deleted from the red Republican line
since I am no longer under the Republican party.
☮️🌹☘️
Best regards and have a nice weekend too, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding a blocked account
Hello admin, you might want to see this since they are mentioning "lawyer". --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Pff. Thanks for the notification, Ashleyyoursmile. I won't remove TPA, though: Per WP:NLT, "Repeats of legal threats on the user's talk page have limited scope for disruption or chilling effect. The user should not be prevented from using their talk page until reasonable attempts have been made to open a civil discussion." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I see. Not related to this but just a random query, if someone says they will make "an official complaint" if their edits are reverted, does that imply legal threat in some way? This is regarding a report I opened at the ANI where a user is claiming to be the artist whose page they are editing and doesn't want some information to be there on that page. They said they will make an official complaint if their edits are reverted. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ashleyyoursmile, first of all, I've had a look at the repeated edit warring and am hesitant to take action because the repeated removal may be exempt per WP:3RRNO. Regarding the threat, "official complaint" is ambiguous and may refer to Wikipedia's internal processes instead of off-wiki action. When voiced in this way by someone concerned about BLP content, kindly asking for clarification is probably the best approach. When asking for clarification, it is important to point to the WP:NLT policy so the asked user knows about your concern before answering. This way, they can easily defuse the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what to make of it so I thought of asking you, since I'm inexperienced in this regard. Thank you for taking a look and letting me know. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 18:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, and no worries. Oh, and you may like to have a look at the original reason for creating this section again, as the situation has been resolved in an amicable way. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
There were problems with recent versions of MediaWiki. Because the updates caused problems the developers rolled back to an earlier version. Some updates and new functions will come later than planned. [51][52]
Some services will not work for a short period of time from 07:00 UTC on 17 February. There might be problems with new short links, new translations, new notifications, adding new items to your reading lists or recording email bounces. This is because of database maintenance. [53]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 February. It will be on all wikis from 18 February (calendar).
Despite being given a final warning Billybostickson has continued his disruption, opening a dispute resolution noticeboard discussion despite him being a minority opinion. Although I will not repeat the WP:OUTING again, I will confirm that Billybostickson is part of an offwiki collective of users who promote the "lab leak" conspiracy theory and who have attempted to recruit users for WP:MEATPUPPETRY on "lab leak" related articles, which Billy himself has engaged in. (I will email details of this upon request). As such, given that Billy has been given the notice and has continued his disruption, can the topic ban be reinstated? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, quod erat expectandum. Thank you very much for the timely notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt action, I was also keeping track of the situation by logging it at AN, but at some point, Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope applies... The discussion over there can probably mostly be closed, though there's probably still an open question to answer about avoiding having to whack-a-mole duplicates (which might have an application in future instances of similar situations)... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
And yet another wall of text unblock request... Sie haben ganz richtig geschrieben, "quod erat expectandum"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(the informal address "Du" is fine, see also de:WP:DU :) ) No worries. The previous block was removed for mostly bureaucratic reasons, but I can be bureaucratic too. The current block is unrelated to the topic ban, making the lengthy appeal a completely irrelevant wall of text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Das ist interessant. In French (which I know better), (z.B. User_talk:RandomCanadian/Archive_1#Vous_parlez_un_peu_français_;) it's usually "vous" (which is not capitalised even when used as the equivalent of the German Sie) (the templates addressed to the user on French WP also use "vous"). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Today I learned it's even called "T–V distinction" after the Latin "tu" and "vos", which is almost identical to the French ones. And I had to think of an ABBA song from 1979... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia: Interesting, thanks. Hm. Theoretically, it shouldn't have an effect on the closing result. We'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
An Additional Favor
Would it be possible if I could ask if we could rev-delete Aissabuter (talk·contribs)'s edits, too? They are all copy and paste violations from Animals Area's pages.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mr Fink, I assume the editor has written the content themselves and there is probably no actual copyright violation involved, but it does conflict with Wikipedia's copyright violations policy as it has been published outside of Wikipedia before and lacks proof of free licensing or actual authorship (Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Contributor_is_copyright_holder). I think I have catched all the obviously affected revisions now; the list at Special:Diff/952348057 is probably not clearly copyrightable enough to justify revision deletion. The source of the user page at Special:Permalink/947003138 may be obtainable via the Internet Archive, but if I see correctly, it was at least not at https://web.archive.org/web/20200322210853/http://treesline.com/most-loyal-animals-to-their-partners/ . If you can find a copy of the original source, I'll delete the user page too. But again, I personally believe they're the copyright holder anyway, and this is just a very cautious measure I felt obliged to take after your notice. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I see, thank you for your explanation.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
your note
Read your feedback on username policy. Thank you for the information. None of it applies to me so I'll hang on the username.
Agency171 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Agency171, thank you very much for the clarification. However, this raises two questions:
Why did you choose "Agency" as a username?
What is your connection to Trista Piccola?
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Joshua Doubek
Hi. Last month you blocked the user for two weeks for edit warring their pictures into articles, following an AIV report by me.[54] The user has recently resumed activity, restoring edits over a smaller range of articles. While some images could be relevant, many are redundant, placed poorly within context, and incorrectly formatted. The user has previously demonstrated refusal to engagement in discussion, and I'm quite sure that if reverted he will edit war and step over 3RR, but that would be disrupting Wikipedia to game the system, and I don't want to waste everyone's time with such an exercise. An AIV report was not acted upon; thoughts on how best to proceed? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paul 012, Thank you very much for the notification. While WP:AIV is for spam and vandalism (malicious, intentional disruption) only, and they have been doing this in good faith, their edits have been disruptive. This is an unusual case that could have been reported at WP:ANI, as it was spread across many pages. Normally, WP:ANEW is the place for edit warring reports, but that noticeboard is practically focused on single-page edit wars.
Because the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, I have now restored the revisions without the images. And because the user had been blocked for the same behavior before, then continued without discussion, I have blocked them indefinitely. A discussion at WP:ANI would likely have led to a similar result, but notifying an administrator who has previously blocked the user for the same behavior is also a fine approach. There's not always a patent remedy for dealing with disputes; WP:Dispute resolution describes some ideas and WP:DISCFAIL is a nice essay, although not really applicable to this situation.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
If only my semi-protections didn't prevent edits from you too :( If you ever decide to create an account, please notify me for manual confirmation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I have one, which I drag out now only for emergencies, i.e., reverting vandalism on protected articles. As a registered, I made over 50,000 edits, mostly adding content and creating articles. Even helped get a few to featured status. Cheers 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, well then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Sandboxes Deletion
Hi ToBeFree
Is this is the right place to discuss my sandboxes? I'm rather amateur when it comes to Wikipedia.
Spcresswell
Hi Spcresswell, thanks for asking. The best place to join the discussion is the section that is currently at the bottom of WP:AN. Simply click "edit" next to the section heading, and add your message to the bottom. A signature should be added at the end (~~~~), and the reply should be indented like mine (with a colon, see "edit" here). Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, I've joined the conversation to discuss the boxes. Thanks, ~ Spcresswell
Ah perfect, thank you very much, Spcresswell. If I forget to delete the pages after a while, feel free to remind me. I guess that could be in a week or two. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello :)
Hi,
I hope you're doing well.
I still remember how you helped me in making my first edits on Wikipedia. It's been over a year now. And now I feel confident that I can contribute in other parts such as NPP.
I've applied for the NPR permission two months back. But It's still pending. Can you please see if I qualify for the NPP?
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The visual editor will now use MediaSearch to find images. You can search for images on Commons in the visual editor when you are looking for illustrations. This is to help editors find better images. [55]
Editing a timeline might have removed all text from it. This was because of a bug and has been fixed. You might need to edit the timeline again for it to show properly. [57]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 February. It will be on all wikis from 25 February (calendar).
Future changes
There is a user group for developers and users interested in working on Wikimedia wikis with the Rust programming language. You can join or tell others who want to make your wiki better in the future.
Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I also want to say thank you! But I will also need to you know that I need help with making a new page. Not for myself but I'll have to figure out what I will make it about. ~ 0crock 3:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi 0crock, I strongly recommend against creating an article before having gained enough experience by editing existing articles. The probability of overestimating a topic's notability (WP:42) without such experience is very high. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree I made a draft already, draft:Red devil battlebot But now I could really use some help with completing it, I have gotten quite unmotivated to complete it and could really use some help from someone. ~ 0crock 6:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Okay, I have had a look and tagged two concerns about the draft at the top. I recommend having a look at the Task Center for ideas unrelated to article creation, as this is really too early. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand this is too early, and know about how it isn't ready for release, but I am not very creative when it comes to writing articles, and not a good coder either, this is my first attempt at something like this and could really use some help with writing and what to say. ~ 0crock 7:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
"I'd like to swim in the ocean" – "I recommend slowly learning to swim in a less dangerous area." – "I understand it's too early for me to swim in the ocean. But this is my first attempt swimming in the ocean and I could use some help with it." Well... The best help I can offer is "Please don't do that yet" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Am I being mocked? I wanted to do something different than just doing small edits on random pages, and I'm being mocked for being stumped. Kind of childish. ~ 0crock 7:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
0crock, no, sorry, this was not meant to mock you. I have tried to provide an analogy that you'd likely agree with, as in many cases, such analogies help to understand the problem. And the problem, I'm afraid, is exactly "I don't want to swim in a small pool, give me the ocean NOW". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree I do not want to be stuck making two-word edits on pages I found on "Random Article", instead I want to try something else that would probably reachable with another person working on it with me. ~ 0crock 7:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This is completely reasonable and understandable, 0crock. And as my main concern is about notability of new topics, that concern could be alleviated at the same time: You may like to try expanding a short article about a topic that is clearly notable but lacks a good article yet. This can be done in a team by working on multiple sections in parallel. If you are multi-lingual, you can additionally provide help many others can't by using sources in languages other than English. Or if you are a good photographer, you can additionally provide help many others can't by illustrating the article. I'm relatively certain that you have skills that differentiate you from other editors, and if you notice them and find a way to use them, you've not only found a good learning experience, but even provided work that wouldn't have been done by anyone else for years. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree Is it possible to add a picture of my cat to something like images of tortoiseshell tabbys? ~ 0crock
Hmm – while the articles Tortoiseshell cat and Tabby cat are already well-illustrated (perhaps even over-illustrated in the former case), Wikimedia Commons always needs images, and other wikis than the English Wikipedia might currently lack images for the topic, providing a chance for adding one of yours. If the image is of very high quality, it may be discussable to replace an existing image by it, but for cat pictures, I'm afraid I personally would avoid having such a discussion with someone else who also loves their cat photo and wants to keep it in the article.
And now that a pet is mentioned... Please be careful when uploading photos; do not upload images that contain geolocation (EXIF tags etc) or that otherwise allow de-anonymization. Translation was a better example than photography; I just wanted to provide a second example, but the second example was not good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
209.93.29.71
Thanks for blocking them - not sure if you know but this is an IP-hopping LTA. Bot-like replacement of links contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN, together with WP:OVERLINKing. Targets British political articles, Children's BBC programmes, Mr Bean. Has been blocked under numerous IP addresses. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi DuncanHill, no problem, thanks for the report – yeah, I had probably even blocked the same person multiple times before, but I didn't have a blocked username/IP to point to with a sockpuppetry block reason, so I just blocked them for what they still do. 😅 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That's cool. I don't know if there ever was a username, and they've been through so many IPs I doubt I could find the first one again! DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Acullen2486
I believe that you indefinitely blocked a user, Acullen2486, for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. They only made one edit. Has this person added unsourced material on a different account in the past? I, with a clearly superior 1 month and 5 days of editing and a lack of knowledge of what happened, think indefinitely blocking them didn't follow the policy of not biting newcomers. Essentially, I want to know why they were blocked. PrinceTortoise (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise
Hi PrinceTortoise, the user has deliberately damaged the encyclopedia (vandalism) by inserting fake information about living people to Wikipedia articles, in Special:AbuseLog/28760853 and Special:Diff/1003214606, the former of which caused a warning to be displayed that was ignored. Such accounts are usually blocked without warning, indefinitely. Relevant policies are the biographies of living persons policy and the blocking policy, section "Disruption-only". The user can appeal the block at any time, and I usually grant unblock appeals from such users if some time has passed since the incident. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks for linking relevant policies. PrinceTortoise (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise
No problem ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mo Billings, thank you very much for the quick notification. Please revert their contributions per WP:BE. I'll deal with the rest. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Wikis using the Growth team tools can now show the name of a newcomer's mentor anywhere through a magic word. This can be used for welcome messages or userboxes.
A new version of the VideoCutTool is now available. It enables cropping, trimming, audio disabling, and rotating video content. It is being created as part of the developer outreach programs.
Problems
There was a problem with the job queue. This meant some functions did not save changes and mass messages were delayed. This did not affect wiki edits. [58]
Some editors may not be logged in to their accounts automatically in the latest versions of Firefox and Safari. [59]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 March. It will be on all wikis from 4 March (calendar).
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
Hey, can you (or a talk page stalker) block User:Suffusion of Yellow alt 6 with autoblock disabled? I want to see how block messages display in the android app. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. The block message was only shown after I tried to publish the page. And it was just "Your user account has been blocked from editing on this wiki". Hmm, I wonder if it choked on the template? Can you reblock, with a short, plain text message? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. The last time I had a look, templates were displayed as plain text without transclusion on the mobile website. Re-blocked with a shorter notice and without template. How does it look now? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The mobile web issue was actually fixed IIRC. The app, again, displayed the same "Your user account has been blocked from editing on this wiki" message. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
At least I did get an alert about the user talk message (the iOS app doesn't do this apparently). So that's something. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Meh. Thanks for testing this. Someone, not sure how jokingly, suggested somewhere that we could just block all app users using a filter to cause the WMF to do something about the problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But when I tried to edit (logged in to a different not-directly-blocked account) from behind Tor, once I got a giant pile of unparsed wikitext. Like it was expanding the template, but not parsing the links. Tried it about five more times (with a new connection each time) but I just got the same "Your user account has been blocked from editing on this wiki". No mention that it was the IP not the account. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Less jokingly after reading this thread and the one at PR's talk page. Having an RFC close with consensus to block all app users, without actually doing it, might be enough to push the issue. Imagine an RFC closed with "Consensus to block all app users using a filter in 90 days unless X, Y, and Z are fixed". It's radical, but those phab tickets have been around a while, and ANI threads taking up community time are a regular occurrence, so I don't think it's really that unreasonable. Levivichharass/hound 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The WMF is smart; filters can't actually see tags on edits (thus, afaics, it's not possible for the filter to block edits tagged as "iOS app edit"). The functionality for this is also pending in some phab task somewhere :D ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It'd be possible to block both apps by checking for user_app, though... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like necessary collateral damage to me. Not like it doesn't have its own issues. Ultimatum sounds like a decent idea. Not like we'll ever get to the point where the filter is actually being used. Ironically, per User_talk:ProcrastinatingReader#Another_thing_about_the_app, we'll have to be creative about the name of the filter page due to how it renders (or doesn't render, rather) (something like MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-sorry-please-wait-for-WMF-to-fix) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems that both pings and talk messages trigger an email message by default with new accounts. So a less drastic solution might be to require that all app users have a confirmed email address. Yes, this is possible with a filter (though it probably shouldn't be) with user_app & !user_emailconfirm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding "probably shouldn't be", the error message displayed by Special:EmailUser differentiates between "no valid email address" and "chose not to receive e-mail from other users", so it's public information – a useful one when helping users with lost account access on IRC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Proposing a deny filter with "MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-please-add-email-address" seems okay in the meantime. This will also mean getting rid of IP editing on mobile apps, though. So I guess this is just a less extreme ultimatum, still. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
But only the iOS app will even display "<abusefilter-warning-please-add-email-address>". The android app will just display "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, or potential vandalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only neutral, notable content belongs here." That's a worse situation (all users getting yelled at for no reason) than what we have now (some users getting yelled at for no reason). So the ultimatum will need to be: (1) Fix X, Y and Z, or (2) Disable the app from your end (I.E. push out an update to make it read-only on enwiki), or we'll (3) (drawing a blank here) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
In fairness, it'll be the WMF's PR problem. An extreme ultimatum doesn't seem to be problematic, since it'll almost certainly never come to it, so long as it can get community buy-in. That or we can whine at User talk:Jimbo Wales about it (though, I've already done that, and tbf it did get the priority of the tasks escalated but I dunno if he had anything to do with it) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
X Y and Z could be old phab ticket #s, and multiple co-proposers might help (not me). Levivichharass/hound 19:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Full protection for a COVID page?
Hier. Denkst du das der Seitenschutz ist notwendig? Es ist unwahrscheinlich das einen neuen Konsens für diese Seite enstehen wird. Auf diesem Grund, der Seitenschutz ist sicherlich die beste Reaktion. Grüße, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather, you have closed the deletion discussion of the draft. Can I interpret it as a possible reason for fully protecting the page with a link to the discussion? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
(It's not entirely correct German, so that was a kind gesture but led to slight confusion even on my side) They have linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&action=history suggesting protection of the page, saying that it's unlikely for a new consensus to be formed about the future of this page. They believe that protecting the page surely is the best reaction. As the page is already extended-confirmed protected indefinitely, it's a request for full protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Appears you understood exactly what I said, so my meager efforts at German were not entirely fruitless. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:D In response to the HTML comment and correction, yes, "Seitenschutz" is correct, "Geschützung" was a bit strange but understandable. The sentence "Denkst du das der Seitenschutz ist notwendig" looks more like "Do you believe that the [existing] page protection is [really] necessary?" than "Do you agree that [additional] protection is needed?". To reduce ambiguity, either "Denkst du, der aktuelle Seitenschutz ist wirklich notwendig?" or "Findest du auch, dass die Seite stärkeren Schutz benötigt?" could be used. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no real problem with full just not indefinite full. I'm not a fan of indefinite for any type of protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Understandable, thank you very much for the consideration. In this specific case, I expect "indefinitely" to be "until the sanctions in this area are removed by the community", which is fine with me. As it would be hard to justify indefinite full protection and not even the deleting administrator agrees with such a measure, I won't change the protection for now. If edit warring becomes a persistent issue, I might later add a few months of full protection on top of it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Fully protected redirects because of deletion discussions are not unprecedented, but no problem with wait and see for the time being (although the deletion discussion was less than two weeks ago, so if we're having issues already...). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I think you mean you thought we meant the COVID-19_misinformation page. What a sentence. And indef ECP it is for now :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey AidTheWiki, you're welcome! Be bold and feel free to ask if any questions arise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Paid editing
Re: WP:FCOI, "An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner..." That was an instance of clear-as-a-bell PAID. It says so in the section, and it deserved a block. And all the long badgering was a violation of WP:PAYTALK. Form the POV of a non-admin, it the admins are not going to help out in these situations, it makes being an editor here difficult. --- Possibly (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, I was trying to explain the difference between "financial COI" and "paid editing". Paid editing is one (common) form of financial COIs, but it isn't the only possible form of a financial COI. The quoted section of the COI guideline describes exactly this difference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The section of the policy is called "Paid editing". In the section, various types of FCOI are described, which both require disclosure. The text about "An editor has a financial conflict of interest" is not a get-out-of-jail free card for business owners and shareholders of companies to come in here and disrupt our normal processes without disclosing that they have a financial stake. In this case the editor had voted at an AFD without disclosure of their COI/PAID status (they came clean later), and was bludgeoning every discussion they were in. They also had zero interest in contributing to Wikipedia outside of their narrow company interests; in short, they were wasting everyone's time. This is precisely the type of situation where we need a person with a block button, so we can get on with things without being disrupted by those with a financial interest int he outcome of our work.--- Possibly (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, you can probably safely ignore them if that's your concern. The closing administrator will not be influenced by the bludgeoning, and I don't expect continued disruption after the deletion discussion. There is currently no reason to assume that blocking the editor has any helpful preventative effect; any possible damage is already done. Interacting with the editor in the current situation only fuels an unnecessary fire. I'd be happy if you could reconsider this situation, and Special:Diff/1010867300, after a few weeks (I promise to do so too). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but in this case you missed the point. You could have gently warned them or pblocked them from the AFD, which they have very much influenced. Ignoring it and saying effectively don't worry about it, when three editors have pointedly complained about it, is not helpful. I've never taken issue with an admin's point of view, but I do with this.--- Possibly (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Section translation now works on Bengali Wikipedia. It helps mobile editors translate sections of articles. It will come to more wikis later. The first focus is active wikis with a smaller number of articles. You can test it and leave feedback.
When someone links to a Wikipedia article on Twitter this will now show a preview of the article. [61]
Problems
Many graphs have JavaScript errors. Graph editors can check their graphs in their browser's developer console after editing. [62]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 March. It will be on all wikis from 11 March (calendar).
The New Discussion tool will soon be a new discussion tools beta feature for on most Wikipedias. The goal is to make it easier to start new discussions. [63]
Future changes
There will be a number of changes to make it easier to work with templates. Some will come to the first wikis in March. Other changes will come to the first wikis in June. This is both for those who use templates and those who create or maintain them. You can read more.
Reference Previews will become a default feature on some wikis on 17 March. They will share a setting with Page Previews. If you prefer the Reference Tooltips or Navigation-Popups gadget you can keep using them. If so Reference Previews won't be shown. [64][65]
New JavaScript-based functions will not work in Internet Explorer 11. This is because Internet Explorer is an old browser that doesn't work with how JavaScript is written today. Everything that works in Internet Explorer 11 today will continue working in Internet Explorer for now. You can read more.
Thank you for all the help, support and guidance you provided here — Amkgp💬 04:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Amkgp, this is very kind, thank you for the heartwarming farewell gesture. Don't worry too much about this, please. You have shown clear interest in improving the encyclopedia, and while your way of doing so was unusual, I don't question the motivation behind it, and I'd like to welcome you back one day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
TPA
Good day. You blocked the IP 203.54.177.154 last June, and I just reverted vandalism from the IP user on their user talk page. Is it customary to revoke talk page access to unregistered users? --Drm310🍁 (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Wikis that are part of the desktop improvements project can now use a new search function. The desktop improvements and the new search will come to more wikis later. You can also test it early.
Editors who put up banners or change site-wide JavaScript code should use the client error graph to see that their changes has not caused problems. You can read more. [66]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 March. It will be on all wikis from 18 March (calendar).
Future changes
You can add a newline or carriage return character to a custom signature if you use a template. There is a proposal to not allow them in the future. This is because they can cause formatting problems. [67][68]
You will be able to read but not edit 12 wikis for a short period of time on 23 March at 06:00 (UTC). This could take 30 minutes but will probably be much faster.
You can use Quarry for SQL queries to the Wiki Replicas. Cross-database JOINS will no longer work from 23 March. There will be a new field to specify the database to connect to. If you think this affects you and you need help you can post on Phabricator or on Wikitech. PAWS and other ways to do SQL queries to the Wiki Replicas will be affected later. [69]
Trevor Ariza has traded to the Miami Heat. You are telling me it is incorrect info. When I looked at the news, they said he traded. Look it up if you want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.81.94 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi 70.231.81.94, you're probably looking for JBchrch's talk page (User talk:JBchrch), as JBchrch has reverted your edit. I have messaged JBchrch in the past and you have probably clicked the "talk" link in one of my signatures, ending up on the wrong page. I have informed JBchrch about your question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi 70.231.81.94, thanks for reaching out. I think you are right: when I saw your edits, I looked it up on Google News and could not find anything, so I assumed it was incorrect. Sorry about that. Now I see that other people have updated the article to reflect that Ariza has indeed moved to the Miami Heat. I will leave a message on your talk page to give you useful links if you want to keep on contribution to Wikipedia.--JBchrch (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you made this edit to Josef Newgarden last July. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there has been an ip-hopper who has been vandalizing IndyCar driver articles for some time now. Their favourite target is James Hinchcliffe and they have gotten that page protected multiple times, and the IP edits from that time on Newgarden's article have the same hallmarks. I don't believe there was an edit war regarding Newgarden's DOB, just some vandalism. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. I don't know how to calculate ranges on wiki, but I've noticed that the user's IP always starts with 2804, then usually contains ":14D:5C6[x]:" next. if I was able to compile all of their edits, I could probably try going to WP:LTA about it. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
If the difference happens in the third IPv6 block, the range is huge and probably can't be blocked without enormous collateral damage. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Oof. Well thank you, then haha. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
No worries, do feel free to create a page documenting the issue with diffs. I'm sure there is something that can be done, perhaps using an edit filter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, cool! Something to put on my to-do list, then. Thanks again! GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi আফতাবুজ্জামান, please use WP:SPI to report sockpuppetry, and provide evidence when doing so. Feel free to inform me after creating a report. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, i can't publish checkuser data. Anyway, thank you. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah. আফতাবুজ্জামান, the block does not seem to be marked as a checkuser-based block in the log, nor on the user's nonexistent userpage. And as a bnwiki checkuser, you are allowed to create a report here mentioning checkuser data as evidence, which can for example be shared via the cuwiki. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, ToBeFree. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Please remove insult to Romania in an edit
I am seeking an uninvolved admin to address an insult. Romanian content was removed simply because it is Romanian. This has no place on Wikipedia. If possible please revert and delete revision Special:Diff/1013415724 so viewers do not get offended.
Thank you--Frobozz1 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
This is already being dealt with, on the user's talk page, at WP:ANI and using revision deletion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a Wikipedia app for KaiOS phones. They don't have a touch screen so readers navigate with the phone keys. There is now a simulator so you can see what it looks like.
You will be able to read but not edit twelve wikis for a short period of time on 23 March at 06:00 (UTC). This can also affect password changes, logging in to new wikis, global renames and changing or confirming emails. This could take 30 minutes but will probably be much faster.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 March. It will be on all wikis from 25 March (calendar).
Flagged revisions will no longer have multiple tags like "tone" or "depth". It will also only have one tier. This was changed because very few wikis used these features and they make the tool difficult to maintain. [74][75]
Gadgets and user scripts can access variables about the current page in JavaScript. In 2015 this was moved from wg* to mw.config. wg* will soon no longer work. [76]
@Mo Billings: This wasn't about editing your comment (and I didn't do that - see how I put back the template right after). This was supposed to be minor and non-controversial formatting (templates should not be in headers, except maybe for a few exceptions, but this isn't one of them). Anyway, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mo Billings: Since you're asking for a guideline, WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. "Link (or template) markup may be removed from section headings, but the link should be re-created at the first use of the term, or in a hatnote." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I'm not sure why you want to do this on ToBeFree's talk page, but I suggest that you stop doing editing other people's comments completely. Mo Billings (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to do it here cause it was about an edit here...? Anyway, if the direct quote above was not clear enough, and if it doesn't bother Tobias, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thanked you for the edit and saw it undone a minute after :) Whatever. Neither revision breaks the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The IP address seems to be pretty static, and blocking it could perhaps somehow be justified, but I currently see no need to do so: If they evade the block, it could be very helpful for us to see this happening from this specific IP address. Their edits would be reverted per WP:REVERTBAN and the IP would be blocked. If their IP address has changed in the meantime, it would be a problematic block, and I can't know for sure. Autoblocking is enabled, so every login creates an automatic 24-hour IP block behind the scenes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Inappropriate talk page use
See here. This is completely inappropriate given his actual ban from the topic and subsequent cban. VAXIDICAE💉 17:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Praxidicae, thank you very much for the quick notification. I didn't expect a ban violation to happen from an account that is already blocked sitewide... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Review block settings
Hi there - could you take a look at the block settings on this range? I came across it in some behind-the-scenes work I was doing. The log entry says to log in to edit, but I don't see anon-only in the block entry, so I don't think that would work? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh! You're right. I just need a quick "okay" from NinjaRobotPirate, as that would effectively reduce their block, something I didn't yet do there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I have misread the block log. ElHef, thank you very much for the notification. The incorrect block description and the Draft namespace restriction are now gone. Sorry ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Review of requested permissions from March 5, 2021
Hi, could you please re-review my request to have rollbacker permissions granted to my account? The archived request is found [here]. Admittedly, only a few edits made since you responded to my request could have qualified for rollback (since they were not blatant vandalism but were more "borderline" in nature), reviewing my edit history since then should reveal an understanding of the process, and, in particular, warning users for various types of unconstructive edits. It is actually quite difficult to catch blatant vandalism through manual patrolling since there are so many bots in operation doing this very thing. Even still, if more work is required on my part I would appreciate any suggestions you may have. Thank you, Johnnie Bob (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Johnnie Bob, thanks for asking, and for your contributions! Done~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Some very old web browsersdon’t work well with the Wikimedia wikis. Some old code for browsers that used to be supported is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. [77]
IRC recent changes feeds have been moved to a new server. Make sure all tools automatically reconnect to irc.wikimedia.org and not to the name of any specific server. Users should also consider switching to the more modern EventStreams. [78]
Problems
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split. It might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. [79]
Some translatable pages on Meta could not be edited. This was because of a bug in the translation tool. The new MediaWiki version was delayed because of problems like this. [80][81]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 March. It will be on all wikis from 1 April (calendar).
I am concerned with the article Binibining Pilipinas 2021 as many unregistered editors keep on editing it without reliable sources. A lot of IP address users keep on changing the content with no references presented. I am requesting for your help to protect this article to prevent further vandalism. Thank you. King Archer (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you appear to be using a bot or some self-automated process to make mass edits. Note this is inappropriate. You are expected to review every edit, just as if you were making an edit using Wikipedia's edit form when editing by hand. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving. Sun Creator(talk) 19:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sun Creator, this was a reversion of mass edits that were found to be problematic in the AN discussion linked in the edit summary; it seems to conform to WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. The point of the reverts is to enforce manual review of every edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
"it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected." Sun Creator(talk) 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Sun Creator, I have provided a very explanatory edit summary, even including a permanent link to the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
A generalised statement is not a very explanatory edit summary. Please review WP:ROLLBACK. Sun Creator(talk) 19:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
(uninvolved) Tobias's statement is sufficient (he could have linked to the exact section; and maybe to a more recent revision; but the statement is clear enough for someone interested in trying to figure out what the legitimate concerns were); but it is not an improper use of rollback, especially if there are legitimate concerns about socking or improper editing (and telling an admin how to do that seems misguided). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
That's very kind, thank you. While I had simply chosen not to push my point further and accept the recommendation to re-read WP:ROLLBACK (which I actually did!), it is relieving to hear that I'm not entirely stubbornly trying to run through a wall ignoring guidelines here. Because I myself, per definition, can never rule out having done something silly and not even getting the point. I'm human and I do my best to prevent that from happening, but I obviously need feedback if it does. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm myself not too much one who reads the exact texts too often (per IAR - if there's something that looks right to do, I'll do it). To be fair, I did myself take a re-read; and "5. To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page" is more than explicit enough for this. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your quick response by unprotecting hundreds of old TFA pages. The work is much appreciated :) ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, thank you very much for the unprotection request and the kind feedback! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Just an FYI but the protection you placed on this page expired today. With the trial going on, it might be the site of some activity. I've added it to my Watchlist. LizRead!Talk! 01:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh. Hey Liz, thank you very much for the notification; I had forgotten about that protection. I'll need to get some sleep, but I'd be grateful for anyone reprotecting that page as soon as a need arises. On pages related to controversial, highly viewed topics in general, I personally favor quick protection over the usual "we'll remove further vandalism when it happens, it's an open encyclopedia and no edit can permanently damage a page". Because permanent damage to Wikipedia's reputation can very well happen in my opinion if we don't get such pages right. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I submitted this report because the user had accused me of lacking civility in my own talk page. He should have at least been warned for that. I am feeling very uneasy about continuing my journey at Wikipedia because I don't feel comfortable enough. This accusation is deeply offensive to me.--Sakiv (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out my mistake at User:Certes/Western. I'm used to getting these things right for IPv4 but haven't used IPv6 subranges other than /64 in anger. I think the vandal has either grown up or been discouraged by an edit filter we added in April 2020. If you've seen any more recent activity, please let me know; we can probably filter it out. Certes (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey Certes, no worries! Yeah, switching from IPv4 to IPv6 will be a long-term task; I wonder if that's done in... 2050? 2100? At least for public IP addresses. I guess using "10.x.x.x" for small local networks will remain popular forever, as the numbers are much easier to remember and come with an implicit "not accessible from the Internet" guarantee. Regarding the vandal, they have returned as 107.77.232.13. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra information. I had hoped that they would have given up after six years, if only because PAW Patrol must appeal to a narrow age range. Cheyenne Autumn had somehow slipped off my watchlist. At least the filter still seems to be catching most cases, and the one that slipped through suggests certain text that I can search for regularly. Certes (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Blakegripling ph, yup, that's a pretty persistent case with a static /64 IP address range, which is completely weird and convenient at the same time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Editors can collapse part of an article so you have to click on it to see it. When you click a link to a section inside collapsed content it will now expand to show the section. The browser will scroll down to the section. Previously such links didn't work unless you manually expanded the content first. [82]
Changes later this week
The citoidAPI will use for example 2010-12-XX instead of 2010-12 for dates with a month but no days. This is because 2010-12 could be confused with 2010-2012 instead of December 2010. This is called level 1 instead of level 0 in the Extended Date/Time Format. [83]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 April. It will be on all wikis from 8 April (calendar).
Future changes
PAWS can now connect to the new Wiki Replicas. Cross-database JOINS will no longer work from 28 April. There is a new way to connect to the databases. Until 28 April both ways to connect to the databases will work. If you think this affects you and you need help you can post on Phabricator or on Wikitech.
You blocked 212.77.152.93 this morning for harassment/edit warring; they switched to 41.66.203.14 and continued. Could you block that IP for a week as well? Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Grandpallama, Thank you very much for the notification – please let me know if this continues, and feel free to revert their block-evading edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) They're using a type of proxy service that's hard to detect and block, so this might require some whac-a-mole (extending the IP blocks won't help, the proxy endpoints behave exactly like regular residential IPs). Blablubbs|talk 14:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I do sometimes choose at least a few weeks as a block duration for such cases, perhaps just to clarify that any further edits from the same user are not only practically, but also technically block evasion and qualify for reversion without much discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a good strategy – I didn't mean to imply that your blocks were excessive, just that lengthening them significantly (i.e. the typical 6-24 months that people hand out for normal proxies) wouldn't really keep the proxies blocked in most cases (and it can lead to collateral in countries where ISPs have lots of users on the same shared IP). Blablubbs|talk 14:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I'll keep that in mind, thank you very much – I now also remember User_talk:ToBeFree/A/3#Proxy_IP_block which was probably a similar case. I was hesitant to remove, even to shorten, the block there, but you're correct and there was no vandalism from the IP address ever since. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Yep, same deal – pretty likely to even be the same service. We're wading into beans-ish territory here, but I can send you an e-mail if you're interested in the technical details. Best, Blablubbs|talk 15:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Blocked. -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Can't they vandalize Wikipedia when I'm not eating? They want attention, and doing this while I'm away is counterproductive for both sides. Thank you very much, ferret. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Content dispute spinning out of control
Hi ToBeFree. Maybe you could look at what's going on between Super Dromaeosaurus and Legione-Romana. You've already blocked Legione-Romana once for 72 hours, but the disagreement between the two continues and now has devolved into back and forth posting of warnings on each other's talk page. In all honesty, I've got no idea who's right in a content or context sense of the word, but things have turned into a WP:BATTLEGROUND at Talk:Aromanian language, etc. It's quite clear that there are many things that Legione-Romana doesn't not yet understand about Wikipedia. The account is only a about a week old so mistakes are understandable. However, being unfamiliar isn't really an excuse when an editor seems to be more interested in WP:RGW than WP:DR. Do you think suggesting like WP:3O or WikiProject involvement might settle things down or is there no more WP:ROPE left to give? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, thank you very much for the notification. When comments such as "I am not interested in your stories!" are placed on an article's talk page, I'd say all hope for a content-related discussion is lost. The next step might be a conditional unblock, either with a prohibition from editing the article directly, or with a general expectation for them to avoid this conflict and gain experience in other areas of the encyclopedia for a while.
I have asked Super Dromaeosaurus to remain civil regarding their latest edit summary and not to revert again for a while; it seems reasonable to expect them to adhere to this without the need for a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at this and trying to figure out a way to sort things out. It's unfortunate that someone needed to be blocked, but it's sometimes such a thing is necessary to try and get things to settle down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yeah, I'd say if we're serious about calm content discussion instead of edit warring, we also need to prevent those who refuse to discuss from continuing to frustrate those who favor discussion. If a single-purpose account is used to turn Wikipedia into a battleground, that process should probably be stopped before we can start looking at the whole situation again to attempt proper dispute resolution. If it had been a simple edit war, it would have been easy to direct the discussion to the talk page, but Legione-Romana currently seems to take the situation so personal that they're currently unable to engage in productive content discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello ToBeFree, turns out Legione-Romana is a sockpuppet. Already in 2018 was User:Verginia's star trying to change articles related to Aromanians. Notice the similiarity between the pages they edit and the ones Legione-Romana did (Common Romanian, Aromanian language [notice removal of "Common Romanian" as the linguistic ancestor]...). You can also notice the common use of "!" or of ending the messages with "Regards" (see their talk page). This issue is more serious than it looked like, this user has been harming Wikipedia for way longer than we thought (maybe even 2015! see Verginia's star's talk page's last message) and the fact that they already used a new account indicates they will probably use another one in the future. I've seen the banner that shows up in your talk page when editing and I can open a formal investigation if you'd like, but I wanted to let you know before and know if you could take a look and maybe avoid the long process. SuperΨDro 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Super Dromaeosaurus, thanks for the notification, but can you create an investigation at WP:SPI so I (or someone patrolling SPI) can have a closer look later? This makes it easy to refer to the SPI for evidence, and it keeps such accusations in a central place with standardized procedures. Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure then, I'll do it later.SuperΨDro 19:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Great. Thank you for looking into it. SuperΨDro 09:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to wade into this as a third party, but this edit war covers more than just Aromanian. Similar disputes manifesting as edit wars between Super Dromaeosaurus and other users can be found on a number of pages on related and similar topics, including Aromanians in Greece and Moldovan Cyrilic, that have resulted in mutliple warnings. While the ban on Legione-Romana is obviously justified, the involvement of Super Dromaeosaurus in a significant number of disputes consistently related to unsourced or against-consensus edits regarding South-Eastern European languages suggests that perhaps further attention is required. TheGlaswegian (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
To be honest I've gotten very tired of those disputes and I'm planning to start moving back to some old interests I had. You or anyone can take a look at my contributions if you wish, I don't really intend to defend myself even if I get a topic ban or something (which would perhaps be more healtier to me even). I also considered cleaning my huge watchlist and just keep it to the articles I created, but didn't do it yet because it's just too long to clean up (right now, it has 3,267 articles, a massive source of stress I can't keep up with). With or without external action, that period of my time here is reaching an end soon. And this dispute with this Aromanian user was one of the final events I needed to decide this. SuperΨDro 19:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the feedback, TheGlaswegian; every coin has two sides. As far as I'm concerned in this specific case, as one side of the coin was a sockpuppet, I'm not interested in directing further attention to their victim of harassment. My job in this causa is done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
174.18.3.40
An IP you had blocked temporarily, which had been reverting my edits, namely 174.18.3.40, is back at it, and is also harassing me on my talk page. Please look into this matter as soon as possibly. Thank you. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi FloorMadeOuttaFloor, thank you very much for the notification, others have dealt with the issue. Please also report such cases at WP:AIV to ensure a quick response from any administrator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
AIV
Oops! Thanks for removing the thing, I was trying to report the vandal but instead reported the person who reverted the vandal. Noah💬 17:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I am bringing this to your attention because you correctly identified Barbaria (East Africa) as a "sockpuppetry-infested mess"[84]. Rashicy and Guutaale135 state on his user pages that they are alts. The former also admits to being Suldaanka Saycla. You can see here that both "alts" made the exact same edit on the same page within ten hours of each other. I do not believe this meets WP:VALIDALT. Thanks, Srnec (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Srnec, for the kind feedback and the notification. I didn't see that yet, and I agree that this is not a proper way to use two accounts. Fortunately, Liz has also noticed the problem and provided advice to them that will hopefully prevent a need for a block. As a recommendation from my personal usage, I have now also provided them with advice on how to get out of the two-account mess entirely (Special:Permalink/1018371110#Alternate_account). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know about Barbaria being a sock puppetry invested mess because I haven’t been here that long, but I can assure you I’m not a sock I just have a alt for a illegitimate reason which is allowed on Wikipedia platform. Rashicy (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Rashicy, it is probably not easy to strictly separate the contributions made using two accounts. Using both accounts at Adal Sultanate was a mistake; please don't do that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for telling me @ToBeFree: i really appreciate it, many thanks: Rashicy (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Email to the Wikimedia wikis are handled by groups of Wikimedia editors. These volunteer response teams now use Znuny instead of OTRS. The functions and interface remain the same. The volunteer administrators will give more details about the next steps soon. [85][86]
If you use syntax highlighting, you can see line numbers in the 2010 and 2017 wikitext editors when editing templates. This is to make it easier to see line breaks or talk about specific lines. Line numbers will soon come to all namespaces. [87][88][89]
Because of a technical change there could be problems with gadgets and scripts that have an edit summary area that looks similar to this one. If they look strange they should use mw.loader.using('mediawiki.action.edit.styles') to go back to how they looked before. [90]
The latest version of MediaWiki came to the Wikimedia wikis last week. There was no Tech News issue last week.
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Future changes
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress. This is for technical reasons. This is the technical name. It doesn't affect what you call the editors with this user right on your wiki. This is planned to happen in two weeks. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
Almostangelic123 is again deleting content without an edit summary, explanation or discussion.
Hi. Since you last blocked Almostangelic123 for disruptive editing in March 2020, I thought I'd let you know that he/she is still doing so, as seen here. Can you address the matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nightscream, thanks for the notification. Almostangelic123 happens to be the person who wrote that content in the first place (Special:Diff/1017662584), and as you have noticed and fixed, it was not really suitable for the lead section. I can understand the frustration when dealing with editors who refuse to communicate unless absolutely necessary, but I can also only block if they refuse to communicate in situations where it is absolutely necessary. They have edited their talk page a few times to respond to messages; perhaps they'll even reply to yours. I'm intentionally pinging Almostangelic123 in this message to encourage them to join the conversation.
The specific example can't be used to justify a block, as it has arguably correctly removed non-summarizing and/or unduly weighted content from a BLP's lead section, and as the content was previously added by the same user anyway. Please keep me updated, though; "disruptively ignoring community concerns" is probably my most commonly used custom block reason, and I'll help if I can. I just can't here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I added the PETA information to the lead of the Courtney stodden article but then later removed it as I realised it was not a major/important part of her career and was not appropriate for the lead section so I removed it. The information is still visuals in the “career” section. Almostangelic123 (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Almostangelic123, thank you very much for the quick and informative message, and no worries about the edit from my side. The justification matches exactly what I had expected, and it's a fine one. When making potentially misunderstandable edits (i.e. any edits ), you may like to take a moment to explain such (correct) motivations in the edit summary. This avoids confusion and misinterpretation. You are not strictly required to do so, but I personally see no reason not to do it, as the time spent on explaining things afterwards often significantly outweighs the time spent on writing a short edit summary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
First, I don't blame you for blocking both DarkShadowDude and RossButsy for edit warring. It was getting out of control and spanning multiple articles.
That said, while RossButsy's reaction to the block was to say "Fair enough good the other bloke got blocked too", DarkShadowDude placed a properly-formatted unblock request that address what he did wrong that led to the block.
Based on that, do you think it would be appropriate to unblock DSD? Do you think an unblock with a 1RR restriction for the next month would help the user to be a better editor, or would we just be giving them rope to (re)hang themselves with? —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi C.Fred, they're now checkuser-blocked, before I could write "Tough case, C.Fred, thanks for asking. I wouldn't unblock, and perhaps not even look at the situation, before 24 hours have elapsed". Well, we don't need to have a look in 24 hours anymore either.
I'm thankful and full of compassion for the time you have spent on mentoring the sock. Sorry to see that happen; it always left an empty feeling behind for me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
(I had thought about giving them 24 hours to cool their figurative heels also.) Especially when you feel like they were the editor with their heart in the better place. Oh well, live and learn. Or that's why I'm an educator in RL, always trying to help people to grow and do better. Thank you for the reply and the kind words. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
An anonymous user with several IPs deletes information that has references in the article Gran Canaria airport. I just revert it to the latest stable edition. All the best.--87.223.192.182 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi 87.223.192.182, thank you very much for following up, and for having created a discussion at Talk:Gran Canaria Airport. I have now invited 79.145.186.107 to the discussion (Special:Diff/1018972570) and semi-protected the page for two weeks to enforce discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
79.145.186.107 is an anonymous vandal user who has been blocked from his multiple anonymous accounts on Spanish Wikipedia for the same reason. You basically remove the information you don't like from various articles on Wikipedia in various languages.--87.223.193.241 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I can't take administrative action on the English Wikipedia based on anonymous, evidence-less accusations against accounts that have not even edited this wiki. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I know, and there is evidence, you just need to look at the latest editions of the Gran Canaria Airport article, and you will see that there are IPs that try to erase information. When I have more evidence I will contact you. A greeting.--87.223.193.241 (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
User: MfactDr is engaging in a vandalism and edit wars on the Burayu Massacre page
Hi there,
This user @MfactDr is misusing wikipedia for their own political agenda. They constantly revert the Burayu Massacre page to their version after anyone edits it. Please see the following for some of my issues with their edits:
They use no source for claiming that Amhara militia and allied forces are the perpetrators of Burrayu? The article you cite does not even say that? It does not even mention Amhara youth being in that area, much less Amhara youth from Addis Ababa? You're falsifying a source to suit some sinister agenda.
They use the same reference by 'Ethiopian insight' and open democracy over and over again to support a baseless claim against the Amhara. When it is simply not even stated in any of the articles they use as a citation Matter of fact this is what the Open Democracy states the following:
Of course this is not once mentioned by the user. The information they use in the opening paragraph and the rest of the page is also deeply inconsistent. Please see the page and their edits/vandildism for yourself, I am new to wikipedia so I don't know how to link appropriately but see below:
This user is now accusing me of being a sock puppet. When I am simply trying to use wikipedia for what it was designed for!!!!!
This is causing me much frustration, please provide me with assistance.
^. Young Oromo were accused of a pogrom against Southerners in Burayu, in the outskirts of Addis Ababa. Young Southerners in Arba Minch wanted to take revenge on the local Oromo. It was the middle-aged who managed to stop them. This kind of intervention is not unusual. It could be the ultimate lifeline for avoidance of a Yugoslavian scenario. It could be the ultimate lifeline for avoidance of a Yugoslavian scenario.
Hi FightingEthiopianMisinfo, please have a look at Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy and try to find an amicable solution, together with MfactDr, that does not require administrative intervention. I have no opinion about this conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you very much for putting that long block on IP asshole 2600:1700:C3D1:28A0:41BB:6556:E022:6B37. Just found out Flyer22 Frozen had passed away through the IP triggering the edit filters. Jerm (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
No worries, Jerm, thank you very much for the kind feedback. Harassing someone(s relatives and friends) after their death crosses a line not even many of our known long-term harassers would cross. And the whole Flyer22 Frozen situation is an entire tragedy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's frustrating knowing that there are people willing to go such lengths to vandalize a user page of a deceased editor. And what worries me more, are the once-very active editors who suddenly vanished from Wikipedia during the COVID outbreak. Jerm (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I know, it's not a very good thought, but I think we should be more aware of who suddenly disappeared from Wikipedia during the outbreak. I rarely interact much with editors, so I don't really know who. I've been waiting for one specific editor to return though. Jerm (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Do you know any very active editors who suddenly vanished? Jerm (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hm. I fortunately don't know about such cases, but I've seen at least one person expressing severe job concerns somewhere in 2020. It's mostly a silent issue, as the affected persons (job/health) probably rarely announce their problems, hoping for them to be temporary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Good point, I don't think many people would want to discuss anything about having a health issue such as a COVID diagnoses. Well, thank you again. Stay safe friend, Cheers! Jerm (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, stay safe too ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for my ban - I didn´t edited one word !
Regarding the laboratory hypothesis, I was only an observer of the article discussion, I also have no writing privileges. I made only one concrete suggestion - and it was quite interesting to see how user RandomCanadian selected it. This important informations (from WHO and Goverments...) are not in the article until now. The origin question is one of the most important question of our time - that has cost more than 3 Mio. death, over 100 Mio infections and cost over 10 trillion dollar. After the WHO Report the situation changed. The question was: what is the reason ? What are the rules ? I read the discussions about the Lab, which were very emotional, pro and contra conspiracy theory (that was not consensus), lab hypothesis, left and right media, Trump, etc., and actually I did not want to get involved - but then I joined in the discussion. During the discussion I understood that there are special rules for the content selection, informal, which you also criticized or disagree with - in the end MDERS is used to filter all content that does not support the conspiracy theory - and the no lab theory. Main editors know already what is TRUE and build a WP:STONEWALL for this unproven thesis, with informal rules. That was my observation - where I was trying to clarify this, which I think is our responsibility to the world. If you can't contradict arguments - you have to kill the editor. Thank you.
My responsibility I have done, I can understand that you see the "Wikipedia:Gaming the system" as an administrator differently. With my ban (I didn`t edited one word !) the whole discussion (over 6 Mio. google hits ! ) outside MEDRS is now banned too -already all discussion in the archive, also to make a balanced, neutral point of view. Basically, it does not matter, because there are enough media also journals, which report here neutrally like NZZ - Wikipedia is unfortunately not one of them. For me, the topic is closed. It's at least a valuable waste of time to argumente against STONEWALLs. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
I'd like to stop by and say thank you for using the COVID-19 GS as an uninvolved administrator to prevent disruption in that topic area. I understand most situations in which those GS may be helpful are very complex and require a lot of work on an uninvolved administrator's part to feel comfortable using them to implement sanctions in a way that is impartial, fair, correct, and ultimately helpful to the project. Thanks again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Berchanhimez, for the kind feedback and the additional input to the MEDRS discussion above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS
When applying a sanction, one of the reasons cited was the user's "insisting that the origin of COVID19 is not an issue to which WP:MEDRS applies". I haven't kept up with the COVID-19 drama (and am not an editor who often interacts with WP:MEDRS), but my understanding was that Wikipedia:Biomedical information is defined narrowly (symptoms, treatment, epidemiology of a disease). Is there some recent discussion close, etc I can look at to find current consensus on what that applies to? jp×g 22:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG: The origin of a virus is pretty much clearly biomedical information, as it involves information which could affect future prevention efforts; and it does require expert knowledge (epidemiology would concern itself with the origin of an outbreak, and in this case it's also an issue of virology). In addition, it would just be a regular application of WP:BESTSOURCES - WP:MEDPOP sources, such as newspapers, are prone to misinterpretation and false balance, and if they disagree with the higher quality (MEDRS) ones, we should favour the latter ones instead. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: Thanks for the response; I should probably clarify that this question was specifically for TBF, since they were the one who issued the sanction. jp×g 23:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi JPxG, thanks for asking. The whole WP:GS/COVID19 area is full of misinformation and unreliable statements; WP:MEDRS is explicitly mentioned in the discussion that led to the sanction authorization and the application notes. Whether people have been infected by a leaked biological weapon or a common zoonotic disease is an epidemiological question whose answer has an enormous effect on the public reaction to the pandemic, so Wikipedia is in a reputational and moral position that requires it to enforce extremely strict sourcing requirements. Per the verifiability policy, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and the following is mentioned as a "red flag": "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". The relevant community is the medical community around WP:MEDRS, not regular newspaper publishers. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I am relatively unfamiliar with how arbitration interacts with content guidelines, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but if a GS remedy implies a certain interpretation of PAGs, shouldn't those PAGs be updated to reflect this (or at least reference it)? jp×g 23:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
As long as the interpretation is reasonably close to what the guideline already says, there is probably no need for a change ("instruction creep"). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
To pop in late to explain why the community has come to a consensus that origin of a virus is biomedical information - I echo what TBF explained about how it has an effect on reaction to the specific instance as well as prevention efforts - most of which are biomedical. Note that WP:Biomedical information, which is the explanatory supplement to MEDRS, clearly states that it includes Attributes of a disease or condition: Symptoms, causes, prognoses; how a disease progresses; how it is caught or transmitted; the molecular or cellular basis of a disease and Population data and epidemiology: Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), etc - bolding mine, and expanding "transmission rates" to include "transmission" as a whole as it's clear that's what it means. While I respect that people mostly don't get this sort of information from MEDRS on a daily basis, Wikipedia isn't "most people" and we should not use sources which do not have the highest reputation for fact vs. opinion just because most people seem to trust them. The reason MEDRS exists is because no matter how much they claim to try to prevent bias/opinion from getting into their news stories, the bottom line is that most sources which meet the WP:RS standards do allow opinions/bias to be included, and in many cases they don't clarify what is fact versus opinion well enough. Furthermore, there is a need to consider the coverage bias of reliable sources - even non-profit sources rely on donations and there is always a concern that the amount of coverage something gets in them is based on "popularity" rather than actual need to cover. The "lab leak" is a prime example of this - it deserves virtually no coverage in news at this time as it's all but been disproven - and completely disproving it will take years of research into exactly how the virus made it from bats, through secondary hosts, into humans. But many sources (even the most neutral) are still covering it because it's what people want to see. We are an encyclopedia, which publishes facts, not what people want to see - no matter how much reliable sources do so. Hopefully this explains why the medical editors (and the few uninvolved who have commented) consider the origin of this, or any, virus/disease to be biomedical information subject to MEDRS standards. It's to protect our integrity as an encyclopedia, as opposed to a popularity driven resource. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: I agree with you that COVID-19 origins does fall under WP:MEDRS, but the WHO team’s report - which is a MEDRS - presented four hypotheses, including a laboratory incident, and endorsed a continued scientific and collaborative approach to be taken towards tracing the origins of COVID-19[91]. But in an accompanying statement, the WHO Director-General went further and said in regards to the possibility of a laboratory acccident, he did not believe that this assessment was extensive enough and endorsed further investigations, with additional missions involving specialist experts[92]. In order for there to be a consensus on COVID-19 origins on Wikipedia, there has to be MEDRS with forensic or phylogenetic evidence, as per WP:MEDASSESS, and so far none have been published. As of now, all of our MEDRS, including the WHO report only assess probabilities of different hypotheses, yet some editors want to present some of these probabilities as facts in Wikivoice, despite the WHO DG’s remarks I quoted above. This is wrong.
@Berchanhimez:, we also have WP:MEDCOI which needs to be expanded to include sources that were produced by teams with a COI, as they were in this case. Peter Daszak’s inclusion on the WHO team, was a clear COI, as his organization’s funding of gain of function research with BatCoVs at the WIV would have wouldn’t have made him look good if it was an LAI. The team may have a COI problem too, as mentioned by Cowrider here [93], and the team chief said it their study was not an investigation [94]. The report concluded that transmission through the frozen food chain is possible, even though there isn't any evidence to support it [95] while the laboratory incident is extremely unlikely, even though there was circumstantial evidence and a controversy surrounding the WIV’s partial disclosure of RaTG13 [96] and a sister clade of undisclosed viruses [97], which you seem to be completely unaware of. This controversy is the primary reason the WHO DG appended his remarks to the report [98], as has now been widely reported [99], and is calling on China to cooperate with further investigations, and their response [100] isn't reassuring for those like you who want us to wait a few more years. You seem to be very sure it will be "disproven" in a few years, when with SARS and MERS it took just a few months for them to find the intermediary host, so besides being unaware of the nuances of the lab leak hypothesis, you seem also to be biased against it. I hope this does not become a problem for you editorial decision making.
All Twitter links linked here are for your enjoyment only and *not* for citing in articles as references CutePeach (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The purely content-related parts of that paragraph are probably more suitable for the article's talk page, if the arguments have not yet been mentioned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
As for the "evidence" of the WHO's "problems"; that's already been covered in the post over which CP had previously put a "disregarding the WHO" header [101]... (without addressing any of the arguments there) But anyway that is an issue which is now at AE (in case you wish to join in). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree:, this is in the talk page already but it is also important for admins to know that this is a controversial topic and editors must engage in good faith doscussions on the application of MEDRS. RC argued on the talk page that the WHO DG's remarks should not be considered and is desperately trying to turn this content and policy discussion into a conduct issue. I have faith that administrators and fellow editors will be open and fair in their review.CutePeach (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I guess the AE discussion will simply be closed as "filed at the wrong venue", RandomCanadian will take the matter to WP:AN and before 24 hours have elapsed, we'll have a controversial content discussion on a conduct noticeboard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
CP still argues that "requires further investigation" is equivalent to explicit support for a theory, despite all the other sources having been presented, and the remark put into context. This isn't (just) a content dispute; this is WP:BLUDGEON being supplemented by use of WP:MEDPOP and WP:SYNTH. Where else was I supposed to take it? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Friend! I don't care about your Wiki. Due to the content that most of the pages have, it has no reliability. As for the Lusophone, the verification request was to verify the same editor and was inconclusive, which does not mischaracterize meat. If you want to delete the lipstick page, do not "give a damn". If you're a Wikipedia professional, I'm not, "gracias a Dios". O revolucionário aliado (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I let all the other stuff go that's wrong and just gave up, but when you put the wrong picture
up well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRadice (talk • contribs) 01:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi MRadice, neither the Wikipedia article about Mark Radice nor the Wikidata entry at wikidata:Q6769375 contain a photo. The image you're referring to seems to come from https://ithaca.academia.edu/markradice, and the only way to make it truly disappear is to contact the people responsible for that website's content. If that is not an option, the only way to make the still-available image disappear from Google results is to contact Google. While Wikipedia is the first result of the Google search, the image has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and Wikipedia can do nothing to remove it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@MRadice: If you were to upload a freely-licensed photo of yourself for the article, it'd be appreciated (and would likely show up on a search for your name). jp×g 00:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
(Thanks, I didn't think about this possibility. However, MRadice, please make sure that you have the copyright to images you upload. A selfie is fine, but if someone else made the photo, you should probably ask the photographer to upload the image for you, using a separate account.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Templates have parameters that can have specific values. It is possible to suggest values for editors with TemplateData. You can soon see them as a drop-down list in the visual editor. This is to help template users find the right values faster. [102][103][104]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 April. It will be on all wikis from 29 April (calendar).
In the article about Gran Canaria Airport you have kept the information of another user, but we are talking about the airport as the most relevant one in number of passengers, we dont have to talk about the fact that if we unify other airpors another island has more passengers, that is unrelevant and tendentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.186.107 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi 79.145.186.107, thanks for joining the discussion at Talk:Gran Canaria Airport. Please sign your messages on talk pages (~~~~). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Paysera (Reviewer's request for assistance)
Hey! I'm currently reviewing the AfC draft for Paysera, and I plan on accepting it since some sources appear credible. However, since it has been deleted 7 times it is being salted. May I know if you think it passes the requirements and if yes can you help lift the creation protection? Thanks and happy editing :) WikiAviator talk 14:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
WikiAviator Which reliable sources are you referring to? Because I don't see any. TAXIDICAE💰 15:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I find the Yahoo Finance, The Paypers and The Fintech Times reliable since they are not passing mentions and the origins are credible. Also, the Forbes source may arguably be a passing mention, but there is a whole paragraph dedicated to it so I think it is ok? Any opinions? Thanks :) WikiAviator talk 07:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
WikiAviator none of those are RS. In fact, Yahoo is from Accesswire, which is a press release service, the rest are press releases and Forbes is a contributor piece and thus not reliable. TAXIDICAE💰 13:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I see, I think I would decline it then, thanks for clarifying the sources. WikiAviator talk 13:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy notice
I changed your PBlock of Pedro158 to a sitewide indef block. It appears to me that they are not really here to help build the project. If you disagree with me, let me know and I'll try to work with you to do what's best. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ched, I'd say that's a reasonable decision. They could have used the opportunity to discuss their proposed change on an article talk page, but they refused to stop running against a wall. Thanks for upgrading the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Phabricator Ticket Sandbox
Hey there! I came across WP:Sandbox/T279276 and noticed that T279276 was closed on Phabricator as a duplicate of T278904, which has also been closed and appears to be resolved now. Is there still a need for that sandbox subpage? Thanks! Bsoyka🗣️ 21:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh hi Bsoyka :) Thank you very much for the notification, I'm fine with deletion (should be uncontroversial, as Pppery has also noticed.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good! I'll check back in a while to see if Pppery responds or re-nominates for CSD – if I don't see anything from them soon, I'll nominate it myself. Have an awesome day/night! Bsoyka🗣️ 22:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The reason I self-reverted is that Special:Diff/1019721727 shows a broken ⧼revreview-hist-quality⧽ message, which suggests some FlaggedRevs related things may still broken, which made me no longer confident enough to G6 the page. * Pppery *it has begun... 22:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, interesting. Indeed. Hm. Okay, let's keep the page for now, can someone report this with a quick screenshot? Likely a minor database remnant, I guess, but perhaps that should be fixed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Pppery: I think I know what has happened. The system messages related to "quality" revisions are gone, their default text is not longer available on enwiki. See what remained of MediaWiki:Revreview-hist-quality-user after its deletion (nothing, instead of default text that was definitely there when I created the page), and how it has affected the revision history of the sandbox page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Well that's certainly interesting and much more technical than I expected. What needs to be done here to fix/report this? Or do we just delete the page and move on? Apologies, little unfamiliar with this side of things on Wikipedia. Bsoyka🗣️ 23:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Bsoyka and Pppery: Ah, it's already reported at phab:T279761. Nothing left to do, but let's keep the sandbox page until that is fixed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks again! Bsoyka🗣️ 23:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Twinkle is a gadget on English Wikipedia. It can help with maintenance and patrolling. It can now be used on other wikis. You can get Twinkle on your wiki using the twinkle-starter GitHub repository.
Some things will not work for about a minute on 5 May. This will happen around 06:00 UTC. This will affect the content translation tool and notifications among other things. This is because of an upgrade to avoid crashes. [106]
Changes later this week
Reference Previews will become a default feature on a number of wikis on 5 May. This is later than planned because of some changes. You can use it without using Page Previews if you want to. The earlier plan was to have the preference to use both or none. [107][108]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 May. It will be on all wikis from 6 May (calendar).
Future changes
The CSS classes .error, .warning and .success do not work for mobile readers if they have not been specifically defined on your wiki. From June they will not work for desktop readers. This can affect gadgets and templates. The classes can be defined in MediaWiki:Common.css or template styles instead. [109]
I thought it was quite clearly said to Jamesmiko/PennaRican81 that he could not edit any userboxes. His most recent contributions seem to have breached the topic ban and userboxes were edited (creation, changes, etc). Did I miss something or he thought that he could get away with it? – Sabbatino (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I forgot about the appeal part. I request an appeal to the indefinite ban. Furthermore, Sabbatino should receive some kind of ban for this kind of harassment. S/he is not an admin and shouldn't be following me around on Wp. JmGonzo81 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I am not following you around. I was cleaning up my "Watchlist" and your sockpuppet investigation was in it so I decided to see if you were a good boy, but apparently you are not. The better question is how did you see my message here if I did not ping you? Looks like you are the one following me around. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Update: I was not aware that he was blocked again so now I understand how this message was located. Sorry for any inconvenience caused on your talk page ToBeFree. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hm. I'd find accepting an appeal much easier if the ban hadn't been circumvented a few days ago... :/ Can you re-ask in 3 months or so? And then ideally at WP:AN, mentioning that I personally don't object to an unban but prefer a short community discussion to unilateral unbanning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey Certes, thank you very much for the notification, and for tracking that case. Re-blocked. I'm not linking to the LTA page in my block reasons just in case they're doing it for this kind of attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
User:ToBeFree has replied to this private email and requested that I repost it on his talk page.
Hi,
Could you please re-open my ANI about FDW777. The user is acting like a bully, and I don't appreciate the way you've closed it. The fact that someone asked if I had appealed suggested it wouldn't be unreasonable. I've contributed a lot to Wikipedia over the years, and I don't like the way that FDW777 is steamrollering over the work of myself and others. I don't appreciate being told that I have a 'Failure or refusal to "get the point"'. What is being ignored is that the behaviour of FDW777 *is* uncivil, and they've had a new article completely altered with their bullying enforcement of BLP policy. And it isn't "forum shopping" - I haven't raised their behaviour elsewhere repeatedly. I don't think FDW777 is helping to reach consensus. It seems that any efforts to question them are being shut down, though.
Thanks for the feedback. FDW777's behavior may not be ideal, but the situation at hand is unsuitable for discussing the described behavior. This is because the core of the dispute is content-related and you have a strong content disagreement that is mixed into your ANI report. If you look at this in a week, you'll probably notice the issue that led to the closure.
The BLP policy is one of the very few policies that can be strictly enforced against pretty much all other concerns, including against administrative action: It's one of the very few "exceptional circumstances" named at WP:WHEEL, for example. Thus, any attempt to re-negotiate that policy after having been warned about misconduct in the area will inevitably look like IDHT behavior. If that discussion had continued with you throwing further accusations into the noticeboard, a less patient administrator would probably have blocked you, or a less patient community member would have proposed sanctions against you beyond the original warning (e.g. a topic ban). Such sanction discussions then quickly run out of hand as WP:BLP is deeply supported throughout the entire community, and as the community is relatively unwilling to invest time into repeatedly explaining the same BLP policy concerns to the same user again and again. The closure may have prevented a much less desirable situation.
For the same reason, I recommend against appealing the warning; I'm not sure if a warning can even be properly appealed. You have been warned, and that's it – the warning can practically not be taken back, as the information has reached its target. Trying to appeal it anyway just goes further into the IDHT area.
Again, FDW777's behavior may not be ideal, but for the next weeks or months, you have practically exhausted your means of drawing community attention to it. There's not much I can do about that except pointing it out and explaining it. The situation may well be unfair, but I can't make it fairer; I can only prevent it from escalating further to your disadvantage.
PS: I prefer public transparency/accountability to email discussion. If you agree with this principle, please write your original email message as a new message on my talk page, I'll publicly reply with this message 1:1 and you can continue to answer there then. I'd prefer not to (and will probably not) answer per e-mail if there are further questions.[done hereby, thank you very much] I'll happily answer any questions on my talk page, though.
Hi, thank you for posting your message here. I'm glad you agree that "FDW777's behavior may not be ideal". I wasn't attempting to renegotiate the BLP policy; it simply struck me that after a great deal of effort had been spent in creating a new, highly detailed article, User:FDW777 popped up to complain about it. It was actually created by another editor, though I had some slight involvement in getting it going. My point was that FDW777 is going about this in the wrong way: issuing ultimatums and threats in a terse manner is not appropriate for WP, IMO. There was nothing like "could you please use the birth years only until you have referenced sources for the full list", but simply ill-mannered demands. It's also noteworthy that they did not remove the unsourced DOBs from the articles they highlighted on that Talk page, so the user is clearly rather selective in how they enforce policy.
The BLP policy I violated is actually not the same as the problem in the table identified by FDW777. I used public records to add DOBs in BLP articles. In this instance, I was querying whether the table needed references for every usage of a DOB, since other list tables on WP do not have fully referenced DOBs. As you can see, I have already appealed against the warning, to no avail, but if I don't violate that policy again, I don't think it should do me any harm. I probably wouldn't have appealed it if another editor hadn't asked if I disputed the result. "The situation may well be unfair" hits the nail on the head in this situation. FDW777 does not assume good faith, and is violating policies around civility. They have yet again insulted me in the talk page for this article, here. They are certainly casting aspersions on me there.
Andrew Gray commented on my ANI: "I had reasonably assumed the data in the list was all uncontroversial and did not need each point individually cited, which has been our general practice for list articles like this for many years." This is essentially my issue with FDW777 leaping on the article to demand it conform to BLP or be deleted. The tone and general manner is unhelpful. This isn't the only complaint about FDW777's incivility in recent months - see this comment by User:OgamD218, referring to a comment by User:CeltBrowne: [110]. CeltBrowne is correct, FDW uses baseless claims re WP rules to bully other editors. This user also has a history of tendentious editing in the Troubles area, the PIRA page was denied GAN by Peacemaker67 bc, referring to FDW, "it is clear that my concerns about the article meeting criteria #4 Neutrality (regarding sectarianism), will not be addressed by the nominator. In over 350 Good Article nomination reviews, I have never struck such a level of intransigence from a nominator when a serious concern has been raised about an article." I notice that you've previously awarded FDW777 a barnstar, so you may not be entirely neutral when discussing this user. I hope that isn't the case though. The point is, I will accept I am wrong if I the discussion is kept civil and polite. This wasn't, and FDW777's way of handling it has made the situation more heated.--TrottieTrue (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The only thing that has made any dispute "more heated" is your stubborn refusal to listen in order to pursue your unhealthy interest ih the dates of birth of UK MPs. See for example the history of John Finucane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
01:58, 17 March. You add a date of birth using public records, in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Reverted the same day, pointing directly to BLPPRIMARY. You were fully aware of this reversion, due to your subsequent edit on 25 March.
14:11, 24 March. You were specifically told about the unsuitability of Companies House as a reference for the dates of birth for living people.
23:15, 2 May. Back at John Finucane, you ignored the previous reversion of your edit and the post on your talk page, and again added a date of birth using public records from Companies House.
07:29, 3 May. This change was reverted with a clear edit summary of WP:BLPPRIMARY. "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." (emphasis added).
12:36, 3 May. You revert to add back the date of birth, claiming the fact it is public record implied the subject does not object. What part of 'Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth is hard to understand?
Several editors at several discussions have tried to explain the importance of BLP to you, yet you ignore them and simply continue to ignore it. In those circumstances, my patience is understandably wearing thin. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, there’s clearly little point in engaging with you on this subject. You keep repeating the same mantra as above: "to pursue your unhealthy interest ih [sic] the dates of birth of UK MPs". This personal insult has been repeated by the user on multiple talk pages now, and is clearly in violation of the WP policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks (which, User:ToBeFree, is what I was trying to raise yesterday, although I realise the issue gets conflated with disagreements on how BLP policy is enforced).
FDW777 is also violating the policies on wikipedia:Civility, wikipedia:Harassment and WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, particularly by raising a resolved arbitration request here. "Several editors at several discussions have tried to explain the importance of BLP to you, yet you ignore them and simply continue to ignore it." I think this is an exaggeration, and the use of the present tense is misleading. Now that the arbitration enforcement has been resolved, I should be given the opportunity to follow BLP, which I believe I have done since then. The arbitration request has been dealt with and closed, after I had accepted the policy. Therefore FDW777 should not continue to raise the issues from that discussion.
The harassment is also suggested by this comment, which indicates they only paid attention to the list article because of my involvement with the UK Politics project elsewhere. There is a baseless accusation of me there too, in which it is stated that my discussion on the project was "to try and circumvent the BLP policy".
In fact, the table which was being discussed yesterday was about former UK MPs, and wasn't even created by me. It was my suggestion, which others supported. The discussion is continuing there, with another editor querying the need for references throughout the table, and noting that the table doesn’t function as well as it did since the enforced changes. Querying the inclusion of the DOBs on a list article is not the same issue as the BLP policy violation I failed to comply with. FDW777 is using those resolved incidents to evade any responsibility for their behaviour, which is a tack that others are using. One policy violation does not excuse others, or mean they should be ignored.—TrottieTrue (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
When incivility comes from both sides of a conflict,(see the ANI closure text for examples if you disagree about this, TrottieTrue) and both sides complain about the behavior of the other side, a common solution is an interaction ban. Sometimes, this is explicitly asked for by the upset insulted users. There is, however, no practical difference between an interaction ban and the most recommendable behavior in this specific situation here: disengaging from the conflict.
I don't (and can't) keep track of sent barnstars, cookies and kittens. I have sent so many of those that construing a bias from them would practically prevent me from dealing with any request for administrative action, as 99% of those asking for it will likely have received Wikilove from me sometime in the past. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
"When incivility comes from both sides of a conflict" is far too much of a generalisation to brush away my issues with this editor. It completely ignores all the reasonable complaints above. I do disagree that there is incivility on both sides (an easy way to dismiss my concerns - "you're both as bad as each other" sort of thing). At the ANI you refer to, I said: "It's clear that their mission seems to be to police others on WP, and complain." You refer to this as an example of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. The quote was my perception of FDW777: given that a large number of their edits involve policing other users, and being involved in edit conflicts, it's not a huge leap to describe their behaviour as a "mission". You also refer to this quote: "It's as if they seem to get pleasure from merely enforcing policy." That is my perception of the editor, an opinion. It is not "casting aspersions". No doubt that the project is helped by editors highlighting misconduct to keep it ticking over, but WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." This has clearly been ignored by the editor. My behaviour was not "incivility"; it was expressing an opinion, and came after repeated personal attacks on me.
I am attempting to disengage from the conflict, but that should not excuse the policy violations which have clearly been committed by FDW777. Since you have no bias when dealing with administrative action, you should be able to properly consider FDW777's policy violations (listed above) without using "but you're bad too" as a get-out clause. FDW777 is continuing to be involved in the discussion around the list article; perhaps they will manage to do this in a civil manner, but I feel their behaviour should still be addressed (see details above). You described my ANI request as "forum shopping", yet FDW777 responded to it by suggesting to User:Seraphimblade that they reopen the arbitration enforcement case against me. "I don't know if this calls for a rethink of the close" is an insinuation that it should be reopened, at Seraphimblade's talk page. My "crime" on this occasion is that I said "The article isn't doing any harm" in relation to an article "which contains 800+ unrefernced [sic] dates of birth of living people." To suggest it is doing harm is an exaggeration: the original article creator posted the list without references, and User:PamD has said "I'm surprised that it's considered necessary to provide sources within a table when there is a link to the article on the person". By all means, discuss the use of references in a table like this, but FDW777 was issuing an ultimatum as a threat when they said "I've challenged the column. Reference it, or lose it. Your choice." That isn't a constructive way to work on WP (and they weren't replying to me, so this is how they interact generally).
Incidentally, I must be in the 1% of editors who have not received any Wikilove from you.--TrottieTrue (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Labelling unjustified accusations as personal opinions is a common and invalid excuse for incivility. The wording "I believe that you are X" or "John Doe seems to X" does not prevent X from possibly being a personal attack. An editor's motivation (or even "pleasure") for editing, conflicts of interest and vandalism aside, is none of your business. Unfounded, it is not appropriate to allege motivations beyond improving and maintaining an encyclopedia, as being here to build an encyclopedia is usually seen as a requirement for participating at all.
I believe that, when two editors loudly and incivilly fight about BLP violations, the editor introducing the policy-violating material is usually the only person who needs to be sanctioned. The BLP-violating editor needs to accept that there has been harsh, but justified, criticism, and move on. There are exceptions in cases of extreme incivility, but this doesn't seem to be the case here.
Again, there may have been misconduct on both sides, but you're currently not in a good position to request sanctions against the person who has enforced an important policy. Others can (and will) do that if it's actually a larger issue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
My statements were not "unjustified accusations", and I don't think they amount to incivility. I note you use this wording: "...possibly being a personal attack". To suggest that an editor's motivation is none of my business is ludicrous: hence Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Assumptions are made.
I certainly don't think you have dealt with this issue appropriately - telling me I need to "accept that there has been harsh, but justified, criticism, and move on" isn't helpful. Again, I repeat, the policy violations committed by FDW777 are being completely overlooked. It suggests that you do have some bias towards FDW777, as you cannot approach their behaviour towards me and others in an even-handed way. Just because "X violates a policy first", it does not mean that "Y violating others can be disregarded". So if FDW777 did literally anything in response to me that wasn't "extreme", I would be the only one who was sanctioned, because I did it first, by your logic. Seems a rather strange way to deal with things. The comment "there may have been misconduct on both sides" is reminiscent of a famous figure. I don't think that "X did this first, therefore Y doing worse things can be overlooked" is appropriate. You are letting FDW777 get away with multiple policy violations. I don't think you've dealt with this in a neutral manner.--TrottieTrue (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
We disagree about the appropriate reaction in such situations. That's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
IP partial block
Hi ToBeFree, hope all is well. Just a heads up, I expanded your partial block of 2001:999::/32 to sitewide due to continued harassment and vandalism. Just wanted to make sure you're aware. Thanks. -- LuK3(Talk) 14:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi LuK3, thank you very much. For context, the block was limited to a specific user's talk page, and was the only alternative to semi-protection (practically blocking the entire Internet in the same way), so I didn't have to think much about the CIDR size. I haven't thoroughly analyzed the huge contribution list, but there may be significant collateral damage when expanding the original block to every page. If, on second thought, a smaller range would be sufficient, then feel free to restore the original block and create a smaller overlapping block to stop the harassment. This is entirely your choice, I just wanted to provide my thoughts that led to the original decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I saw the /32 block and is probably way too big. I'm not too well versed in rangeblocks but I did an overlapping block for 2001:999:53:D01B:4480:5CA0:BA5B:E98F/64 so hopefully that'll stop the disruptive edits. Thanks again! -- LuK3(Talk) 01:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Hello. I am proposing the deletion of the page Cushitic peoples for reasons found on its Talk page. You have contributed to this page in the past year. You may have an opinion on this matter. Pathawi (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pathawi, thank you very much for the notification. My edit was only a sockpuppetry revert, so I'm pretty uninvolved. Have you considered WP:AFD? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me! Yes I have. I wanted to give involved editors a heads up before moving forward with any formal process or making a proposal on a broader stage. Pathawi (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, sounds like a reasonable idea. Feel free to notify me about the AFD discussion if/when it happens, but I'll probably watch it from a distance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Request to copy.
Good evening, ToBeFree. I am messaging you to request permission to copy (but edit to fit my subpage), your "Please click here to add a new message!" button at the top of your talk page.
I thought it would be best to ask prior, instead of just copying it without your consent. Kind Regards, ~ Ronja(u • t • c) 15:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Of course, feel free to! It's completely customizable; you're welcome to copy the blue style, but you may also like to modify it in any way you like. I'm happy about every transclusion of that template: It was designed in response to new editors complaining about not finding the way to create a new message at the bottom. So I think adding it to a talk page makes feedback possible that would otherwise remain unheard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree, Awesome! Thank you so much for replying. ~ Ronja(u • t • c) 15:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for granting me rollback rights! 😇 I had one question about using it. If someone makes an edit which violates the NPOV (such as saying, John Doe is a horrible player whose career will end in failure), can I use rollback on that? 🐍 Helen 🐍 16:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
While the removal of BLP violations is not explicitly listed at WP:ROLLBACKUSE, if John Doe is a living person, noone will complain about you using rollback in this example case, as it is a clear violation that needs to be removed as quickly as possible. We can also assume that this specific statement was intentionally damaging the encyclopedia (and the person), and obviously so, justifying rollback by the wording of the guideline. The guideline also exempts "other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear", but I strongly recommend not to rely on this exception, as other users will inevitably disagree about this assertion in many cases. If something is obvious to you, it doesn't have to be obvious to someone else automatically, and it often actually isn't. Make sure not to overestimate obviousness.
Let's have a look at a different example. "Small XYZ Company With 20 Employees is an internationally renowned information technology company headquartered in Pembroke, Georgia." It is clear that the edit should be reverted. However, the person adding it might actually believe that the statement is true, perhaps because they work for the company and greatly overestimate their international reach. In such cases, it is very important not to blindly rollback without an explanatory summary. The user needs to be educated about Wikipedia's policies, and the first thing they'll read is the edit summary of your revert. The whole point of restricting rollback to vandalism reverts is that all other users need a proper explanation.
Some tools allow you to technically "rollback" with a custom summary; my concerns do not apply if you use such tools.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 May. It will be on all wikis from 13 May (calendar).
Future changes
You can see what participants plan to work on at the online Wikimedia hackathon 22–23 May.
Vikram Prabhu is a struggling Indian film actor working...
What does that mean?
Where does this statement come from? Tried to find some information about Prabhu, and not a single article mentions he's "struggling" in his life whatever that means.
In my opinion, this description feels awfully subjective.
I was thus wondering if I could remove the noted adjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu-Protocole (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Now moved to 107.77.232.95. Just the one edit so far but it looks very familiar. Certes (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Certes, thank you very much for the notification. I guess they are already using a new IP address, but let's see if the block surprisingly works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
What are the odds?
What are the odds that Zapientus (talk·contribs), who has now edited Epictrex's draft article twice, is Epictrex (talk·contribs) socking again? A new user, their very first edit was to restore Rui Beech (talk·contribs)s edits that you reverted. Then a few edits out of character for Epictrex, maybe deliberately to avoid suspicion. And then another to Draft:King’s Beach Complex that is a small nitpicky edit exactly like the majority of Epictrexes edits. Of the articles edited so far, it is the only one they returned to and edited a second time after taking a break for a few hours. I'm a little unsure, but my spidey sense is tingling. Heiro 17:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Heironymous Rowe, can you create a WP:SPI page or contact a checkuser about this? If you create a SPI page, please notify me afterwards. I'd like to know if this is a troll impersonating Epictrex or actually them. If this is Epictrex evading their block, I'll extend it to indefinite duration. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I can later this evening. I was just at my lunch hour, and about to return to work. Heiro 18:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, thank you very much. Take your time; a well-written SPI report with good evidence is worth more than a quickly-written and declined one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, nice to know something was resolved, lol. My other thought on Zapientus, which was partially why I brought it to your talk, is could it be somebody elses sock and trolling you? Because it's just weird that someone would happen onto that draft and make the edits they made, considering. Heiro 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Might wanna switch that over to a sock block. See here. YODADICAE👽 12:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Praxidicae, possibly, but why bother. I have semi-protected the draft now; you may like to reject it if the person is clearly not notable anyway. Combined with the protection, that should hopefully end the annoyance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
See this [134] where GenoV4 actually re-adds a seemingly WP:OR paragraph that has been contested with a source tag for 6 months accusing me of the WP:OR. I deleted the unsourced material since it had been tagged for 6 months and the content is a person named Eisen's opnion and makes it objectionable without source material.
Also, see the untrue statements made about my behavior on my talk page by the same user. I did not add the likely WP:OR and did add a very clear and concise edit summary for my actions. Thankyou for your time. 35.129.1.59 (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't doublecheck the preview and mistook the OR paragraph thinking that it was added by the IP. I made a mistake. GenoV84 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, now I see what has happened. That's a common thing. No worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Message by Midethelinguist
I am not being paid by an employer or anyone to make edits to Wikipedia pages and I sincerely have no relationship whatsoever with the persons involved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midethelinguist (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Midethelinguist, how did you learn about Shankar Goenka, Lourdes Capall and Robert Joseph Aguilar, Jr.? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. Aside the IMDb links, are there any other links to be removed?
I am currently on a project and I stumbled across Shankar Goenka of India, I noticed he doesn't have a Wiki page and decided to do one for her.
For Lourdes Capall and Robert, I just love them. I enjoy listening to Lourdes music and I have seen some of Robert movies (He's an actor).
I got many of the information in that section from his podcasts, youtube links and several website content. I did more research and rewrote the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midethelinguist (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Mhm. Midethelinguist, then please cite all used sources. At the moment, I'm not buying the story. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Will his podcasts website and Youtube videos be accepted if I add them as references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midethelinguist (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
While neither a personal website nor YouTube are helpful for establishing notability (see WP:42 for a simplified explanation of that requirement), having any source would be a very first step for determining where which information comes from, and which information should be kept at all. So as a very first step, please do cite all your used sources, using inline citations. That would at least alleviate my personal main concern of an apparent conflict of interest. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I will review the links again and edit the content
I appreciate your honest review on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midethelinguist (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
An earlier issue of Tech News said that the citoidAPI would handle dates with a month but no days in a new way. This has been reverted for now. There needs to be more discussion of how it affects different wikis first. [140]
Changes later this week
MediaWiki:Pageimages-blacklist will be renamed MediaWiki:Pageimages-denylist. The list can be copied to the new name. It will happen on 19 May for some wikis and 20 May for some wikis. Most wikis don't use it. It lists images that should never be used as thumbnails for articles. [141]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 May. It will be on all wikis from 20 May (calendar).
Hi. Could you please have a look at these two IPs (199.195.150.223 & 41.250.3.222)? The first was reported to WP:AIV, but it doesn't seem like anyone has looked at it. The second is obviously heading the same way. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi M.Bitton, as chance would have it, I was looking at the report for 199.195.150.223 and wondered if their complaints are genuine. The replacement of "Western Sahara" by "Morocco" in Special:Diff/1023538658 gave their intentions away. Thank you very much for the notification, especially about 41.250.3.222. As 199.195.150.223 was used by the same person for almost a week, I'm not entirely sure if the user has switched their address or invited a friend to join the disruption, so I've blocked both for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
One thing is certain, neither of them is here to build an encyclopedia. Many thanks. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, RandomCanadian, for the revert and the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: and ToBeFree: thank you very much for taking care of the spurious report and for dispatching the disruptive editor back to LTA land. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppet of Radmaz123
Hello ToBeFree. The user you've blocked based on my report may have a sock puppet and I've opened an SPI page here. It would be of great help if you look into it when you are free. I'm compelled to notify an admin as the user is making disruptive edits. I hope you don't mind. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey Ab207, thank you very much for creating a SPI page and notifying me about it. That's the ideal way to report sockpuppetry, as it creates a centrally logged investigation, allows SPI clerks and checkusers to have a look and leads to a fast answer. Blocked and tagged, thanks again ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely. Thank you for the swift response! -- Ab207 (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I totally missed this one
Perhaps I was unwell and admitted in a hospital during the time this happened but, if you can, can you tell me what happened here? or in the very least could you link me to the discussion board where the decision to site ban them was made? Thanks. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification TBF. Always a great delight to converse with you. Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, no worries, and the same to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Francisca Luhong James
Hi @ToBeFree, it appears that Francisca's page has been edited with misconduct frequently. Francisca has flagged me that on the search engine her occupation appears to be incorrect. Would you be able to change that please? I am referring to you because it showed you added the confirmed protection and I am unable to access the page to edit. I am new to the wikipedia community so I am unsure how all of that works. She is a dear friend of mine and a big inspiration to our indigenous community. Your help is deeply appreciated. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianJo22 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi AdrianJo22, thank you very much for your report. The text does not appear to come from the English Wikipedia article nor the Wikidata entry (Q98556634), but I found something at https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisca_James that might explain the search result. The page had been vandalized in the past, protected temporarily, and vandalized again when the protection expired. I have blanked the page for now and requested administrative assistance. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Help with Dylwright111
Hi, you recently gave me some advice about where to report different types of disruptive editing. I wanted to ask your advice about the behavior of User:Dylwright111. For a few months they have been making edits to List of severe weather phenomena and Natural hazards, adding inappropriate and poorly formatted entries such as these [142][143][144][145][146]
They were previously doing the same thing as IP editor Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:4CBC:2700::/64. They have ignored warnings on their talk page. Yesterday they moved the page List of severe weather phenomena to the WP namespace WP:List of severe weather phenomena with the comment "Because I want to save it" [147]. I'm guessing they think this is going to stop reversions of their edits. They did something similar last month, when they moved the page List of severe weather phenomena to List of severe weather phenomenon, with the edit summary "Because I need it saved". [148]. I am not very familiar with page moves and have never done a move between namespaces, so I'm not sure (1) how to restore the page in this particular case, and more generally (2) if and where to report this behavior. I don't think it's vandalism, probably justs a serious case of WP:CIR. Thanks for your help. CodeTalker (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey CodeTalker, thanks for asking, and nice to meet you again. In clear cases of a lack of editing competence, my personal favorite approach is to make absolutely sure that they have been asked to stop doing disruptive things, multiple times, on their talk page. A custom message is often helpful to show that you have directly addressed the problem, and really took the time to explain it. If they continue to edit disruptively afterwards, it is relatively simple to justify a block for disruptive editing. I agree that this is unlikely to have been vandalism, but I also agree that it's disruptive enough to justify a block after warnings. WP:ANI is usually a good place to request help in such cases. A short description of the problem, a few diffs: Your report here is perfect and would also have worked at ANI.
Regarding cross-namespace moves, you may like to experiment with these a bit, by creating WP:Sandbox/CodeTalker-temp, moving it to User:CodeTalker/sandbox2, moving it back over the redirect, and again back to your userspace. When you're done, simply place the following text on both pages:
{{db-g7|rationale=Test completed, this page can now be deleted.}}{{ping|ToBeFree}} as requested ~~~~
After a page move, the source page, not the destination page, has a log entry that allows reverting the move by simply clicking "revert". This works across namespaces and is what I did to fix the issue. To open the log easily, you can open the redirect page, click "View history", and then "View logs for this page" at the top left of the history page.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the advice and for handling the move and block. I will experiment with page moves in the sandbox as you suggest. CodeTalker (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, could you please take a look at this edit, where user Ich, Gabriel threatens (in German) to disclose personal data if "I don't stop pursuing him", which I never did. --Morneo06 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Morneo06, thank you very much for the notification. I have blocked the user to prevent them from carrying out their threat in violation of the outing section of the policy about harassment. As a next step, please open the user's talk page, click "Mute this user", select both checkboxes, and repeat the process on the German Wikipedia. Afterwards, please open Special:GlobalPreferences, scroll down to "Allow emails from brand-new users", enable the left checkbox (making the option global, applying to all wikis), then disable the right checkbox (disallowing emails from brand-new users). Afterwards, please consider making "Allow other users to email me" global as well, and disable it for all wikis. You can then open en:Special:Preferences and de:Special:Preferences, and add an exception for the global preference. This prevents cross-wiki harassment.
As you have been threatened in response to perceived harassment, please do not edit Ich, Gabriel's user talk pages again, on any Wikimedia project. Please try to stay away from them; avoid editing the same pages as them. Please consider voluntarily behaving as if you had an interaction ban from this user. This prevents further escalation, and in case of further threats, it makes clear who is harassing whom. It prevents the other user from using tu quoque excuses for their editing.
If there are further threats, on any Wikimedia project, from the same user towards you, please notify me or a local administrator of the affected wiki. If the user publicly acts on their threat, please contact oversighters on wikis with oversighters, or see meta:Oversight_policy#All_Wikimedia_wikis for ways to contact Stewards on wikis without local oversighters.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I've changed my email settings. Morneo06 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Average human height by country
Thanks for your intervention. So WP:ONUS was the policy I was racking my brain to bring to the surface! That could saved me a lot of verbiage earlier! :)))) Cheers. Coldtrack (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Coldtrack, thanks for the report, for having created a discussion on the article's talk page, and for having waited (two months!) before implementing the discussion result. There's nothing else I could request you to do in this situation. WP:DISCFAIL is a nice essay recommending your approach. If the editor evades their block, or resumes edit-warring after the block expires, please notify me and I'll prevent further disruption. Regarding the policy, WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS are wonderful indeed. No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
(I have to mention WP:3RR here, though; reporting early and letting someone resolve the edit war with a block or protection is a better approach than reverting many times) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional policy pages. Thanks also for acknowledging the effort on my part. I've got no excuses for the 3RR breach. Obviously I was not reported for it but my only plea would be that by the fourth edit, I believed myself to be reverting a disruptive IP who had - up to that point - never explained himself. Plus he flip-flopped on his reasoning, once saying that there was no consensus, and on another occasion falsely claiming "vandalism". That it is the MO of a troll. But yes I will be more mindful not to breach it in future just as I've largely avoided it the past five years. Thanks TBF. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, so how do i join the discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickknee (talk • contribs) 02:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nickknee, welcome to the community. As a first step, please have a look at User talk:Nickknee, your own user talk page. It contains messages by many users which had been intended for you, but remained unanswered. It is often a good idea to reply to them, simply on your talk page below their message, before making further edits. Sometimes, a quick "Okay" or "Thank you" suffices; sometimes an explanation or further action is requested. Messages are generally written in English, as this is the English Wikipedia. If someone messages you in a different language, please still respond in English if anyhow possible.
When you have read the messages on your user talk page, you can open the article's talk page by opening the article you'd like to discuss, then clicking the "Talk" tab at the top left directly above the article content. New messages are added to the bottom of the page, and the discussion you're looking for is at the bottom of the article's talk page.
You can click "edit" next to the heading of the discussion you'd like to join. Have a look at how other users have indented their answers with colons, and sign your message by typing ~~~~ at the end.
However, please keep in mind that discussion pages are not forums for personal opinions. Your message(s) should contain arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. If you are unsure about the meaning of a specific policy, the Teahouse is a helpful place for advice.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all the help, i am happy to join the discussion and will, I simply dont have much experience with discussions on talk pages so sorry of i can't reply fast or if i make mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickknee (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries, Nickknee, you're welcome. Take your time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Wikimedia movement has been using IRC on a network called Freenode. There have been changes around who is in control of the network. The Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts have decided to move to the new Libera Chat network instead. This is not a formal decision for the movement to move all channels but most Wikimedia IRC channels will probably leave Freenode. There is a migration guide and ongoing Wikimedia discussions about this.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 May. It will be on all wikis from 27 May (calendar).
Hello ToBeFree, sorry to bother you. Thank you for revoking TPA of 173.179.180.49(talk·contribs·WHOIS). Before I proceed to make further blocks, I just want to ask two questions. Firstly, if an IP hasn't been blocked previously am I allowed to set the block length at something higher than 31 or 36 hrs? For instance, I had originally blocked the above IP for 31 hrs after checking the block log which didn't show any previous record. Secondly, can we directly block accounts with zero edits but repeated abuse filter triggers, without further warnings? (I am talking of accounts which have not violated our username policy) --Ashleyyoursmile! 20:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey Ashleyyoursmile, my belated congratulations! AIV was really understaffed at some times of the day, leading to huge backlogs. Perhaps this has now changed. It has at least already become better!
Regarding the first question, the page Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses (section WP:IPBLENGTH in this case) provides important thoughts about the matter, but in the end, there is no hard limit and the duration is at your discretion. There was no shortcut to the relevant policy section yet, so I have now created "WP:BLOCKDURATION": That's the authoritative policy section. I personally find that a noticeable amount of unregistered vandals or disruptive editors does return after short blocks,[149][150][151][152][153] and I personally use week-long blocks (or 72 hours at least) if the risk of collateral damage is low. I think the risk of collateral damage is low if, during Wikipedia's 20 years of existence, noone has ever used the IPv4 address for anything else than vandalism. Or if it's an IPv6 /64 range of a provider that dynamically assigns them, as the provider's pool of IPv6 /64 ranges is usually much, much larger than their IPv4 address pool. Details about range sizes and their possible implications can be found at mw:Help:Range_blocks and mw:Help:Range_blocks/IPv6.
Regarding the second question, yes, especially accounts (WP:DISRUPTONLY, another new shortcut). Not after one single filter hit, I'd say, but if they repeatedly attempt to circumvent the filter, a block will prevent them from being successful. They have also usually received enough warnings about their behavior, sometimes very specific ones – check which message is displayed by the filter to see what they saw and have ignored. Catching someone in this phase is ideal, as they have completely failed to vandalize Wikipedia, and you have prevented it from happening. On the other hand, blocking an unregistered user many hours after their few short attempts may be a net negative decision.
It's always about weighing up the following two scenarios against each other: a) Constructive edits will happen, b) Destructive edits will happen. And if b) involves BLP vandalism or racism, I have a very strong bias towards assuming b). Not only because BLP violations have to be expected, but also because someone who engages in this behavior is extremely unlikely to be able to provide neutral, verifiable contributions to Wikipedia within the next weeks. In case of schools and companies: Typography fixes by friendly students on the same network would not outweigh the BLP violations of a single malicious user: {{anonblock}} / {{school block}}, based on Whois data.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking time to answer my questions. :) I will continue working based on your responses and use the tools carefully. Ashleyyoursmile! 07:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure about that block. The edits that tripped the filter, at least, checkout. They're certainly not the LTA. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Suffusion of Yellow, I agree, hence it's a short block – for doing unsourced mass addition of content to BLPs from a mobile device that, per the table nicely compiled by you at WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, may not be reachable in any other way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Well for registered mobile users I think it's worth trying the talk page first. They might ignore the red "1", but then, they might not. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, yes. As the edits turned out to be verifiable, the block was implemented too early; I just saw them actively adding the same content again and again to multiple biographies and thought a short "Stop please, read this first" would be the best way to reach them. I have now unblocked the account and replaced the block message by {{Welcome-unsourced}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. If you are going to use an "attention-getting" block for a mobile editor who seems unaware of their talk page, you should probably link to Special:MyTalk in the block reason; they don't see the built-in link at MediaWiki:Blockedtext. But now I wonder if we can fix that from our end... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
In this specific case I just wanted them to click the link to WP:INTREF... But yeah. I usually link to the user's talk page when blocking for "persistently, disruptively ignoring community concerns voiced at User talk:Example", and I set up the notification template to refer to "this page here" instead. In some cases, perhaps it's not just a technical issue. Some users completely refuse to communicate.
I shouldn't let these bad experiences affect my block decisions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
(Blinking:) "MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-editor-blocked-drawer-body-login-createaccount". Wow. Okay, good to know. I guess it would just be a workaround anyway; they should fix their app instead. User talk pages are an universally relevant feature not limited to Wikimedia projects. Thank you very much, both for the initial notification and the general work behind the scenes on this extremely tedious issue. If I may make a bet: We'll have a look again in one year, and the table will not be entirely green. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Per Special:AllMessages, we also have a system message with the easy-to-memorize shortcut "MediaWiki:Growthexperiments-help-panel-suggestededits-tips-vector-visualeditor-link-recommendation-header-rules1". To make the confusion perfect, this "rules" message contains the text "Guidelines". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your wishes!! JaMongKut (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC).
Luckystar
Hi User:ToBeFree I wanted to ask why this user User:Luckstar23 is not blocked indefinitely. The user who was blocked because of the images in Devoleena Bhattacharjee is now doing the same edits repeatedly in Divyanka Tripathi & Sargun Mehta removing images for no reason when they are fine as the current ones have no problem. Please block him permanently. Roshnikaur123 (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, while it's an honor to be asked for an evaluation of BLP edits, it would be inappropriate of me to endorse a specific revision of a controversial article I lack background information about. All I can see is that someone is now (again) described with an extremely negative term, and that a single citation – the generally reliable Times – seems to directly support the term usage. The second citation doesn't directly do so. The lead section also uses a "Patriotic Alternative" statement as a reference. Which, in this very specific case, may be sufficient to support the claim, but perhaps an independent source can be found.
I have always avoided editing such articles and would prefer to continue avoiding them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
You might want to check to see if "Starbuster89" is socking for "Saxon celt". –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Skywatcher68, I can see where the concern comes from, but the evidence doesn't yet look strong enough for a purely behavioral block. If you'd like someone to have a look at the technical details, do feel free to create an investigation at WP:SPI. Or in general, if that suspicion gets additional evidence, SPI is a good place to provide it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I've reported suspected sockmasters and their puppets at SPI before but I think procedures have changed since then. I'm Autism spectrum and SPI looks too complicated for me now. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, Skywatcher68, no worries: I can definitely understand that SPI is one of the most complicated reporting venues, comparable to AN3. But you may like to try using Twinkle's SPI report feature! Open the user's contribution list, TW -> ARV -> Sockpuppeteer. :) Please let me know if that is an option. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I'll try that if I notice more shared interests. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I was blocked from editing because of an edit that was said to have been made in 2019 on an article about a person I have never heard of. Frankly, I don't care that I was blocked, as I never edit wikipedia anyway. I would however, like to state that this event was rather humorous and leave you with the phrase, "Wikipedia, fix your bot" 107.77.232.13 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC).
The IP doesn't appear to be currently blocked, I have removed the template and given them a helpful little message. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Tobias, unless things have changed in the past 12 months or so, pings don't work for IPs (was one for a while so can confirm from personal experience). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. It probably hasn't changed and the archives will show I'm usually aware of this. That was a combination of "I'm used to {{u}}" and "I address IP editors by their IP address". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Block-evader on mobile
Hello. Back in October, you blocked the IP 216.66.16.234, who was adding false information to Conan articles. He's now back as Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B12D:CB96:D006:34D6:4F3B:63C0. Could you block him again, or should I create a post on AIV/ANI/someplace else? The original block is still active, so block evasion is a valid reason. Also, since it's an IP6 address, a /64 rangeblock would probably be best (at least as far as I understand it).LordKulgur (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi LordKulgur, Thank you very much for noticing and reporting this. I have reset the duration of the IPv4 block and created the proposed IPv6 rangeblock with the same duration. Please keep me updated: If the user continues to evade their block, we may have to consider page protection or further blocks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
There was an issue on the Vector skin with the text size of categories and notices under the page title. It was fixed last Monday. [154]
Here's proof that Prokupecz worked at WNBC: here it is. I used that source in WABC-TV once (where Prokupecz also worked, and the source also says he worked at), but someone removed it for some reason. The source is used at Shimon Prokupecz to back up his working at both stations. So does that fit the burden or what?Crboyer (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
And also, check out Talk:WNBC for a message from what is clearly the same user (last one down). One that admits that Prokupecz did work at WNBC, but they still want him removed from the alumni section. And this user's socks have been blocked multiple times for edit warring at WNBC, WABC-TV and Shimon Prokupecz. I'll pull some examples up if prompted.Crboyer (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Crboyer, ah, thanks. Do feel free to restore the content with the inline citation. The problem was that the restored content lacked such an inline citation, and restoring it instead of reverting would have made the situation much easier. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the previous blocks, if there is at least one active block still in place for one of their previous IP addresses, I'll of course block them for block evasion, but I'll need a link to the contribution list of the still-blocked address for that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
How about This Rangeblock for a start. This IP was the first one that started edit warring on Shimon Prokupecz when it was created. Removing Prokupecz's name from WABC-TV and WNBC, along with blatant BLPviolations. In regards to two not blocked IPs, exhibit A and b, the user ordered people not to undo their edits (blatantly violating the WP:OWN policy). Plus a blatant threat I pulled from the filter log of 2600:1017:b814:aa12:889c:60fb:510d:dafd, and another still present. Crboyer (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
And a second blocked IP here. This one removed talk page messages from Talk:WNBC and Talk:WABC-TV demanding Prokupecz be removed from the alumni section (while admitting he worked there), along with my reply (bluntly stating no), but much of their time was devoted to misgendering Amy Freeze. That it's another New Jersey IP and similar to a few other anti-Prokupecz IPs clearly point to the same user. Crboyer (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
In short, I have no reason to believe this is a minor content dispute. I have strong reason to suspect this IP-hopper is actively crusading against Prokupecz. Why? I don't know.Crboyer (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the detailed list. The IP address is blocked now, and the revisions are gone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Supernotgood is back
Hi TBF. I hope this finds you well. You blocked User:Supernotgood two days ago for the continuous addition of unsourced information and they clearly have just created another account without even trying to disguise this. User:Supernotgood2 is making identical edits. Could I trouble you to cast an eye please. I'm happy to take this to SPI if you prefer. Robvanvee 13:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Not to worry, Girth Summit beat you to it 😉 Robvanvee 13:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Robvanvee, yeah, spotted your post here on my watchlist, thought I'd save TBF a couple of clicks. GirthSummit (blether) 13:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks GS. Great work! Robvanvee 13:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Robvanvee and Girth Summit. I usually prefer SPI for exactly this reason: Someone else can deal with it while I'm working. I do appreciate notifications about SPI pages, though, and I resolve the cases if I can! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
SPI is super-backlogged at the moment ("When isn't it?" I hear you ask...); I agree that an SPI report is usually the best route, I was happy to be able to put a stop to this without the extra paperwork. If they come back again with Supernotgood3, I guess an SPI paper trail will have to be established... GirthSummit (blether) 19:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I hear you (both) and will pursue that route in the future so apologies for any inconvenience. But yes, that backlog... Robvanvee 20:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
There was no inconvenience, no worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey Qwerfjkl, thank you very much for dealing with them in the meantime, and for the reports at AIV! I hope your request for rollback is successful. I guess I'd grant it, but it would look a bit strange if I did so in response to a barnstar. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Revdel request
Hey ToBeFree, thanks for blocking Sroney123 a moment ago. In order to rid my talkpage of any transphobia (or signs thereof), do you mind RevDelling Special:Permalink/1026182951? I prefer RevDel over suppression in this case since it'll show how a transphobic edit was attempted to be made. Thanks! Casspedia (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Casspedia, you're welcome, thank you very much for the report. I wouldn't object to deletion of the revision, but it's an edge case and I'd prefer not to be the administrator hiding the evidence that led to the block. For this reason, I have forwarded your request to #wikipedia-en-revdel on libera.chat with an !admin ping about 6 hours ago, but no action seems to have been taken so far. While the message is understandably ugly, we may have to accept that this edit, like many other reverted edits, has happened in the past and is thus part of the revision history. I hope that's an appropriate reaction; please let me know if this is unacceptable to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
It's undeniably ugly, but I guess for the sake of transparency (for the associated block), it should be fine to keep. Attempting to directly confront a user in a bid to promote hate and get mad about a {{Uw-vandalism}} warning is, well, an inarguably egregious offense. Casspedia (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
One person using two accounts and disrupting Wikipedia
Hi User:ToBeFree I wanted to tell you that there is one person who is using two accounts at the same time doing the same to same similar edits User:Cactinites and User:Zekewoks look at these first as they are only editing mainl Bigg Boss 13 & 14 contestants and adding this [155] and Zake here [156] also in Bigg boss look [157][158] also adding blue links to India in many actors [159][160] also they are doing a lot of disruption on Wikipedia so please block them as it’s not allowed. Please do something and block both. If you need more proof look in both accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.138.152 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi 165.120.138.152, please click the "show" link in the green box at WP:SPI labeled "If you are an anonymous (IP address) editor", then enter one of the usernames in the appearing text box, and click "Create". Afterwards, please fill the form that opens, to create an SPI page. Feel free to notify me after creating an investigation. Thank you very much in advance and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi RandomCanadian, thanks for noticing and reporting this. Could you create an SPI? We may need checkuser assistance as the result could be a block of a presently only topic-banned account, and I don't want to do this without technical evidence in this specific case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again, RandomCanadian. I'm relieved to see that my interpretation of Empiricus-sextus's behavior above ("would probably appeal [the topic ban] at least once before even thinking about evading it") has not been disproved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Grievances and questions
In accordance with WP:ADMINABUSE, I would like to put my grievances to you about some of your decisions and to ask you a few questions.
My main grievances are in your unequal enforcement of WP:PAGs in the topic area of COVID-19 origins. Topic banning that German guy ES for what was essentially just poor English was bad form on your part. Your reasons based on policy were not sound as per my feedback [161], and besides for it being unjust towards ES, it hangs as a dark cloud for other editors trying to contribute positively in the topic area. There has been a huge amount of progress in the topic area, answering many of the NPOV concerns that editors have expressed for a long time, vindicating ES. If you are not going to respond to my feedback on ES, I would like to hear what DGG thinks of that tban. Maybe Barkeep49 can look at this too, since this is inevitably headed to ArbCom.
For my first question: were you contacted off-wiki by about Gimiv posting that list on my and Jtbobwaysf’s talk page before you banned them? You sure got there super fast and I am aware that certain members of the NOLABLEAK cabal are active offwiki.
Second question: is your level of confidence in your tban of Empiricus-sextus and the subsequent BE ban of Gimiv really so high to justify your and Hut 8.5’s decision not to share the list of sources? [162]
Third question: do you believe RC that every new user who signs up to complain about the WP:NPOV issues with our coverage of COVID-19 origins is a sock or meat? [163]Tinybubi (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tinybubi when things seem like they are "invariably headed to ArbCom" I tend to not comment. During cases concerns about being involved than can then be raised even if my participation doesn't match WP:INVOLVED. So I'm going to sit this conversation out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tinybubi, the topic ban of Empiricus-sextus needs to be re-considered when the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins. (current permanent link) has been closed, as my understanding that MEDRS applies to claims about the origin of the pandemic does not seem to have the clear community consensus that I expected it to have. I'm waiting for the closure of that RfC before looking into this, though, as this is an ongoing community decision with potentially severe implications.
Regarding #1: No, there was no off-wiki contact, and I avoid taking intransparent action based on off-wiki reports. I have explicitly announced this principle during my RfA (Q8 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ToBeFree) with WP:BLOCKREQUESTS in mind and adhere to it. See User_talk:ToBeFree/A/3#User:FDW777 for a recent example of me rejecting an attempt to avoid transparency. There was no conspiracy behind the scenes: Gimiv has publicly triggered Special:Diff/1023501256, an automated AIV notification about their user talk page spam. The block didn't happen immediately; it took me a while to clear the noticeboard and to notice the report near the end of my session: [164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176]
There is also no off-wiki evidence involved in the Gimiv block either; this was a behavioral concern with WP:SPI/AI#Non-CheckUser_cases (the "duck test") in mind. I wouldn't have acted on off-wiki evidence even if I had privately received such evidence, per my (potentially overly) strict interpretation of WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. The ArbCom block of Billybostickson themselves, however, is the result of an e-mail forwarded by me to ArbCom because I refused to deal with off-wiki accusations myself. All I saw of ArbCom's discussion process about this matter are the following two public actions: A request for contact and the block.
Regarding #2: I had included Empiricus-sextus's username in the block summary because Empiricus-sextus was one of the two banned editors that came into my mind when wondering "Cui bono?". I personally find it much more likely that Billybostickson is behind this, as Empiricus-sextus has demonstrated a calm, reasonable response to the ban and would probably appeal it at least once before even thinking about evading it. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Empiricus-sextus at all when blocking Gimiv.
Regarding #3: That's a bit of a straw man question, as noone has ever stated that "every new user who signs up to complain about the WP:NPOV issues with our coverage of COVID-19 origins is a sock or meat". There may have been a considerable amount of off-wiki canvassing, and if a blocked or banned user has invited others to join the discussion on their behalf, that would be a case of meatpuppetry. To me personally, in this heated debate that involves a high-profile deletion discussion, an ArbCom block and the community-authorized semi-protection of a talk page, it is likely that meatpuppets appear on the scenes all the time. Regarding the specific linked situation, assuming that RC refers to RandomCanadian, the concern has been described as follows: "The article creator has an undisclosed COI (per information which I will shortly provide to ArbCom) - redirect to the relevant page" (currently Special:Diff/1025159317 of Drastic Team, which replaced the article content by a redirect to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab leak story). If I correctly understand your question and the situation, your question does not properly summarize what has actually happened.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
There does seem to be another interesting point here: from what you say, ToBeFree, you have a POV on the subject at issue, ("does not seem to have the clear community consensus that I expected it to have"); I have not looked at the details of the block or the history of the article, but I hope you have not been using admin powers in that subject area. WP:INVOLVED is the relevant policy. This isn't a warning, just a friendly reminder. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
DGG has participated in the RfC, as have I, so I'm just going to give my two cents that all available guidelines on reliable sources, including the preference of scholarship in relevant fields (WP:SCHOLARSHIP), particularly when having to deal with controversial claims (WP:FRINGE), and the preference for secondary sources, lead us to use MEDRS or similar (SCIRS) anyways. As for that list of sources posted by Gimiv, without having seen it, I'm quite sure it likely is the same as that pushed by other sock/meatpuppets on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, and suffers from already identified problems (why that page hasn't been redirected to the same page as the main redirect escapes me). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Medical subjecta often have social or political aspects, which need RS , but not MEDRS quality sources. This particualr pandemic is a extraordinarily clear example of that. The controversy overmany aspects of it, including the origin, became a political one to degreet hat even surpasses the strictly medical aspects. We all know why--in the US, the entanglement with partisan politics; in the world more generally, with nationalism and xenophobia and, currently, economic imperialism. If it were just the dispassionate epidemiological search conducted by scientists to find the exact origins, the situation would be much more straightforward and medical. But the attempts to find the origins and assign responsibility is political. And in general I am indeed of the opinion that a great many questions in medicine have social and economic aspects, that can both in acurrent basis and historically most of the world be mores ignificant that the actual science. To the extent such factors promote and hinder proper medical approaches, the public discussion becomes much more general, and its that we have to cover also. (I recognize that medical sources nowadays often do cover such aspects, but to a certain extent it can be argued that they tend to support their own view of a question which has wider implications. Scientists and physicians do have a bias, and although I largely share i, we have to admit that unfortunately the rest of the world does not regard our views as definitive. In the real world the social/political/economic implications can be even more important. These factors have to be discussed on their own basis. Scientific and medical and environmental policy is not primarily made by scientists. That we may wish it were doesn't change the actual situation. WP covers the whole world, not just the science. And to the extent that we're scientists, and want to promote science, I think we needto recognize that what the politicians and the public think of us and our opinions is something that must be dealt with. If we define the Wikipedia rules to ignore it, the anti-scientific forces will succeed in their goals. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The "problem", as I see it, is that there are two, different, but related, topics. One (A) is a purely scientific one: the origin of a virus, for which we are bound by our best sources (which, either way, also happen to be pretty much the same as MEDRS, whether the requirement is explicit or not - scientists with relevant expertise publishing secondary, review papers in quality journals: [177]). The other (B) is a mostly political question, which has received support from scientists: calls for further investigations (from politicians, from scientists wanting more thorough investigations into biosafety, into the virus' links with wild animals (zoonotic origin), ...). Both of these are different questions, which require different sources and different approaches on many aspects. Which brings me back to the "problem", which is that some (ignoring of course all dubious meatpuppets and the like, which transparently engage in original research and arguments which I can at best compare with those listed at WP:FLAT) conflate A and B together, and then we have a hard time covering both the science and the politics accurately... Which already isn't made any easier by these two being on rather opposed ends of the spectrum as far as the topic in dispute is concerned. The most comprehensive article on the matter, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, strikes a balanced approach, covering both aspects in separate sections, although there is of course some minor, inevitable overlap between the two. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I think they could indeed be separated into different articles, but each article would still be a mix of science and politics. The biological investigation into the actual nature of the epidemic has been affected by politics; the political questions that have been raised will be in large part clarified by the eventual science. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree, thanks for responding but I do wish you would have responded more seriously in the ANI [178] and user talk page [179], given the gravity of the situation. I see that Jimbo Wales has now weighed in on this as well [180].
The reasons these editors give vary, but the most compelling reason by far is the one presented by Rich, making it clear that this policy has been abused. Like Alexander, who I am pinging here; I believe that the MEDRS policy is often subject to abuse, and I would say that there is probably no greater example of that than the disruption that the WP:NOLABLEAK cabal have succeeded in causing over the past year or so. The rift that they created in the community and the administrative actions they have influenced is a saga that will almost surely be covered in RSs and featured in Criticism of Wikipedia, and it is incumbent on good administrators like to assure it stops here and now. The votes in the RFC are so unanimous that it could be snow closed, so I ask you to consider lifting the topic ban on ES already now, and also reverse the sanctions wrongfully placed on other involved editors such as Normchou, ScrupulousScribe and Feynstein.
I would like to respond to you further privately. Please can you email me or provide your email address here?
Tiny's comment above is so out of order (not only for the partisan pinging and the baseless accusations) that I'm left speechless, and if anything again shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues which I point at... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tobias You'll excuse me for removing a personal attack aimed at me, that was egregious... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tinybubi: I'm not sure what's going on here but concerning WP:MEDRS I can only say that there is a long history and evidence demonstrating that application of the said guideline is questionable. It's often misinterpreted in a way prohibiting other policies, which cannot be the case because guideline doesn't overrule the latter. To say nothing of the fact that important rules such as WP:RSCONTEXT are ignored. I personally would like to see that 'WP:MEDANIMAL' provision is amended or dropped at all. I once was trying to contribute to Malassezia but was overwhelmed by canvassing of MEDRS folks.... (I made ANI complain by eventually dropped it). AXONOV(talk)⚑ 22:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Great to see this thread, Tinybubi. Personally, I think the abuse of MEDRS by the NOLABLEAK cabal is mostly a means, not an end in itself. A major underlying issue, IMHO, is an "economic" one. This may be a special case of WP:COI editing, though I am not sure if/how our community policies and procedures are equipped to handle it. Normchou💬 00:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The current lack of an "email this user" link is caused by a "Prohibit these users from emailing me" entry that is meant to ensure transparency in a case that is "inevitably headed to ArbCom" with accusations of off-wiki cabal-forming.
I can only easily take back sanctions that I have unilaterally imposed. I lack details about the cases of Normchou, ScrupulousScribe and Feynstein, and I'd like to avoid dealing with them at the moment. I guess that any concerns about these editors' sanctions, if they're sanctioned at all, should be voiced on the sanctioning administrator's talk page or WP:AN, or both – but not here on my talk page.
@Tinybubi:... have challenged MEDRS's application on the topic of COVID-19 origins ... I have to correct you: I haven't ever challenged MEDRS in relation to COVID-19 origins. I prefer to stay away from this kind of politicized topics for now. AXONOV(talk)⚑ 09:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Alea iacta est
Given that an absolutely egregious post on your talk page (by another editor) is what finally proved to be the last straw, and your previous involvement in this, it is only natural that I would inform you that, sadly, there is now an ArbCom case request. Mit freundlichem Grüsse, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi RandomCanadian, you owe me something for the lost sleep. More so if this is declined, less so if it leads to any helpful ArbCom action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry. It's just I can't take it anymore; the harassment, the aspersions and the general disruption are really annoying and distracting - I'm not able to concentrate on other areas because there's always some new ridiculous claim, often directed at me personally... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Ping Deepfriedokra, thank you very much for taking action against an edit war there. Would you mind restoring the GS action? ;) Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The vandalized text is malicious on purpose and should not be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.175.37 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi 84.251.175.37, thank you very much for the notification. I think the text was added with the genuine intent of increasing the coverage of the encyclopedia, and it is thus not vandalism – but keeping the broken half-reverted sentence in the article wasn't a good choice either, sorry. I have no opinion about the topic and would prefer to keep my edits in the area as neutral as anyhow possible. The broken sentence is gone now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Hello again. On May 20 you indef blocked User:Dylwright111 for persistently adding disruptive content to List of severe weather phenomena and Natural hazards, with lack of communication. This user has apparently returned as a couple of IPs, with 84.66.184.104 and 85.255.236.245 making the same low-quality edits. I, Chompy Ace and even ClueBot have been reverting these edits but the editor has been continuing to make the edits nearly every day. They've also disrupted the talk page with inappropriate content. Do you think these IPs should be blocked per WP:EVASION, or should I go to WP:RFPP to protect the article(s), since the user has used more than one IP, and others might be used in the future? Thanks, CodeTalker (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey CodeTalker, thank you very much for the notification! To answer your question, hm, in this specific case, a combination of blocks and protections might help. Three months will hopefully be sufficient to discourage them from continuing to do this.
Would you be interested in trying Huggle? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for handling this! I took a look at Huggle and it seems like it would be useful, although it appears that I would need rollback rights to use it. Are you proposing to grant rollback to me? That would be fine with me. CodeTalker (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Yup
Huggle does it automatically, but when reverting using Twinkle, please always make sure to warn the reverted users on their talk pages. You have already done so correctly many times, but the latest reverts seem to have been done without warnings, making it harder for others to build upon your work: Perhaps sometimes an already-needed notification at WP:AIV can't be done, or is declined, because there had not been enough warnings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I will be more conscientious about leaving warnings. Lately I've started to feel it was a waste of time to warn an IP editor who has made only a single vandalistic edit, under the assumption that they'd probably never edit again nor see the warning, but I understand the point about leaving documentation in case they do continue and it goes to AIV. One point I have a question about -- say an editor makes several vandalistic edits in one day, and I revert one and then see that another editor has already reverted another edit by the same vandal and left them a warning earlier on the same day. Should I leave a second warning on the same day? CodeTalker (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy about every new competent user behind the Huggle buttons. No worries, and thanks for agreeing to warn them even if it first seems to be a waste of time.
If a user has already received a warning after a specific edit happened, then warning them again is relatively pointless. However, if the warning was sent before they have submitted further problematic contributions, then a second, or third, or final warning would be very helpful. Or a report (WP:AIV/WP:ANEW/WP:ANI), if you feel that further warnings are pointless, for example because a final warning was ignored.
When dealing with IP addresses, it is important to keep in mind that the user behind the address may not be the same person who had been warned before. It may be appropriate to send a level-1 warning if the last warning (any level) is older than a few days, unless the editing behavior makes clear that they're still the same person. In particularly disruptive shared-IP cases, {{anonblock}} or {{school block}} will be used, so a report after many warnings can help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 June. It will be on all wikis from 10 June (calendar).
Future changes
The Wikimedia movement uses Phabricator for technical tasks. This is where we collect technical suggestions, bugs and what developers are working on. The company behind Phabricator will stop working on it. This will not change anything for the Wikimedia movement now. It could lead to changes in the future. [195][196][197]
Searching on Wikipedia will find more results in some languages. This is mainly true for when those who search do not use the correct diacritics because they are not seen as necessary in that language. For example searching for Bedusz doesn't find Będusz on German Wikipedia. The character ę isn't used in German so many would write e instead. This will work better in the future in some languages. [198]
The CSRF token parameters in the action API were changed in 2014. The old parameters from before 2014 will stop working soon. This can affect bots, gadgets and user scripts that still use the old parameters. [199][200]
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Hi again. I don't want to get any more involved in Edi Rama than I already am but seems to me that an anonymous editor is looking for excuses to keep a certain controversial decision out of that article. First the source was a dead link, now it's "propaganda". –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, was there a talk page discussion about this? Because else, I'd say that WP:ONUS applies, and perhaps even WP:3RRNO#7 (exempting the removal of BLP violations). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't see anything about this on the talk page. In fact, the range that IP is in seems to not have edited the talk page at all. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The question was slightly rhetorical – neither Jingiby nor S0091 nor HurricaneEdgar nor you have taken the time to formally gain consensus for re-adding the material. Of course, there's not always a need for a formal discussion on the talk page, but when there is a reasonable disagreement about the verifiability of BLP content, reverting instead of discussing can be problematic. At very least edit summaries like "Discuss the issue on talk.", "WP:BRD", or the complete lack of a summary when reverting, are inappropriate. @Jingiby, S0091, HurricaneEdgar, and Skywatcher68: If you're not interested in discussing the material on the article's talk page, that's fine, but you shouldn't revert then either. Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on you, not the IP editor, to start a discussion about this if you disagree. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Same old trouble...
Hello ToBeFree. Sorry to bother you with the same old story: Average human height by country. I am actually one of two editors to have removed it and the same anonymous editor has gone full metal jacket again constantly restoring it. Curiously, although there was no agreement, I am still to date the last person to post at the talk, so the individual proselytising for its inclusion has not replied or made new representations for it. Any chance you can temporarily protect once more? Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh my. Thank you for the notification, Coldtrack. Let's see if three months of semi-protection can make this manageable somehow. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Good call 🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂!!! That will induce discussion. Well, either/or! :) Coldtrack (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Please keep me updated, though... Autoconfirmation is cheap and people seem to have strong feelings about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Will do. But abuse of privileges has its consequences and the protection can rise incrementally as a ten-edits-in-four-days troll may soon discover! Cheers! --Coldtrack (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Logged-in users on the mobile web can choose to use the advanced mobile mode. They now see categories in a similar way as users on desktop do. This means that some gadgets that have just been for desktop users could work for users of the mobile site too. If your wiki has such gadgets you could decide to turn them on for the mobile site too. Some gadgets probably need to be fixed to look good on mobile. [201]
German Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage and 29 smaller wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on 22 June. This is planned between 5:00 and 5:30 UTC. [203]
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes in the week of 28 June. More information will be published in Tech News later. It will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [204][205]
The winners in Kentucky Teen USA, hometown of 1992, 1993, and 1994 is Paducah, Ky.
Thank you. Debbrah Hooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:51C8:6858:FCAB:9E13:DD96:AE0E (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi 2001:5B0:51C8:6858:FCAB:9E13:DD96:AE0E, please click the following link to submit an edit request.
If you would like to add something, a reliable citation that directly supports the proposed addition is required for your request. If you would like to remove something, please clearly state which text should be removed. Thank you very much in advance and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This user you blocked recently is right back to the previous pattern of disruptive editing; see diff (inappropriate warning), diff (inappropriate warning), diff (inappropriate warning). The thinking seems to be if a new user makes a mistake, they should be chastised; if they make multiple, they should be blocked. Helping, assuming good faith, and all those things go right out the window. 79.71.47.30 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi 79.71.47.30,
Thank you very much for the notification. My primary concern when looking at these diffs is about the Mariam Kamara article and Drill it's re-instatement of challenged information, followed by a vandalism warning towards the correcting, almost-properly-disclosing editor.
I have now removed the challenged content, notified the article creator about NeoMaditla's concerns, answered the thread at WP:COIN and warned Drill it about their approach. Please keep me updated: If similar problems persist, a topic ban from editing biographical articles or an indefinite block from editing may be necessary – the former to limit the learning process to less problematic areas, the latter to enforce a proper discussion about these concerns before further editing happens.
Thanks again and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I've been watching you go through all these actions and I gotta say I'm impressed by your patience and thoroughness. :) 79.71.47.30 (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind feedback. You're welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Message by JoycesUllysses
Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I have tried my best to be civil and posted a request to look into this matter before too. It's strange how I am the one who has been turned into a bad guy here. Have you reviewed my actual complaint? What I was talking about and how they responded to me in a very patronizing manner too (They criticized my description of edits but their description for 'fixing back' and that too without any sources is ironically even more unprofessional)? I even provided sources but no one paid attention to them too. Thank you for reviewing my complaint anyway. JoycesUllysses (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
In your first message to Sumanuil, you started with: "I am amazed because of how entitled you are", and continued with "I am not angry but sad because of how Wikipedia is a joke now".[206] If you have tried your best to be civil, you have not been successful.
When the message was – understandably – removed without comment, you reinstated it with the following attack: "Why are you deleting my question? Fix it like you said you will smartass."[207]
A more productive approach would be:
Creating a discussion on the talk page of the article itself (not a WikiProject page, not a specific user's talk page)
Limiting this discussion purely to article content, not user conduct, even if someone else has been unkind before
Kindly inviting the other participants of the dispute to the talk page discussion, using a friendly, neutral notification on their user talk page.
Attempting to find a consensus together, if necessary by inviting a neutral (!) third opinion using the formal process described at WP:3O, or filing a dispute resolution request at the dispute resolution noticeboard.
If you believe that you are dealing with someone who is unwilling to discuss the matter properly, the essay WP:DISCFAIL contains advice. This advice specifically tries to prevent the approach you have tried (and expectably failed) with.
If you would like to request administrative assistance, please do so with clean hands, after content-related discussion steps have been genuinely exhausted.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
They broke a reference URL and two images. I reverted it. What exactly needs to be discussed? - Sumanuil (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
No worries and good to hear my redirect is appreciated. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions 23:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Mariam Kamara question
Hi, you left a message on my talk page but I am uncertain what it means or what I am supposed to do. Can you direct me? Here's what you said:
"Hi AMM Pittsburgh, thank you very much for creating the article about Mariam Kamara. An editor claiming to have a close connection to the described person has voiced verifiability/accuracy concerns in their latest edit summaries in the page's history. Please take a moment to review them, to correct possible issues, and to remove unverifiable information. Thank you very much in advance and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)"
I've looked on the Kamara's talk page and I see nothing untoward. What should I look for?
AMM Pittsburgh (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The page's history can be found at Special:PageHistory/Mariam Kamara. Please take the time to review these concerns, by clicking "prev" at the left of each of NeoMaditla's contributions in the history. Afterwards, if possible, please tell me your opinion about these concerns. If they are correct, it would be important for us both to know what can be done better next time. Similar problems may then exist in other articles created by you, which would be problematic because these are automatically patrolled (as requested) and pushed to search engines like Google without further review.
Thank you very much in advance and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi
I've reviewed the comments. When I wrote the page and published it June 8, I cited very good sources that I found and one said Kamara's birthplace was Naimey. Apparently that source was incorrect. When I went on vacation, returning just now, none of these messages were on this page. At the time of publication, June 8, I felt I had done a good job of sourcing the subject. Given these concerns and the inappropriate edits made by a member of Kamara's firm, shame on her, I suggest deleting the page.
Please feel free to audit my other work. I take great pride in finding and using sources appropriately. Any suggestions you or anyone else might have are welcome.
This is a shame because I was trying to improve the presence of African women on Wikipedia. I won't do that again. Let me know your thoughts. AMM Pittsburgh (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
AMM Pittsburgh, thank you very much for the detailed analysis and response.
NeoMaditla's contributions seem fine to me – someone is attempting to correct a factual error. Am I overlooking something?
As Wikipedia just summarizes the content of its sources, accidentally citing an error because it was clearly "verifiable" using a reliable source is not an editorial mistake by itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Drill it, again
See newcomer's page history here, diff (edit to lead section to match cited content in a section further down) described as unconstructive here, good faith if problematic edit with source described as unconstructive here. Could you dispense a bit more of your wisdom? 92.24.242.202 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi 92.24.242.202, thank you for the notification. Liz has already approached them about the first issue on their talk page, and the current contributions seem to be helpful. I'd like to wait a few days or weeks before having a look again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the quick notification, LordKulgur. I have re-blocked them for a year, but they seem to be looking for new ways to evade their block. Please keep me updated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick action! The Conan stories are on my watchlist and I check it at least once a day, so I'll let you know if the person returns.LordKulgur (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I assume you know I pinged you in a warning to this user, even though the user immediately removed my warning. So many admins - and experienced users - have been trying to get the user to understand how often they are wrong in their counter-vandalism and reports, and, yet, other than your 2-week block last month, no one seems willing to sanction them further. I saw this coming from the beginning, and I think we are delaying the inevitable. The possibility of the user becoming a constructive contributor is very low to non-existent. Perhaps because some think I can be overly harsh, I have refrained from indeffing them as a combination of NOTHERE, incompetent, and IDHT. Your views?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't talk to me again. I'm sick of you micromanaging every single thing I'm doing. Drill it (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, thank you very much for warning them, and for the ping. I had also clicked "thank" next to the edit in the history after it was removed, to indicate my awareness and thankfulness. However, while I'm having a close look at the situation and I was close to re-blocking them for edit warring and sending vandalism warnings in response to talk page messages, there does seem to be a learning process. I have a few ideas in mind to respond to multiple different kinds of possible future disruption, and I think I'm having the situation under control for the moment. If you look again in two weeks, they're either blocked or have improved their accuracy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll leave you to it. I have my Thanks notifications turned off, so I didn't get it. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
unprotection request
Does Wikipedia:Sandbox/T279276 still need PCR to show the bug? It's marked as resolved on phabricator, but i'm fairly incompetent at technical matters and I have no clue if it's fixed or not. Thanks! (I am trying to find articles that no longer have preventative PCRs is all) Sennecaster (What now?) 22:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sennecaster, thanks for asking! I think it's resolved, but I have now asked for feedback at phab:T279761 to see if it's really done.
Bumping thread. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
ToBefree, i request this article to be temporary semi-protected because there are persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content regarding his successor as President of Iran. 182.1.21.26 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi 182.1.21.26, the protection of that article was already requested at WP:RFPP and has now been implemented by MelanieN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The otrs-member group name is now vrt-permissions. This could affect abuse filters. [208]
Problems
You will be able to read but not edit German Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage and 29 smaller wikis for a few minutes on 22 June. This is planned between 5:00 and 5:30 UTC. [209]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 June. It will be on all wikis from 24 June (calendar).
Re Special:Diff/1030091783: I had been under the impression that U2 applied to IP userpages created by other users, but apparently that's incorrect. My apologies. Okay if I go ahead and remove the bit that they copied from WJB's userpage, though? As a fairly famous retirement statement, it borders on impersonation.-- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
No worries, even the deleting administrator got that wrong. Can't have been too bad. Regarding the page content, as the history still allows others to see what you had referred to at User talk:Shiner1037, feel free to remove the strangely copied statement. If attribution is a concern, I hope to have resolved that by properly attributing the copy in the history now too.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)
Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.
The key results were:
Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.
These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.
Looking ahead
The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
Hi! You removed my report from ANV. Apparently because I added multiple vandalism warnings to the user's talk page. Is that wrong? I'd be happy to remove all but one of the warnings. Could you then re-instate the report on ANV? — Chrisahn (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see you already removed all of my warnings. Did you check the user's edit history? The user had been warned before and keeps adding unsourced and largely incorrect data to pages, and the user never discusses any edits on article talk pages. What else can we do than post warnings and, if that doesn't help, reports on ANV? — Chrisahn (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chrisahn, are you sure this is intentional damage? If I see correctly, the user insists in updating the pages with live numbers from the cited source, which is a genuine (but possibly disruptive) attempt to improve the encyclopedia. They have not yet been asked to stop doing so, and they have not been informed about any policy or guideline that discourages them from doing so. If you have explained your concern to them, and they continue regardless, then please notify me again. They can then be blocked for disruptively ignoring community concerns, or for actively rejecting them in an edit warring manner. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The user never provided new sources but simply changed the numbers. I checked the sources - I didn't find a single edit where the user had actually added correct numbers. Almost all edits by the user are nonsensical. This edit is the only one that's helpful and correct.I just spent almost two hours cleaning up the garbage added by that user in the last five days. It took so long because I actually checked the sources, fixed a few old URLs, and updated some old data. I hope you understand that I'm slightly annoyed with that user and posted a few more warnings than may strictly have been necessary. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I've had another look and can definitely understand the annoyance.
Regarding Economy of India, I think we need a better source. The numbers could have come from the Worldometer live counter, and the Worldometer page is cited as a source, so updating the data didn't require a new link. However, Worldometer is a known unreliable source with a red entry at WP:RSP, so I have removed the disputed parameter entirely for now.
Per their talk page message to Dineshswamiin (diff), the user seems to be aware of the concern voiced in Special:Diff/1030170640 and insists that their additions are verifiable. As this is clearly not the case, I have now added a custom final warning to their talk page (diff). I see now that you did so too: Thank you for having done so.
If the user continues to add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, please let me know and I'll block them from editing, indefinitely, to enforce an unblock request (and thus a proper discussion about the issues) if they would like to continue editing. Alternatively, the ideal noticeboard for reporting persistent good-faith disruption is WP:ANI; please notify me if you create a discussion about the user there.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! We'll see how it goes. And thanks for pointing out that Worldometer isn't a RS. I replaced it by the original UN source cited by Worldometer. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Are you insane
Are you trying to hide the truth from people usman khan kakar is martyred by unkown people and you are trying to prove that he is dead. I love Quetta (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Sir, there is something wrong with Wikipedia access in the Philippines. My account gets blocked at random times and when I fill out the unblock form they assure me I am not blocked. Sometimes it resolves itself but sometimes I have to switch from my Globe SIM to my Smart SIM, or back. This is disruptive to my editing because it reloads the web page and I lose my place. I took some screenshots but I cannot upload them here. Please can you advise? CutePeach (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi CutePeach, which IP addresses are you referring to? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know because each time it is different. Today the block lasted the whole morning and then opened up in the afternoon. I can take screenshots but I don’t know how to upload it here. CutePeach (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
CutePeach, when you try to edit WP:Sandbox, you'll see an error message with a red stop sign. Please copy the entire message to a local text file, then keep the text file until this issue is resolved. Open Special:MyTalk and create an unblock request using the {{unblock}} template; make sure to include a signature and the text {{ping|ToBeFree}} ~~~~. Below the unblock template, paste the entire block message text. Do not omit text that seems to be irrelevant; paste the whole message please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Wikisources have a new OCR tool. If you don't want to see the "extract text" button on Wikisource you can add .ext-wikisource-ExtractTextWidget { display: none; } to your common.css page. [211]
Problems
You will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia wikis for a few minutes on 29 June. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. [212][213]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 June. It will be on all wikis from 1 July (calendar).
Future changes
Threshold for stub link formatting, thumbnail size and auto-number headings can be set in preferences. They are expensive to maintain and few editors use them. The developers are planning to remove them. Removing them will make pages load faster. You can read more and give feedback.
A toolbar will be added to the Reply tool's wikitext source mode. This will make it easier to link to pages and to ping other users. [214][215]
Hello ToBeFree! How are you? I haven't talked to you in a while. Hope you been doing good during Covid-19. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I've Done.) 17:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey The4lines, nice to meet you again. All is well; I hope you're fine too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I continue to run across the same kinds of errors in judgment as before. Whether Di's error rate has improved I know not, but at least see this one, which I just noticed. And I assure you I'm not monitoring Di's edits, which would be a thankless job given the extraordinary leniency you've shown. I am, however, advocating an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
There's a rather extensive discussion going on now at User talk:TonyBallioni (in case you haven't noticed).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, thank you very much for following up on this. I didn't yet see the discussion at TonyBallioni's talk page, but now I have read through it. I have also noticed the partial edit warring block and Ritchie333's strict warning in Special:Diff/1031252618.
Thank you so much for your assistance with the rollback link preference. It was quite helpful in getting me back up to speed on good editing practices. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey MezzoMezzo, that makes me happy! Thank you very much for the kind feedback, and welcome back. Please let me know if any questions arise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Request
Hi @ToBeFree:, Please see my request for rollback . (Fade258 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC))
It is not urgent but I request this rights to see how i improving my knowledge regarding rollback.If i do well then please grant me right to improve my knowledge. Thank you !(Fade258 (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC))
The request will be answered sooner or later, like all the others. Please be patient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Lytton, British Columbia
Hello @ToBeFree:. In Lytton, British Columbia, there is a edit warring about whether the town should be used present or past tense because in edit history, multiple IPs changing tenses from "is" to "was" assuming that the town was destroyed due to fire or current event. Can you semi-protect this article, at least 3 days due to dispute about is/was? Thank you. 180.242.14.83 (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi 180.242.14.83, I was about to recommend WP:RFPP, but there is already a request and you have responded to it (Special:Diff/1031355624). The page is now semi-protected for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
About recent request about rights
Hello Sir, As you written about 'Multiple edits Selected in Single Undo while reverting' ....I am working on that, and I have learned it well,
I also work on counter vandalism, recent changes patroller, I read the guidelines about pending changes rights and i am interested to work on this and make wiki articles vandal free... That's why I needed pending changes reviewer rights..
Sorry for multiple requests.. ItsSkV08 (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi ItsSkV08, that's nice to hear. Regarding the number of requests, please consider whether you really need a permission, or if you just would like to have as many permissions as possible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Not many permissions, just one i.e., pending changes reviewers now, because as we already talk about undo and rollback, i think i have to work more on reverting section, than i request for rollback.. ItsSkV08 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I am an interest in wiki, and hope i will contribute my best effort to vandalism free... in a neutral point of view ItsSkV08 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification, ItsSkV08. I agree with the self-assessment that it is currently too early for granting rollback, but a good time to grant the pending changes reviewer permission to you. Done~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Sir. ItsSkV08 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
User DEBAISH GHOSH MAJUMDAR again
See our previous discussion. Unfortunately, the user didn't respond to any talk page messages and warnings and is making lots of disruptive edits again. I'm not sure if it's incompetence or vandalism...
Special:Diff/1031324475: updated a number, didn't provide a new source, but the new number is ca. 20% lower than any recent number in referenced source [217]
On top of it: Special:Diff/1031596296 threatening others they'll be blocked if they don't provide sources...
After I wrote this, I noticed you don't seem to be around at the moment and reported the user at ANV again. The user has been blocked. Feel free to ignore / archive this discussion. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey Chrisahn, thank you very much for having kept an eye on them. Per Special:Diff/1031596296, they seem to be fine with sanctions for adding unsourced content, as long as the sanctions are applied to others. Let's see if they appeal the block, and which reason they provide when doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chip3004, the usual page for such requests is WP:RFPP, and sockpuppetry concerns can be voiced at WP:SPI.
That said: Done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Protection review: User talk:Jimbo Wales
I'd like to thank you for bringing this to Jimbo's attention (as I cannot), and also admonish you for breaking from procedure with this unprotection request, and for publicly airing my contributions from across my entire IP range (which might be a violation of WP:Outing, idk, probably not worth my time to followup on it). If I had known my request would be brought to the drama boards, I would have made it a little more persuasive. There was no opposition at WP:RFUP, but I doubt anyone will be willing to pull the trigger now that this has so much publicity. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259, the publicity seems to be caused by a high amount of users who have an opinion about this topic, because the protection (or unprotection) of such a popular page potentially affects a large number of editors, and because the page is a kind of "final appeal" venue that is locked from a large portion of Wikipedia's editors. I'd prefer such publicity and voicing of concerns to happen before the consideration of, not after unilateral administrative action. The lack of opposition in a comparatively secluded venue is expectable and meaningless.
Information that you post is public and can be seen and used by everyone.
Any information you post publicly on the Wikimedia Sites is just that – public. For example, if you put your mailing address on your talk page, that is public, and not specifically protected by this Policy. And if you edit without registering or logging into your account, your IP address will be seen publicly. Please think carefully about your desired level of privacy before you disclose Personal Information on your user page or elsewhere.
Per the outing section of the policy against harassment, "references to still-existing, self-disclosed information are not considered outing".
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I largely agree on the second count, which is why I didn't followup on it (although checking an IP range isn't a trick everyone knows, even if they technically have access to it).
I strongly disagree with the first. Jimbo's talk page has been protected and unprotected many times, and it never took a consensus of admins to do so, nor did it generate so much discussion. I don't blame you for not wanting to unprotect the page yourself (though I doubt there would have been any consequences if you had), but I am confident that a significant amount of drama could have been avoided if you hadn't moved my request, without notifying me, to a drama board. What's worse is, I think you've opened Pandora's box. You got Jimbo Wales himself to speak out against IP editors, for what might be the first time. I don't know what will happen next, but I doubt this will be the end of it. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I actually forgot to notify you about having moved the request. I have now provided a formal notification.
Regarding the future of IP editing, meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation may be interesting. This could be a good thing with your privacy concerns in mind, or a bad thing because it may, in the worst case, lead to severe restrictions on editing the English Wikipedia without an account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hm. Okay, I have replied there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For unilaterally protecting dozens of subpages at User talk:Jimbo Wales. No drama needed - that's how it should be done! I hope you'll be that quick and decisive in the future. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, these are as uncontroversial as protection in the user talk namespace can possibly be. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Hi FDW777, thank you very much for creating the investigation, and for the notification. Let's see if they manage to circumvent the new protection, or if their disruption continues in a year. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt action. FDW777 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
About Nando Moura
Hi, thanks for protecting Nando Moura. There's an WP:EW going on there. I also edit pt.WP and Moura is a highly controversial figure in Brazil, so I knew beforehand this war would come to en.WP. I just want to let you know that I wasn't the one who inserted the height info in the article. It was there, and I just wanted to protect the article WP:STATUSQUO. As you can see by the article history, it has been a battlefield for a long time. I inserted the source because it was on the pt.WP article. But I agree that leaving the article without it is better to avoid more issues. Regards.--SirEdimonDimmi!!! 20:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi SirEdimon, thank you very much for the report, for restoring it after it has been disruptively removed, and for the detailed explanation. Don't worry, I can see the reason for re-inserting the material. However, as a matter of caution, the content should probably not be re-added before a consensus for inclusion is found. The "status quo" section is part of an informal essay; when in doubt, the verifiability policy (with WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) overrides such recommendations. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News
The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 19 July.
Recent changes
AutoWikiBrowser is a tool to make repetitive tasks easier. It now uses JSON. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage has moved to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON and Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Config. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/Version has moved to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/VersionJSON. The tool will eventually be configured on the wiki so that you don't have to wait until the new version to add templates or regular expression fixes. [218]
Problems
InternetArchiveBot helps saving online sources on some wikis. It adds them to Wayback Machine and links to them there. This is so they don't disappear if the page that was linked to is removed. It currently has a problem with linking to the wrong date when it moves pages from archive.is to web.archive.org. [219]
Changes later this week
The tool to find, add and remove templates will be updated. This is to make it easier to find and use the right templates. It will come to the first wikis on 7 July. It will come to more wikis later this year. [220][221]
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Future changes
Some Wikimedia wikis use Flagged Revisions or pending changes. It hides edits from new and unregistered accounts for readers until they have been patrolled. The auto review action in Flagged Revisions will no longer be logged. All old logs of auto-review will be removed. This is because it creates a lot of logs that are not very useful. [222]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for bringing peace and order to the unfortunately embattled Rhodesian topics. It seems that the “bush wars” have never ended.
Now I kindly ask you to find a solution for the new (and well-prepared) article Government of Rhodesia. It is nominated for deletion, however on the totally false claim that it would be based on new and unreliable sources. No surprise for me because these (rather irrelevant) two sources were the only ones a lazy guy who doesn’t like an article could click on easily. The other 95% are scientific literature, and it is impossible that the claimant has had the chance to read more than two dozen sources/references in such a short time.
The “new” sources have even been deleted to show that the article is scientific.
So I consider the deletion discussion as against the rules:
Either the article is nonsense, then an immediate deletion must take place
Or it’s a good piece of academic work which is just not liked by someone who uses the weakest points to start a deletion process
either a quick deletion (I have no nerves and time for endless discussions)
or the immediate end of the deletion process because it was started with the false claim that the entire article would be based on just two new link (which are already gone).
I truly hope that you understand my point. I’m a historian, my students know my username on Wikipedia and helped to create the article by searching sources, verifying claims etc. So, the current situation is more than embarrassing for me. I rather accept a quick deletion of a good piece of academic work rather than to be humiliated under the eyes of my student with a deletion discussion which is based on more than shaky claims.
Thank you in advance for a solution that will bring this to an end. One way or the other. University Professor for History (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
while the community normally grants deletion requests by the only substantial author of an article, a formal discussion has already started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government of Rhodesia, and you have already voiced your position clearly in the discussion. There is no requirement, not even a recommendation, to spend "nerves and time" on "endless discussions". Instead, I recommend waiting for the deletion discussion to end after approximately a week or two. This does not require any further interaction from you and ensures that notability and verifiability concerns have been properly addressed.
Wikipedia mainly summarizes what secondary sources say about the topic; primary and tertiary sources matter to a noticeably lesser extent (WP:PSTS). This may be a different approach than a historian is used to, as historians to my knowledge usually produce secondary sources. Wikipedia as a tertiary source forbids original research, which may be perfectly fine in academic works. Treating the Wikipedia article as an academic work, if I understand the described situation correctly, may have been a problematic approach in the first place.
As all content on Wikipedia is irrevocably freely licensed and all relevant logs are public, content-related criticism can't really be avoided and the creation of the deletion discussion can't be undone.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Correction: Per WP:G3, a speedy deletion criterion regarding "blatant hoaxes" (WP:HOAX), the article has been speedily deleted now. I personally would have preferred a proper discussion to come to its standardized end after a week or two. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A kitten for you!
This kitten will hopefully motivate you to work. All the best!
Hey Visnelma, it does! Thank you very much for the heart-warming surprise! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello ToBeFree/A:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Hey Gerda Arendt Wow, three years already. Time flies. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Cerezo Osaka edit access
Hi
Would you please consider giving me access to edit the Cerezo Osaka.
I have made about 15 edits on this page in the past and I believe I have a good standing here on Wikipedia as an editor.
Thanking you in advance
Daxion
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daxion (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Daxion, if you are logged in, you can freely edit the page. If you see an error message when trying to edit that page, please copy the entire error message here. Thanks in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
D10s Maradona again
If you have time could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D10s Maradona please? Checkuser result was two months ago, but still waiting for some action. Since they have now created MS13-18th street gang war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) copying and pasting the text from here (just like they did as D10s Maradona did when creating their articles you previously had to clean up), so the damage to the encyclopedia is increasing. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey FDW777, thank you very much for the notification. They're really clearly D10s Maradona, and have now been re-blocked. Creating a SPI was the right thing to do, and we now have a helpful checkuser result. If the sockpuppetry continues, please do report it at SPI again, but feel free to notify me again too, and I'll have a look as soon as a checkuser had. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt action. FDW777 (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
RfPPBot
I think the updates are ready for a test-run on RfPP. Please contact me on IRC.—CYBERPOWER(Message) 09:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree (mobile), I have a meeting to attend but I might be able to work on this together. —CYBERPOWER(Chat) 16:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Was it intended for this to remove the tranclusion of the instruction header as well? A few people have been confused by the stale entries being transcluded that aren't actually on the Rfpp page. -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi ferret, sorry for the confusion. Please have a look again in an hour or two, when everything will be done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
A cup of tea!
For something I'd rather not say (privacy). Thanks! WhenYouWiki (A person) (Talk) 04:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey WhenYouWiki. Whatever it is or was, you're welcome, and thank you very much for the tea! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
That's alright, thanks! If your wondering, the reason I didn't disclose the reason is because it could be related to my real life location. Just so you know, it involves blocking a group of people. WhenYouWiki (A person) (Talk) 11:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah That's an understandable reason, and the kind feedback made my day. Enjoy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
BTW, what's the utility in substituting the RfPP templates now, do you know? Myself, I'm a simple man, the less time I have to type subst: (or anything), the better... Greater forces at play? El_C 20:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
El C, then don't, the bot will do it for you. —CYBERPOWER(Message) 21:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Cyberpower678, cruelty against bots, I see. I disrespect that. Seriously though, I wouldn't let the revision history be flooded like that for naught. Lately, it's been many tens of RfPP requests per week for me, so that approach would be bad. El_C 21:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
El C, well the bot only clerks every 15 minutes, so… :p —CYBERPOWER(Message) 21:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Still wondering why and why now? Is Template:AN3 next? El_C 21:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The RFPP page had no archive until now; with an archive, substitution ensures that future changes to the template don't affect the archived discussions. Regarding AN3, I wouldn't object to it, but my focus was on RFPP. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Too bad. That change sucks (for me). Oh well. El_C 22:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, a normal (non-rolling) archive — I missed that! Self-trout. That's definitely worth subst'ing for! I apologize for being discouraging and... an idiot. Best, El_C 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
[citation needed; not neutral]
El C, still no worries. Ever. But I now understand the confusion. WP:RFPP even lacks a link to the archives at the moment, I'll fix that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Right, I noticed there was no link to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive, but figured you were working on it (i.e. didn't want to be a dick about that, as well!). Thanks for being gracious. And thanks for your work in streamlining RfPP. I see you! (well, now!). Best, El_C 13:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
done! Thank you very much for the kind feedback. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation. The user in question deleted accurate citations and revisions to the original content of a page, and damaged the integrity of the page itself. In so doing has allowed the promotion of verifiable false information. If this is the official consensus here at Wikipedia to allow poorly researched and false claims to be represented as truth, and not what it is (Intentional damage to the integrity of Wikipedia). Then I can understand why you would support a user like the one I had rightfully reported. I have by and large avoided correcting Wikipedia on the few mistakes I have seen, deciding that others should take up that torch. Though this one time I decided to help Wikipedia out, and this is the official response from Wikipedia? To allow this garbage to fester and pollute the minds of your visitors? Do you even know what the anchoring effect is? It is of no wonder why real academics won't allow Wikipedia to ever be cited by itself, because you allow falsehoods to flourish and do nothing to change it. I hope this has at least given you some cause to rethink your decisions, and maybe you will see that user in question was in fact a vandal in the truest sense, the destruction of civility. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoisyHipposofWar (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi NoisyHipposofWar, this is a run-of-the-mill content dispute about verifiability. Both parties have arguments for their position, and a discussion on the article's talk page (Talk:Wandering womb) is a helpful next step. See WP:Dispute resolution for advice about the general process, and WP:DISCFAIL for a helpful essay in case 10mmsocket refuses to discuss with you. I'd be surprised about that, however, as attempting to explain and enforce policies is certainly not vandalism, and 10mmsocket is very likely to be open to content-related discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. So? --Calton | Talk 14:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
An as long as we're asking questions, have you read this? --Calton | Talk 14:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Calton, your revert seems to conflict with the cited policy, hence I asked whether you knowingly ignored it. Now that you have admitted to it, I'd like to learn the reason behind this decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The tool to find, add and remove templates was updated. This is to make it easier to find and use the right templates. It was supposed to come to the first wikis on 7 July. It was delayed to 12 July instead. It will come to more wikis later this year. [223][224]
Special:UnconnectedPages lists pages that are not connected to Wikidata. This helps you find pages that can be connected to Wikidata items. Some pages should not be connected to Wikidata. You can use the magic word __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ on pages that should not be listed on the special page. [225]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 July. It will be on all wikis from 22 July (calendar).
Future changes
How media is structured in the parser's HTML output will soon change. This can affect bots, gadgets, user scripts and extensions. You can read more. You can test it on Testwiki or Testwiki 2.
The parameters for how you obtain tokens in the MediaWiki API were changed in 2014. The old way will no longer work from 1 September. Scripts, bots and tools that use the parameters from before the 2014 change need to be updated. You can read more.
I see you were the last one to adjust that over there. Given that the virus is still in the news cycle, its unlikely that disruption on the topic will cease. Mind re-applying protection for the time being? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, the good old 2020 optimism. Thank you very much for the notification, RandomCanadian; Y done. So it has been a year now. Wow. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Civility Barnstar
I have seen you on multiple occasions, you're very civil and kind. Ratnahastin(t.c) 06:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey Ratnahastin, thank you very much for the heart-warming feedback and your contributions! I hope you enjoy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Requesting protection
May I ask for protection on the article Miss Universe Philippines 2021 as many unregistered users and IP addresses are editing it without following the Wikipedia rules. Thank you very much. King Archer (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, some unregistered users and IP users are vandalizing the page. King Archer (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi King Archer, thanks for asking: I have semi-protected the page for three months now. However, I can't apply the usual indefinite semi-protection per WP:GS/PAGEANTS, as I can't yet see evidence for sockpuppetry happening on the page. As soon as that happens (and I somehow expect it to happen), please notify me and I'll apply the usual protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Unprotecting COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
ToBeFree, i'm so sorry about Germany's performance in the European cup. But please, can you unprotect the lab leak page so that anyone can edit it? It is missing a lot of information about the hypothesis itself and most of the edits now are about negative coverage contributed by editors who don’t even want that this necessary page exists. Francesco espo (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
No comment... And, Francesco, you're well aware of the COVID DS, so I suggest you go back to citing proper sources, instead of accusing editors of "negative coverage". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Francesco espo, most editors affected by discretionary sanction-based protection will probably benefit from making long-term contributions outside of highly controversial areas before jumping into heated conflicts. The Task Center and the community portal contain helpful ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
As a heads-up, I had missed that the page was protected. I added the E-C protect tag to the page so it shows up prior to clicking the edit button. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, the lack of that icon was a remnant of the redirect, I guess. The {{rcat shell}} contained the protection template before. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Help with heavy POV pushing
Hello, ToBeFree. You were of great assistance to me on the dispute that arose on Aromanians and other pages and I need help again with another user and page. On Bukovina (a region divided between Ukraine and Romania), a user has completely rewrote a page, giving it an evident Ukrainian POV. User has added undue information on the Ukrainians on history sections about Romanian states, continously accused the Romanians of Romanianization and even questioned the censuses of the country with completely exaggerated estimates (although the region, divided in a northern a southern part, is ethnically mixed, user claims that the north is "solidly Ukrainian" while claiming that half of the people on the Romanian southern part are Ukrainians). User sticks to one of the several viewpoints that exist on the origin of Romanians (and justifies this action becuase "the info is sourced") and has reverted my edits which were mostly simple wording changes and the adding of NPOV templates for being "vandalism". I've given examples at Talk:Bukovina#Some edits. The worst thing is that, even after this huge rewrite, the user rejects my NPOV templates and has added another one still accusing the article of being pro-Romanian. I am not asking for you to deal with this case but to take a quick look at it and tell me if I can take it to ANI or any other place or if I am just wrong. Thank you in advance. SuperΨDro 12:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Super when you accuse people, it's nice to let them know. In response to your accusations, I want to point out that I just had to add again the NPOV template you just deleted. As for your "simple wording changes", I thought you had removed 3/4 of lead, but I now see you just moved the paragraph, so I apologize. I see this is very important to you, but you criticized the way I edit, and accused me, among other things, of "demonizing" Romanians. You even made accusations in the edit summaries. What I did was expanding the article on Bukovina, which I perceived as markedly pro-Romanian, completely neglecting the history of Ukrainians in Bukovina and even making dangerous claims such as that "[Northern Bukovina] currently is part of Ukraine." I also found that the article made dubious--at the vary least-- claims and lacked sources; so I used the apt templates; without, that is, deleting such parts. I disagree with you when you say that all the additions that talk about Ukrainians and the sources I provided should be deleted. Instead, I invite you to use templates, so I can solve your doubts. I also invite you to expand the article with the Romanians' history, if you think it's being neglected. Just please remember to use sources. Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I will reply to this comment on the same talk page we were talking to not annoy external parties with this dispute. If ToBeFree wishes to be a third party observer into this, I'll be thankful, but if not, there's no need to extend this into here. SuperΨDro 17:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
You posted on their talk page and now you don't want to annoy them? Anyway, I totally agree.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 7 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the invitation. I have removed the POV template for now, as the discussion has stalled in the meantime, and as it is unlikely to have an effect on resolving the dispute. There have been accusations of vandalism from both parties, while there has been actual vandalism from no party. I'm certain noone has intentionally damaged the encyclopedia, so even if there has been disruptive editing from anyone, there was clearly no vandalism involved. If the situation still needs dispute resolution, I'd usually recommend WP:3O to request a third opinion, as I've had a positive experience when using that process in the past (at Talk:Valora Noland). Before a third opinion can be requested, both editors should ideally agree that a third opinion would be helpful, and you should attempt to summarize the specific points of the dispute as concisely and clearly as possible: A summary that you both can agree on, at the bottom of the talk page, would be great.
The disputed edits contain a lot of changes in one single diff, which makes it harder to find a consensus ("all or nothing" approach). Perhaps you can find a subset of changes that are agreeable, and a subset of changes that need specific discussion. I do however understand that when the neutrality of the entire article is being disputed, this may be hard or impossible to do. This makes dispute resolution similarly hard or impossible, however. Please do give it a try.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, I appreciate that you remembered this after almost one month later, but the truth is that I no longer want to continue this dispute. If anyone wants to fix the problems, they are more than welcome, but I don't have the will to put the effort needed to keep contesting such huge changes. I'll leave the article as it is. Maybe at some point in the future I decide to use the dispute resolution processes you mentioned, but it won't be anytime soon. Thanks for your help. SuperΨDro 07:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like the best possible approach to pretty much all drama. No worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Nizami Ganjavi International Center
The center is an international organization in Azerbaijan and Nizami Ganjavi is a Persian-speaking Azerbaijani poet, it is not correct to refer to him as a Persian poet. The Correction by Armenian(Kevo327) and Persian (LouisAragon) editors is clearly against the interests and is real vandalism. Also, as someone who works at the center, I definitely note that this is unacceptable. The unexplained deletion of 14,710 characters by Kevo327 is beyond Wikipedia's rules--85.132.36.182 (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi 85.132.36.182, thank you very much for your feedback. Your edit request has now been answered at Talk:Nizami Ganjavi International Center; please address any concerns there instead of here. You can use the following code to notify the reviewer: {{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} your message here ~~~~ The four tildes at the end are important; the notification will not work without them. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Kevo327:, who was mentioned by said IP. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh my. Well, thank you for the context, LouisAragon; please notify me if the disruption continues after the protection expires. I'll happily re-protect for a longer duration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's not a promising start. I'm thinking we need a filter here, with an appropriate message. Any thoughts? -- zzuuzz(talk) 20:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh. zzuuzz, that may be a good idea, thank you very much for removing these. We could alternatively remove the link to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit from MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext entirely, as I had originally proposed as a quick fix. To do so, Special:Diff/1034921986 simply needs to be undone. I wouldn't object, but the undo summary should contain the reasoning and the decision should be mentioned in response to my 15:43, 22 July 2021 message at WP:AN.
A filter may properly fix the problem by filtering out malformed requests with a big red message of the sort "Please take your time to write a proper request; yours can not be accepted in this way".
In the end, it's all a question of setting the bar low enough to allow good-faith edits to be proposed without making the page unusable by drowning it in clueless disruption. Almost 8 billion potential requesters... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate it's a matter of balance, and I know we're not there yet. You and I both probably want real requests to be made somewhere. We have a model filter to sort of go off, which is 987 (hist·log). I'll just ping that filter's mastermind, in case they have any wisdom to add. At the very least we can just filter for "Name of page you are requesting an edit to". -- zzuuzz(talk) 20:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
A request
Hello ToBeFree, I want to ask you a question, Can you please tell why any admin is not seeing 'Request for Rollback' section for more than 25 days? I and some people have requested, please take a look! Thank you. ~ Itsskv08 (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi ItsSkV08, thank you for the notification. I have now answered one request and will have a look again later; the main problem is that properly answering permission requests requires a lot of research and time, which is a scarce resource in volunteer projects. But don't worry: Permission requests are not automatically archived, so yours will definitely be answered sooner or later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Request for your opinion
Hello ToBeFree, I apologize for an unexpected message but I simply wanted to ask your 3rd party opinion as a Wikipedia admin on this concern I have:
User by the username of BaxçeyêReş made this edit, where I am particularly concerned about the "your nation's germinal vitriol'" sentence in reference to the country of Azerbaijan. Personally, it seemed to me like a racist sentence to make, given the user referred to a "nation" and not a government, for example. I posted my intention to seek administrative action on the user's talk page in this edit, which was just reverted. The user also has edit the history of removing Azerbaijani names from Caucasus villages and locations, which in itself is not a problem if proper reasoning is provided, by combined with the above sentence looks concerning.
The user also made this statement: "I will continue to crush you and your vitriol every time you re-join Wikipedia", which also I thought is bizarre. The user also informed me of their intention to report me to ANI here immediately after I informed them of my intention, which again seems like bad conduct.
I am asking for your opinion, what do you think? I think a clear breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I also want to ask more people but since you're an admin I wanted to contact you. You are the second admin I contact. I am considering making an ANI post.
Edit: please also note these [226][227][228] on Kurdish wikipedia, where the user states: "Azerbaijan is worth as much as dirt", "Azerbaijani articles were created by god to be vandalized" and "you are a dirty prostitue ElijaM".
Thank you in advance. - WimpyDood (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Removing "Azerbaijani names" is an act of virtue when they are unsourced or even made-up by random IP addresses and hour-old accounts out of Baku.
As I have mentioned to you before, WimpyDood/Creffel, anti-Armenian attitudes are deeply entrenched in Azerbaijani society. When you have a user like EljanM, whose sockpuppets repeatedly claim Armenia as "part of Azerbaijan", try to erase century-old Armenian names from Wikipedia, and continuously attack users, it becomes clear that my words are not only justified, but true. Azerbaijan does have a history of germnial vitriol against Armenians, among others (my own Kurdish family was chased away from Karabakh by Azerbaijani armed forces [believe it or not, WimpyDood, Azerbaijanis can be bad guys, too]).
WimpyDood, the alter ego of Creffel, has a long history of using POV-inspirited language and exaggerated language to describe topics on Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Every discussion I have been involved in with this user has been fruitless, and now that they can no longer feasibly defend their actions, they resort to harassing admins to get me banned. What a sad day to Wikipedia and the concept of objectivity this has been so far. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the detailed notification, WimpyDood. Reverting sockpuppets' contributions is usually fine by itself (WP:BE/WP:BMB), and BaxçeyêReş clearly intends to improve the encyclopedia regading verifiability and neutrality. They have taken this mission a few steps too far and will probably be welcomed back if they manage to step back a bit. I hope that's okay. If possible, please avoid further interaction with them, as it is unlikely that further interaction is wanted or beneficial for either party. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
No worries ToBeFree, thank you for taking administrative action. I am still however concerned about the statements the user made on Kurdish Wikipedia and the generally racist comments there and here on English Wikipedia as well. I mean stating "Azerbaijan is worth as much as dirt" here and "Azerbaijani articles were created by God to be vandalized" here is surely grounds for permaban? at least on Azerbaijan/Armenia-related articles? These kinds of opinions don't change quickly and obviously interferes with verifiability and neutrality. - WimpyDood (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
We have similar concerns there, WimpyDood: I just sent a message to the blocking administrator (ku:Special:Diff/893849). Please ask them if there is a noticeboard for such reports; if there is none, please encourage the creation of one. If one exists, please tell me and I'll add it to wikidata:Q32402502, wikidata:Q4580256 or similar. All I found was ku:Wîkîpediya:Vandalîzm/Destpêk, which neither seems to be used nor the ideal venue for general requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Once more I am very grateful for your assistance. I will look around there as well. I wanted to ask however, even if the user is ever welcomed back on English Wikipedia, would the user be permitted to edit on Azerbaijan/Armenia-related articles in English Wikipedia? I have seen cases on ANI where users have been permanently banned from specific topics for saying less than BaxçeyêReş. Racist POV is the same on English Wikipedia and Kurdish Wikipedia - WimpyDood (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No worries. I'm reluctant to classify this as "racism", as racism isn't tolerated on Wikimedia projects and justifies an indefinite, practically unappealable exclusion from the community. The quoted "dirt" sentence seems to be highly problematic, but jumping to such a severe conclusion without speaking the used language, based on a machine translation and a user's translation, would be unprofessional. I lack insight into the context of the statement; to me, it looks as if it is primarily meant to offend specifically the reverted person. A statement meant to offend a specific person is likely to contain provocative exaggerations; it does not transparently show the sender's actual position.
Disruptive editing in general, yes, can lead to a community discussion resulting in a topic ban. As a result of WP:ARBAA2, topic-related sanctions can also be applied by individual administrators in this area. Theoretically, as part of a binding unblock condition, any measure can be negotiated.
It is unlikely that the user will be unblocked in a way that allows them to continue making similar edits; any unblock discussion will focus on these issues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply ToBeFree. I have to mention however that the user wrote that "dirt" sentence in Azerbaijani, and I speak Azerbaijani, seems very clear what the user meant. Also writing that Azerbaijani articles were "created by god to be vandalized" is also a target at a specific nation, hence racist. Also not forgetting the fact that the user made a comment on English Wikipedia, in English, writing "your nation's germinal vitriol" also seems like a racist phrase to use. You stated that you lack insight into the context of the statement, would it be okay with you if I asked for request for comment on this or other administrators for their opinion? - WimpyDood (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
WimpyDood, if the user requests an unblock, the appeal will appear at CAT:RFU and an uninvolved administrator will provide a third opinion. Until then, I see no need for having a large discussion about why specifically they're currently indefinitely blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree I see, thank you very much for information. My only concern is however that the user was banned for accusations of misconduct and malice, but not for racism. I simply believe that the user should be banned for racism as well given the kinds of sentences and statements the user made. You stated you lack insight into the matter, therefore I simply wanted to ask others if the user's behavior can be sanctioned on grounds of racism as well? - WimpyDood (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
As blocks are not a punishment, the block serves its preventative purpose even if the block reason doesn't contain a list of all problems. I'll link to our discussion below the block notice to ensure it is read by any later reviewer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thank you so very much ToBeFree for patiently considering my concerns and being so helpful and informative. I wish you a good day and a good summer. - WimpyDood (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No worries, and the same to you. Thank you for the kind feedback. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
A new version of MediaWiki came to the Wikimedia wikis the week before last week. This was not in Tech News because there was no newsletter that week.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 July. It will be on all wikis from 29 July (calendar).
Future changes
If you use the Monobook skin you can choose to switch off responsive design on mobile. This will now work for more skins. If ⧼monobook-responsive-label⧽ is unticked you need to also untick the new preferenceEnable responsive mode. Otherwise it will stop working. Interface admins can automate this process on your wiki. You can read more.
Good [whatever time of day it may be for you], ToBeFree!
I have been a long-time observer on Wikipedia, but the conduct between WimpyDood, BaxceyeRes, Parishan, NMW03, Brandmeister, Grandmaster, KhndzorUtogh, and other users from of both Azerbaijani and Armenian bias has prompted me to finally stop editing with my I.P. address and create my own account! :D
Namely, I saw the drama between the first two users unfold on your user page, and while I am content with the outcome, I have a question to ask.
One edit was made by a pro-Armenian and another by a pro-Azerbaijani user, but they are in essence the same. One should not reverse edits just because users are banned for being insulting and respectless, because their edits might still be meaningful.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for asking. Numerous policies and guidelines contain advice about dealing with sockpuppetry:
Per the banning policy, section WP:BRV: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."
Per the blocking policy, section WP:BE: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."
Per the edit warring policy, section WP:3RRNO: The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: [...] Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users."
Per the rollback guideline, section WP:ROLLBACKUSE: "Rollback may be used: [...] To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban [without even specifying a reason in the edit summary, as long as this is later explained on request]"
Additionally, a speedy deletion criterion, WP:G5, "applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others."
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I see, that makes perfect sense! Thank you so much for your swift and lucid response, ToBeFree. I hope to become a productive member of this community in the way that others have not. Have a great week! :) Accidental-insemination (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind feedback, and a great week to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Greetings! I go to a moderately sized university with a large population of both Armenian and Azerbaijani students, and I have told some people in those communities about the ongoing drama. I confirm not having relations to BaxceyeRes, but it may be likely that Puh Paay Yuh is someone I know (although I'm not sure which specific person). Thank you :) Accidental-insemination (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
A request
Please see this....I said this user to remove all social media links from his userpage, he also added info about his extended confirmed rights in intagram about...He also put warning in my talkpage..
[userpage] and [Conversation in his talkpage] ~ ItsSkV08 (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi ItsSkV08, "limited autobiographical content" and "a small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material" is fine on user pages, according to WP:UPYES. Regarding deletion, WP:U5 explicitly does not apply to such material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
For your long-term efforts in providing administrative assistance to improve the COVID-19 'lab leak' topic area, particularly early on when other admins didn't want to get involved in the mess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, ProcrastinatingReader, for the heart-warming feedback. I'm happy to see that, even when looking at an area full of disputes and disruption, there are experienced editors who do not lose their faith in the project and who participate in the community's attempts to make this a slightly more habitable place. We both know that Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity, but we also believe in bringing it as close to validity as possible. As long as the time invested by those believing in an open, free encyclopedia exceeds the efforts of those who misuse it for self-promotion, hate and libel, it will remain (or become, depending on your view) a comfortable location for people who value a persistent strive for knowledge and levelheaded content discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI
I ran out of rope. As a sidenote, I second the above, though my appreciation for your admin skills is mostly about your helping hand SPI – it's not exactly an easy or glamorous backlog to work, and we desperately need more patrolling admins. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Recent conduct of a user
Dear @ToBeFree, it turned out BaxçeyêReş was in fact the sockmaster, good that we at least got that clarified. Now I want to clarify couple of things as I feel like my position/arguments have been slandered. Firstly, I could't care less about the SPI as I noted in my initial message here 1, my only concerns were the recent problematic edits by WimpyDood, edit-warring with 2 editors and not trying to reach consensus. If you remember, I explained all of it to them yesterday, even saying that you can't just revert an editor because they were banned and later edit war with others when you get reverted 2, 3, 4. Even if you think the edits are "Pov" or something of similar opinion, you still need to reach consensus in the talk page, especially if you get reverted by not one but two editors. In fact, looking at the history page now Azerbaijanis_in_Armenia&action=history, @WimpyDood didn't even undo the now banned editor but another editor @Kevo3271, so they can't try to blame everything on the "sockmaster's Pov" or something similar like yesterday.
With all of this in mind and clarified, I'm going to ask you one simple question dear ToBeFree: How would you judge the conduct of said user yesterday on your talk page? Was that an appropriate behaviour of a user when they only got shown their own diffs of edit-warring? Was mentioning some past irrelevant closed ANI case to try to slander me or belittle my arguments appropriate? Was the constant accusations and aspersions casted yesterday appropriate? Is that how you reply to your fellow wikipedians? I tried my best to explain to them how wikipedia guidelines work, and for the user to try to follow them in future, but the editor just couldn't assume good faith and instead retaliated with slander and accusations out of nowhere. He even went as far as to make laughable "teaming up" allegations of me and another user. And I ask you again what I asked in my initial statement (which after yesterday, I feel more strongly about):
Do you believe that similar sanctions of battleground behaviour would be appropriate for WimpyDood? And I'm sorry for yesterday, I really didn't intend for the conversation to get that ugly. Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Man, today I left a message on your talk page here asking you to talk to me personally and resolve our issues, but you did not reply. Instead, here you come again, trying to implicate me in something and trying to get me banned? If anything, I think your current refusal to talk to me, and your previous refusal to talk to me here is indicative of your bad intentions.
Instead of talking to me then, and right now, instead you tried to "warn" me [229], you tried to scare me by leaving an "edit-warring" tag here [230] instead of talking to me as I asked. Also, you made the accusation ugly by using clearly "mocking" phrases such as: "I know it seems hard for you" [231] and "it's saddening to read at this point" [232] after I replied to your accusations. Ultimately, you sided with a sock-puppeteer by backing their false accusation [233], and you continuously tried to undermine my efforts to get the sock-puppeteer brought to justice.
The only person not trying to reach a consensus is you. I reached out to you, you did not reach back. Perhaps you're not aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle here: WP:BRD, please make the due diligence of reading the article. If anything, I believe your current refusal to talk to me is indicative of your battleground behavior. I must say, I genuienly feel Harassed right now.
Ultimately dear ToBeFree, I would highly appreciate it if you considered whether ZaniGiovanni's un-cooperative conduct is appropriate for Wikipedia and whether administrative action is necessary. I am genuinely tired of being harassed by ZaniGiovanni, even though I reached out to him and tried to talk to him. First I was harassed by the sockpuppeteer BaxçeyêReş, and now I feel harassed by ZaniGiovanni. Maybe it's because the two users had a good relationship? Their friendly conversations can be seen on ZaniGiovanni's talk page [234] and on sockpuppeteer BaxçeyêReş's talk page [235]. It seems clear the two users cooperated closely, and so perhaps ZaniGiovanni is trying to avenge BaxçeyêReş's right now? I don't know. Either way, I sincerely ask for your help ToBeFree, I am really tired of being accused of everything without evidence, without trying to talk to me, without trying to be honest. Please help. - WimpyDood (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC) - WimpyDood (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear @WimpyDood, lets go one by one with your arguments shall we?
Starting with your edit description "Why is this guy so obsessed with me?"1. No I'm not, I couldn't care about you or any of the involved editors for that matter. Nice way to start a discussion with personal attacks I might say (not at all).
Please when making big claims like "I think your current refusal to talk to me, and your previous refusal to talk to me here is indicative of your bad intentions.". First of all, I pinged you here and I'm literally talking to you, so no, I'm not "refusing" to talk to you. Secondly, in your diff, I literally only edited once before your message (in this timeframe) 2, Khojaly massacre: Revision history, and didn't touch the page after. So once again I'm asking you, what "refusal to talk" are you talking about, when I didn't even engage in the page after your revert? Mind you one more time, baseless accusations especially of misconduct can in fact qualify as personal attacks.
"Instead of talking to me then, and right now, instead you tried to "warn" me [8], you tried to scare me by leaving an "edit-warring" tag here [9] instead of talking to me as I asked. Also, you made the accusation ugly by using clearly "mocking" phrases such as: "I know it seems hard for you" [10] and "it's saddening to read at this point" [11] after I replied to your accusations. Ultimately, you sided with a sock-puppeteer by backing their false accusation [12], and you continuously tried to undermine my efforts to get the sock-puppeteer brought to justice."
Guess I already clarified the talking part. The warning was of a potential ANI case, which I can in fact do, and no, I'm not trying to "scare" you please don't put words in my mouth. The "edit-warring tag" was well, for your edit-wars 2, 3, 4, which I'm more than alowed to put when I see a user engaging in edit-wars, and no, it's not an indicative of "bad intentions" again having troubles assuming good faith. Later, the phrases which you call "mocking" for some reasons literally are shown to be true even now, when you still have trouble assuming good faith, and I might say, it is in fact saddening to see after so many discussions with you.
"The only person not trying to reach a consensus is you. I reached out to you, you did not reach back. Perhaps you're not aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle here: WP:BRD, please make the due diligence of reading the article. If anything, I believe your current refusal to talk to me is indicative of your battleground behavior."
I'm talking to you right now, and I pinged you myself, so again baseless constant accusations. The rest of your closing statment, the only thing I can see is blatant deflection attempts and refusal the recognize your wrong doing, which to me sounds troubling considering all of the talk yesterday, and your similar conduct even now especially. My question to the admin still remains. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Edit: I didn't even notice you last addition: "Ultimately dear ToBeFree, I would highly appreciate it if you considered whether ZaniGiovanni's un-cooperative conduct is appropriate for Wikipedia and whether administrative action is necessary. I am genuinely tired of being harassed by ZaniGiovanni, even though I reached out to him and tried to talk to him. First I was harassed by the sockpuppeteer BaxçeyêReş, and now I feel harassed by ZaniGiovanni. Maybe it's because the two users had a good relationship? Their friendly conversations can be seen on ZaniGiovanni's talk page [13] and on sockpuppeteer BaxçeyêReş's talk page [14]. It seems clear the two users cooperated closely, and so perhaps ZaniGiovanni is trying to avenge BaxçeyêReş's right now? I don't know. Either way, I sincerely ask for your help ToBeFree, I am really tired of being accused of everything without evidence, without trying to talk to me, without trying to be honest. Please help"
This is just pure gossip, I hope you understand this isn't going to look good on you at all, do you? "genuinely tired of being harassed by ZaniGiovanni" where I harassed you? "First I was harassed by the sockpuppeteer BaxçeyêReş, and now I feel harassed by ZaniGiovanni. Maybe it's because the two users had a good relationship? Their friendly conversations can be seen on ZaniGiovanni's talk page [13] and on sockpuppeteer BaxçeyêReş's talk page [14]."
As I said, I couldn't care about the SPI, the question here is about you and your conduct. But all of this gossip and speculation once again from you.
"It seems clear the two users cooperated closely, and so perhaps ZaniGiovanni is trying to avenge BaxçeyêReş's right now?"
I might say that you still didn't learn anything from our talks. "Cooperated closely" cause of talk page message(s)? It seems like all of wikipedia are just "cooperating" with each other, at least by WimpyDood's logic that is. And yes of course I'm trying to "avenge" the user, and not concerned about your conduct at all. It's not like I mentioned my concerns multiple times and that your conduct has been my main concern, isn't it? Personal attacks as baseless accusations and not being able to assume good faith, it seems like the only replies I get from the user now. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
So instead of discussing all these disagreements with me on your talk page: as I suggested here you decided to come straight to Admin's page and hint at banning me? Wow, terrible conduct ZaniGiovanni, great display of good faith.
Instead of "pinging" me on an Admin's page, why not discuss things like I asked you to here in your talk page? Now that I point out your harassing behavior, only now you want to discuss things with me? I think you might need to do further readings about What Wikipedia is not, I strongly recommend you refresh your knowledge and go through the article. You choice to assume I am "edit warring" without ever having spoken to me in talk, despite me asking you to here [here might possibly indicate you are having a difficult time assuming good faith.
On top of everything, now you are pretending to be innocent, trying to blame me for something, and claiming I am making "blatant" deflection attempts? ToBeFree please help, this is the second day this user is harassing me without discussing things in talk. I am so tired, I just want to continue editing, but I have to spend all my time defending myself from these vile smears. I am so tired of the user citing his editing disagreements with me to try and claim I was "edit-warring" when I was not. I am so tired of this user not being cooperative. - WimpyDood (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
"So instead of discussing all these disagreements with me on your talk page: as I suggested here you decided to come straight to Admin's page and hint at banning me? Wow, terrible conduct ZaniGiovanni, great display of good faith."
I felt the need to clarify my statements as I commented here yesterday, and my question to the admin still remained. Even if you have all of these baseless assumptions without even asking me why I came here, couldn't you at least think of yourself when you came to this exact page and complained about the now banned editor? It is just the inability to assume good faith once again, and the blatant deflection from you once again.
"Instead of "pinging" me on an Admin's page, why not discuss things like I asked you to here in your talk page? Now that I point out your harassing behavior, only now you want to discuss things with me? I think you might need to do further readings about What Wikipedia is not, I strongly recommend you refresh your knowledge and go through the article. You choice to assume I am "edit warring" without ever having spoken to me in talk, despite me asking you to here [here might possibly indicate you are having a difficult time assuming good faith."
Keep in mind, when you are being pinged on wikipedia, the pinger in fact wants to talk to you, not sure if you are aware of that, just letting you know. Avoid the deflections again WimpyDood, you've yet to show me what "harassment" you're talking about, as baseless accusations of misconduct quality as personal attacks (and I already told you this yesterday). I don't need to "assume" anything, you have edited the page and later engaged in an edit war three times 2, 3, 4, it's on you to go to the talk page if your edit's get reverted per WP:CONSENSUS (which I already mentioned to you, and which you failed to do in your editing).
"On top of everything, now you are pretending to be innocent, trying to blame me for something, and claiming I am making "blatant" deflection attempts?"
I'm not claiming anything. Your blatant refusal to recognize wrong doing and deflections are shown in this conversation very clearly, so I don't even need to claim anything, your words speak for themselves. I'm merely showing your behavior in hopes for you to see and recognize it yourself, but you fail to do so every step of the way. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the refusal to recognize wrong doing and their repeated pattern of baseless accusations / false misconduct allegations further cement my initial statement and conviction. @ToBeFree: what do you think? Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: you go on Admin's page, make a subtle request for the admin to consider "sanctioning" me, and now you claim that no no you are actually trying to "talk" to me? No I don't buy it, and I don't think anyone will either.
It is basic Wikipedia knowledge that if you want to talk to somebody, you do it in user talk page, as I tried to with you in your talk page[236] this morning and how I tried to do in the pasthere. But you never reponded and never tried to approach me directly. Instead, you decided to come an administrator's talk page for the 2nd time to try and "talk" to me? please consider re-reading basic Wikipedia guidelines, for example What Wikipedia is not, maybe basics need to be refreshed. What exactly do you mean "your words speak for themselves"? me defending myself against unfounded smears is somehow bad? I personally think it's just lack of good faith assumption.
You blatantly claim I was "edit-warring" based purely on your subjective diasgreements with my edits, and for the 2nd day in a row you refuse to talk to me in "talk" and instead you choose to come here and harass the administrator, instead of seeking a personal resolution of conflict with me. You now accuse me of "wrongdoings" on a subjective basis without EVER having tried to discuss things with me in your talk or in my talk. All I tried to do was bring a sockpuppeter to justice, but you spend the whole evening making that process harder for me by suggesting that I get banned. You tried to "warn" me about "ANI", again, without ever having tried to talk to me, and now you started the second argument with me on an Admin's talk page? In my personal opinion, this looks like battleground behavior, but administrator will decide themselves.
Please stop trying to argue with me here, I am very tired, just stop, I have already told you I feel harassed, and yet you continue accusing me left and right of things I am innocent of. Please just stop your aggressive argumentation. - WimpyDood (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I think I'm done here, as you're repeating the baseless accusations which I already answered, and as I laid my points/replies, convictions and clarfications very visibly (as the discussion was put on hold yesterday). With respect to the admin, I'll wait to hear from them before making any further arguments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Adding my two cents here, most of my interactions with Creffel/WimpyDood did not give me the impression of constructive and cooperative editing, starting with a worrying inability to assume good faith and viewing every disagreement as harassment (as seen above), WP:CIR issues, bad editing practices such as claiming parts of an article are unsourced while they don't have access to the paywalled source of that part [237], as well as creating a new account seemingly just to avoid scrutiny from the old one while returning to edit in the same editing area, making the "new start" clause of the allowed alternative account uses null. From what I see here they also have a habbit of bludgeoning and battleground mentality (claims of zani "avenging" the other user). I can also confirm that most complaints of BaxçeyêReş's sock had merrit to them. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, here we go again, the Kevo327 and ZaniGiovanni working again like they did here and here when they were reverting my edits, supporting sockpuppeteer's accusations. A fact for you: undoing my edits on multiple pages in unison with another user, then making it difficult for me to bring sockpuppet to justice by supporting sockpuppets desperate accusations, and then working in unison again on an admin's talk page to try and discredit me on shaky grounds, is indeed harassment. I am not surprised, these two editors worked closely with the banned sockpuppeteer before, please check their talk pages, for example here[238] and here[239] and for ZaniGiovanni here[240]. Kevo327 never bothered to engage with me in the talk page, and yet comes here to try and accuse me of all sudden, and is trying to spin this[241] into an accusation, when in reality I was simply confused and thought the article overviews was the article itself. I made a revert, and after realizing my mistake, I stop reverting.
Kevo327 is also trying to spin the creation of my second account into my attempt to "avoid scrutiny": what on earth are you even talking about? have you seen how many times I explicitly stated on my main page that I am the same user as Creffel? I have the template linking my current account to Creffel, and 5 other links directing to Creffel account.
Kevo327 claims I am a difficult editor, but conveniently leaves out instances such as this: [242], where out of good faith, I reverted my own deletion of unsourced information to give Kevo327 time to add sources if he wanted to. But of course, he will not mention these instances when I was forthcoming and cooperative. On the other hand, Kevo327 deleted cited information from this[243] page, which comes from one of the most famous experts on the topic being discussed. Kevo327 nevertheless continued reverting my edit in unison with ZaniGiovanni.
I am asking the administrator to please consider the behavior of these users over the past several days towards me and whether this can be considered appropriate, cooperative behavior. I asked ZaniGiovanni to talk, he refuses to talk, and tries to implicate me in something. I try to cooperate with Kevo327, he deletes cites information, then comes here trying to implicate me. Where does this harassment stop? I believe their behavior has been nothing but antagonistic towards me and my stay in Wikipedia. - WimpyDood (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, here we go again, the Kevo327 and ZaniGiovanni working again like they did [here] and [here]: In what world editing the same page means you're "working" with somebody? As I told you yesterday (and as you just don't WP:LISTEN), I edited in Khojaly massacare long before even your alternative account was created 1, and I have the second page watchlisted as well (along with most of the AA articles). How in the hell do you even come up with bizarre allegations like this with no valid basis? Are you trying to accuse me or the other user of sockpuppetry or some similar nonsense? If so, go ahead and open and SPI (mind you, it isn't going to end like yesterday). Otherwise, baseless slender and misconduct accusations like this qualify as personal attacks (I have maybe 6 diffs already telling you this, and yet you don't change your behavior, will look really well on you in ANI).
I am not surprised, these two editors worked closely with the banned sockpuppeteer before, please check their talk pages, for example here[17] and here[18] and for ZaniGiovanni here[19]: What EXACTLY are you trying to say by this line? You just linked talk pages in these 3 diffs, you understand that right? And you understand that the user wasn't banned for sockpuppeting at that time, right? Nothing in your diffs indicates misconduct or breaking any Wikipedia guidlines, so once again, trying to pass diffs as something that they aren't.
I am asking the administrator to please consider the behavior of these users over the past several days towards me and whether this can be considered appropriate, cooperative behavior. I asked ZaniGiovanni to talk, he refuses to talk, and tries to implicate me in something: I am talking to you despite your false accusations/gossip and baselesss misconcudct allegations. Most of the editors in my place would've already taken this to ANI, yet I am still talking to you, and you blatantly continue to claim otherwise. I strongly believe that the only thing the admin @ToBeFree should consider is your breach of WP:CIVILITY, WP:GF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NOTHERE. Please, tell me your opinion on this matter, so I know if I have to take this to ANI or not @ToBeFree. Thanks in advance, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my wholesale removal of the section started by "ClassicYoghurt"/"BaxçeyêReş"/"Accidental-usurpation" made you feel unwelcome in any way. I just didn't want a sockpuppet's fire to continue burning, no matter who had contributed wood into it. I know that happened with good intentions, but I really had to delete that section, and I hope we all three agree to wish it good riddance.
ZaniGiovanni, you're concerned about WimpyDood using Wikipedia as a battleground. Before BaxçeyêReş was found to be a sockpuppet, I had blocked them for such behavior, so it is an understandable request to repeat the process in case of similar disruption.
BaxçeyêReş was an unusually obvious case: They explicitly referred to "crush"ing and "banish"ing when describing their intended interaction with other users and their content. I'm not questioning their faith; they probably believe in a free, neutral encyclopedia as much as we do. They just disagree about how to achieve this goal, and perhaps about what "neutrality" means. That's usually okay, but it must not come with unfounded accusations against others and references to violence in their announcements. Edit warring is similarly disruptive. Additional concerns had been voiced at Special:Permalink/1035157446#Request_for_your_opinion, which, if correct, justify a permanent block on their own as well.
WimpyDood, you strongly disagree with ZaniGiovanni's concerns. Because ZaniGiovanni has repeatedly voiced them even by joining a discussion between others here, apparently without having been specifically invited before writing Special:Diff/1035956407, you believe that they are following you around to throw these accusations at you on every occasion. ZaniGiovanni will probably have to agree that this is not an entirely unreasonable impression to have now. It puts them in a relatively weak position when complaining, as such complaints become expectable over time and lose their effect of directing attention towards specific issues.
I believe that comparing WimpyDood's behavior to BaxçeyêReş's behavior isn't effective. It ignores the severity of the concerns about BaxçeyêReş, and it downplays the disruptiveness of BaxçeyêReş's behavior in a collaborative community.
WimpyDood, you have edit warred at Azerbaijanis in Armenia. Your edit summary in Special:Diff/1035562732 is incorrect: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. As you have never edited Talk:Azerbaijanis in Armenia, it would furthermore be incorrect to claim that you correctly followed "BRD" or any similar recommended process. You have not engaged in proper discussion on the talk page of the article. Inviting someone to start a discussion themselves does not count. If you would like to discuss an article, please create a discussion on the article's talk page. Afterwards, you are welcome to invite disagreeing users to it. See WP:DISCFAIL for my favorite essay on Wikipedia. It contains all advice you need in such a situation, and I found it very helpful when I had such a problem at ADHOC.
ZaniGiovanni, WimpyDood was previously formally unaware of the discretionary sanctions authorized in this area. I have added {{subst:DS/alert|a-a}} to their talk page now. If WimpyDood's behavior in this area, starting from today, persistently violates policies, you are welcome to create a request for sanctions at WP:AE. Please carefully read through the instructions on that page, think three times about whether you really want to do this, then follow the procedures. You'll need to provide evidence of clear policy violations in form of diffs (such as the "1, 2, 3, 4" in your message) that happened after today's notification and that demonstrate a long-term issue after multiple warnings.
That said, again, you may not be in an ideal position to complain about WimpyDood's behavior, as accusations about following them around have been voiced. A reasonable decision you could make in this situation is to wait a few months before interacting with WimpyDood again. See what happens during these months. Perhaps they jump into further edit wars and are already blocked when you have a look again, but I wouldn't bet on it: I'm relatively certain that WimpyDood understands your concerns and has already learned from them. Please give them time instead of analyzing their newest contributions for misconduct. Others will do so for you, as these articles are watched by numerous editors with all kinds of opinions about the conflict. All you could do has been done for now. You have voiced your concerns, you now have access to WP:AE as an effective tool to use in case of persistent severe disruption, and you can (and should, in my opinion) now lean back and wait.
I'd prefer to leave it at this for now. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not to punish users for past misconduct. With this message here, I hope to have prevented problematic behavior without applying any block.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree Thank you for your thorough message. Yes I saw them edit-warring in the mentioned article I have watchlisted, and I'll admit I joined the discussion without being invited explicitly. But my points were valid of their disruptive edit pattern shown in the Azerbaijanis in Armenia page, refusing to open a talk discussion when they got reverted, and then edit-warring and blaming me here for not "talking to them". I thought that their recent conduct needed to be shown, and when I saw them editing in this page (I checked their contributions next day to see if they edit-warred again), that's how I saw the discussion. You being an admin, I thought to voice my concerns here (especially since they removed my edit-war notice, claiming that I reverted them "without proper reasoning"). I see that you have warned them of AA sanctions, tho I'll add that they might have been already aware of the sanctions cause of their edit history in AA articles (even longer than mine), see their main account Creffel (need to be checked for confirmation).
As I said earlier, WimpyDood's recent conduct and refusal to admit wrong doing was my main concern as I mentioned multiple times, including in my initial statement. I'll follow your advice, take care and thanks again. Best wishes, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree Thank you very much for your arbitration. Apologies for the late reply, I took a day off to focus on my studies. While I do believe that ZaniGiovanni's decision to follow me around instead of talking to me personally is quite problematic, I fully accept your arbitration and apologize for edit-warring on the "Azerbaijanis in Armenia" page. I had reasons to believe that ZaniGiovanni was removing cited information without providing proper reasoning, however, with the benefit of hindsight, I should have opened a talk instead of making further reverts. It was wrong of me to make 3 reverts consecutively. I will certainly refresh my guidelines knowledge and read WP:DISCFAIL as you suggested. I will continue editing and sincerely hope ZaniGiovanni will also be more forthcoming in the future and try to engage in talk before following me around, although I do believe we need several months before contacting again, as you suggested. Once more, I would like to offer my sincere apologies for the edit-warring and I also hope that ZaniGiovanni will not themselves engage in edit-warring in the future. Thank you so very much for your insightful arbitration and assistance in resolving our disagreements, I wish you all the best ToBeFree. Kind regards, - WimpyDood (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
No worries, thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI @WimpyDood before this discussion closes for good, as my positions have been altered again (:
1) As @ToBeFree already told you, the ONUS was on you to open a discussion (not on me to "talk to you")
2) I edited on the pages I have on my watchlist. The only reason I saw this discussion is when I checked your contributions (I guess this is what you would call "following around")
3) I didn't edit-war with you, you should really stop with the false misconduct allegations (@ToBeFree does this look like someone who is "understanding my concerns and taking notice"?). In fact, I didn't brake any guidelines while editing in the mentioned pages, and I'd suggest the same for you in future.
With this being said, I'd kindly ask for the admin @ToBeFree to take a closer look at your reply, and if WimpyDood really learned anything from this altercation or not. Clearing my position and conduct once again as I have to if false allegations are thrown against me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding #1: WimpyDood has acknowledged this ("I should have opened a talk instead of making further reverts"). However, an easy way to deescalate the situation for you would have been to create the discussion yourself. You didn't have to, but it would have been equally beneficial if you had explained your content-related (not behavioral) concerns on the article's talk page.
Regarding #2, thank you for the clarification. That's usually fine and there are no worries from my side. We can probably all agree that having an impression of being "followed" afterwards isn't entirely unreasonable; it may not have been avoidable, and it is simply unfortunate. We can't completely undo this impression, but perhaps your explanation alleviates the concerns.
Regarding #3, you reverted already-reverted content, and when that re-revert was re-re-reverted, you answered it with another revert of content that had been reverted twice, including once by you. Yes, you too edit-warred instead of discussing the matter on the talk page first. I personally highly value WP:ONUS and somehow accept it as a justification for a few reverts, but this wasn't ideal either.
Yes, I am relatively sure that WimpyDood understands your reasonable concerns and has learned from the whole situation.
@ToBeFree thanks again for your message. regarding some of the points:
As you said yourself, I didn’t have to and I didn’t have the time either. Wikipedia is merely a hobby for me.
Please, hear my position. I’m almost sure that hounding allegations don’t hold up by WimpyDood, as per the policy: “Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.” Moreover, in one of the two mentioned diffs I edited long before their account creation [244]. The previous closed discussion was the only thing I saw and thought to join because of my concerns and about their conduct. And still, I don't think I broke any guidelines as my concerns as you also pointed out, were reasonable.
You’re right actually, just noticed the revert.
I hope so too. Thanks again, take care. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Rewriting COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
Administrator ToBeFree, over the past year, a group of editors have banded together to:
2) Lobby administrators to effect site bans and topic bans on editors trying to include the topic in pages where it is WP:DUE.
3) Codify their positions in the WP:NOLABLEAK essay and masquerade it as policy in numerous talk page discussions.
Now that I have written WP:YESLABLEAK and unblanked the lab leak hypothesis page, these same editors are:
1) Claiming that a "Scientific background" must be placed in the introduction to describe the mainstream view first, which is like putting an entire introductory section to The Christ in Messiah in Judaism[245].
2) Creating discussions about core elements of the hypothesis, like this discussion started by PaleoNeonate[246], demonstrating that they read neither Chan’s preprint nor the reliable sources that report it. These discussion require editors like myself, who have actually read the sources to engage in the WP:BRD process, instead of giving the little time I have to create content about the hypothesis itself.
4) Moved the first mention in the scientific press of the hypothesis down to the body of the article, to give the appearance that it was first proposed by politicians, which is completely false. I have just reinstated the quote by Ebright into the lead of the article, as he was quoted on this in the science press long before Trump was in the general press. Please note also that Wikipedia may need to change its policy on the Daily Mail, which quotes a White House scientist on the matter [248].
5) Repeatedly claiming that there is a "scientific consensus" on the supposed "natural origins" of the virus - based on a WP:MISINTERPRETATION of the Hakim paper, and ignoring a key nuance argued by scientists - such as David Relman - that while origin of the virus may well be natural, but that its origins in humans - i.e. the first infection - may not. This has been discussed ad nauseam with many reliable sources and WP:UPPERCASES being thrown around across many many discussions. Please note also that RandomCanadian has just removed the FV tag I put on this false claim of consensus, saying it has been concluded in other discussions [249].
It should be noted that the only reason we are having to rewrite this article is because as you pointed out to me, RoySmith’s close of the DR allowed only for a "new draft" [250], which appears to me to be based on the "WP:TNT" calls in the delete votes of PaleoNeonate, RandomCanadian and Nsk92. The first two of these three editors are decidedly WP:NOLABLEAK editors who also voted to delete in the MfD and AfD, while the third has changed his position [251]. The only other comment I can find about a rewrite is from Porcelain katana who was against it in the MfD, and has since voted Keep in the AfD.
With this, I ask that you RoySmith clarify the DR close, and what it means for those of us trying to rewrite the article according to WP:PAG’s. Thank you and good night. CutePeach (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@CutePeach I'll be happy to clarify my close, but I'm not completely sure what question you're asking. Could you be more specific about what needs clarification? Keep in mind, I'm not going to offer an opinion on any specific content. I can only comment on how I summarized the DRV discussion. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy pings (since those were clearly deliberately left out above...): @PaleoNeonate and Nsk92:
As for CP's actual comment, beyond the blatant aspersions and accusations, I must say I don't quite understand why they are so desperately trying to prove their unwillingness to collaborate in this difficult area. Their latest behaviour, if you'll excuse the metaphor, is basically yet another attempt to strike yet another full blow with a bludgeon, with the expectation, seemingly, that the bolt will suddenly jolt upwards, to their preferred outcome, instead of going down in the same direction you're expect it to go based on our policies. If I may, it's more likely that this will result in patience running out and the whole building coming back down crumbling on them... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I intend to fully read the above later, but would like to mention the unfortunate fact that I already tend to ignore CutePeach's comments and pings. Since this is an administrator's page I'll say it: CutePeach is obviously a promotional account and perhaps that of a previously blocked editor (if not, forgive me, but there are reasons to believe it). If not a sockpuppet, evidence of meatpuppetry also often surfaced in relation to this topic. I have a list of soapboxing evidence that could eventually be presented at AE if this keeps up, given the time. The "a group of editors" above, includes people like me who care about the encyclopedia's accuracy, that it be well cited and reflects reliable sources. Something I try to do since 2005, although my account is more recent than that. I'm also familiar with propaganda and misrepresentation tactics and as such am a regular participant at FTN and joined WikiProject Skepticism... This is not to boast but to explain why I tend to ignore their posts. —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hmm well after reading a little more I see that it's more of a general problem and dislike of Wikipedia policies... —PaleoNeonate – 22:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I have read these messages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree and RoySmith i saw this earlier and i think CutePeach is asking you to recognize that there is a faction-like group that has disrupted this topic for a year, and they would like you administrators to provide a remedy for the situation. CNET wrote an article about this war over the lab leak on Wikipedia, saying also that Wikipedia has "just a core group of contributors numbering around in the tens of thousands, at most." What this shows is it's very easy for experienced editors to game the system and the CNET article says also there may be Chinese state actors here. I don’t want to point fingers, but RandomCanadian who commented here is known for editing the lab leak out of every single article on Covid, including biographic articles about notable people who proposed it, twisting sourcing policies and guidelines. I am not saying this is proof of anything of course, and I would also not say this Iraq WMD point they made to My very best wishes on the same day Zhao Lijian made the same point is proof of anything either, of course. Since PaleoNeonate accuses CutePeach of being a sock, I remind you that Jtbobwaysf mentioned to Arbcom that RandomCanadian is a very suspicious account, and PaleoNeonate then immediately showed up on his talk page telling them to file an SPI. Obviously no one has filed an SPI, because by RandomCanadian’s own admission they are very experienced editors, editing as an IP for four years, so they probably have good alibi. RandomCanadian and Novem Linguae welcomed me to Wikipedia by accusing me of being part of a DRASTIC when I created DRASTIC, tried to blank the page with file copyright complaints and emailed Arbcom about me. It's quite suspicious these editors who have blocked the creation of the lab leak page now want to help rewrite it, and, obviously, they want to delete the most important section of it, as you see here. If this is how administrators allow experienced editors to behave, despite obvious signs of WP:GAMING no wonder you have only a core group of only a few tens of thousands of editors.--Francesco espo (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
This thread will likely need bumping. As for the above, its entirely comical that the diff provided to support the claim that I am "known for editing the lab leak out of every single article on Covid, including biographic articles about notable people who proposed it" - only actually shows the removal of the primary, self-published source, without altering any text. As for the very unsubtle and baseless accusation that (and the similar comments by CP) needs to stop, because it makes any collaboration very difficult, and again only makes me think of the first law of holes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The previous versions were obviously unacceptable, as most experienced editors can assess. When an inappropriate article passes AfD and will remain in mainspace, it must be fixed and sometimes turned into a stub or rewritten, this is common practice. Wikipedia is not an indicriminate webhost. It's also not for promotion or trying to mainstream ideas that are not the conclusions of the best sources. The reason why the article is about to remain, if it does, is WP:GNG, not because the conclusions previous versions pushed were right. You are free to do that on your own website. As I wrote on the DRASTIC article's talk page earlier, if you are part of the group, trying to use Wikipedia as a propaganda platform taints its reputation and may affect that of members doing more legitimate work, if any. If you are not, sorry for making the erroneous assumption. See the reputation of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, for instance. WP:SPA on Wikipedia says a lot and can be evidence of WP:NOTHERE. What you call disruption above is routine quality control by regulars, patrolers and administrators who understand the policies. WP:NOTFREESPEECH although an essay, is a pretty good summary of why censorship crying fails on Wikipedia... —PaleoNeonate – 07:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Well it seems that NOTFREESPEECH is now a redirect to the NOT policy page, it was likely merged. It is relevant, but the essay is WP:FREE. I highly recommend to carefully read both, —PaleoNeonate – 07:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Claiming that the article must be structured into a "claims and rebuttals" format, citing WP:GEVAL if this is related to the discussion at the new article's talk page, when I refer to GEVAL it's a warning to avoid doing it, not to do it. Wikipedia is not "foo says this, bar says that" but attempts to instead focus on the topic in its context. There is some obvious misunderstanding or misrepresentation there. This is also why reminding of the scientific consensus is important. We don't try to give equal validity to two ideas that do not have the same likelyhood especially when reliable sources also stress that. When the next int report and reliable sources also report about it, who knows. At the moment it remains speculative and considered as such by most of the scientific community. This will be my last comment about this on this page. —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate the reason the article will pass is not just because of WP:N, but also because of WP:DUE. There are aspects of the hypothesis that WP:NOLABLEAK activists have repeatedly claimed are undue in COVID-19 origins and related pages, which is why I had to unblank this page. Your attempts to WP:POVDELETE the Apparent pre-adaption section and other sections of the page - ironically for reasons of WP:DUE - lays bare your intention to continue WP:CENSORING the topic from Wikipedia. You claim your WP:ACTIVISM is really just regular quality control, but we have senior admins like DGG who have said they have never seen anything like this campaign of censorship in the fourteen years they’ve been an administrator. I think this is an opportune time for an WP:ARE case. CutePeach (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
(There is now an enforcement request at WP:AE#CutePeach, which is a good occasion to pause this discussion here for the time being.) Bumping thread for 30 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
everyone, let's not escalate this. We are very near having a satisfactory article or group of articles. What matters is the content, not the details of how it's expressed. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, I guess what Ohnoitsjamie did. The request at ARCA has finally been closed (1034695626#Clarification_request:_COVID-19). I had seen the request and didn't want to take this action before it's closed, but now I can implement the indefinite semi-protection I had in mind all the time. I should perhaps have had a look at the ARCA discussion more frequently to notice this earlier; thank you for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't aware there had been an ARCA discussion; in any case, indef semi works for me. OhNoitsJamieTalk 13:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
Hello. I am trying to understand the 24 hour block you gave CutePeach. The block summary does not shed much light on the subject. I am not challenging the block, rather just trying to understand it. I am assuming that I am missing something. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask. 06:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just figured it out seeing the set of edits you reverted. That makes sense.
All that time they were asking for to write their AE statement seems to have gone into writing 16 kilobytes of arguments that they then posted in the hour after making their statement. This confirms my suspicions that they were delaying things so that they could get in more comments on the topic before being banned. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask. 06:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi HighInBC, thanks, yes. I should probably have chosen a more descriptive block reason; looking at "last edit: 4 minutes ago", I was more focused on preventing more of this than writing a good block summary. Sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree - you need to follow the policies about blocking, specifically the point about notifying those you block. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
If your wiki uses markup like <div class="mw-content-ltr"> or <div class="mw-content-rtl"> without the required dir attribute, then these will no longer work in 2 weeks. There is a short-term fix that can be added to your local wiki's Common.css page, which is explained at T287701. From now on, all usages should include the full attributes, for example: <div class="mw-content-ltr" dir="ltr" lang="en"> or <div class="mw-content-rtl" dir="rtl" lang="he">. This also applies to some other HTML tags, such as span or code. You can find existing examples on your wiki that need to be updated, using the instructions at T287701.
Last week, all wikis had slow access or no access for 30 minutes. There was a problem with generating dynamic lists of articles on the Russian Wikinews, due to the bulk import of 200,000+ new articles over 3 days, which led to database problems. The problematic feature has been disabled on that wiki and developers are discussing if it can be fixed properly. [252][253]
Changes later this week
When adding links to a page using VisualEditor or the 2017 wikitext editor, disambiguation pages will now only appear at the bottom of search results. This is because users do not often want to link to disambiguation pages. [254]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 3 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 4 August. It will be on all wikis from 5 August (calendar).
Future changes
The team of the Wikipedia app for Android is working on communication in the app. The developers are working on how to talk to other editors and get notifications. You can read more. They are looking for users who want to test the plans. Any editor who has an Android phone and is willing to download the app can do this.
The Beta Feature for Discussion tools will be updated in the coming weeks. You will be able to subscribe to individual sections on a talk page at more wikis. You can test this now by adding ?dtenable=1 to the end of the talk page's URL (example).
Hey, I think you forgot to include the topic area in your discretionary sanctions alert on July 30.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23, I mixed up GS and DS and used "caste" instead of "sasg": Special:AbuseLog/30541972. Will fix that, thank you very much for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Tobias, no one knows where the virus came from. The two main hypotheses in play are natural occurrence or accidental release of a virus collected by people from nature. The reason the second hypothesis is notable is mainly because of the reaction of people against it, including scientists, journalists, and editors on Wikipedia. We don’t have actual evidence that it leaked from a lab, and we are not claiming it did, and I don’t think CutePeach claimed it did. In reverse, those who believe in natural origins hypothesis (like Shibbolethink), claim to know the truth (and it is the natural one). You can read this in his paper when he says "I am very confident SARS-CoV-2 has no connection to the Wuhan Institute of Virology", it is exactly in the lead of the paper [255]. It is clear for all the people involved in this topic area who the extremists are and who are not, and also who are the biased admins, and who are not. --Francesco espo (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Francesco espo, it seems you may have not read my also prominently placed footnote regarding this exact argument:
If you’re already preparing a comment like “You can’t be 100% sure of that! Liar!!” Then you’re right! I cannot be 100% sure. Please read this footnote:#3
You’re absolutely right! I cannot be 100% sure of what I’m saying in this post. And that is a complete and total misunderstanding of the point. When we’re talking about things like this, we can never be 100% sure. Yknow, it’s possible that one of you out there works at the WIV and knows for 100% certain what the answer is. But I’m not holding out hope(1) for that. (If that's you, we probably have mutual friends! Drop me a line!) Anyway, for 99.99% of the world, all we can ever hope to know is probabilistic certainty. We can only ever hope to make very educated guesses. And that’s okay! Because that’s what science is all about. All we can do is gather as much data as we can in the most unbiased way possible, and draw conclusions from there. And that’s what this post is all about. I would urge you to take a chance on this post, and give it the most unbiased reading you can! Who knows? Take a chance on me(2), and maybe you’ll have your mind changed. And if not, all you really lost was time.
I never claimed to know the truth about anything. I am, like everyone else, drawing probabilities. It so happens that I draw them the same way most virologists do.--Shibbolethink(♔♕) 01:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Francesco espo and Shibbolethink, I've personally had enough of the whole lab leak debate for a long while. I'm not the enforcing administrator of CutePeach's ban and I really don't have a strong position about what the actual origin of COVID-19 is. If you would like to discuss Wikipedia's coverage of the topic, please use the relevant article talk pages; if you would like to discuss the ban, please do so with the enforcing administrator instead. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Of course, my apologies TBF. In particular, I'm sorry that the heat of this contentious area extended to you getting hostile and inaccurate criticism not only from users (which I think is probably expected) but also from other admins (which is probably not). Thank you for the helpful mopping.—Shibbolethink(♔♕) 09:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
No worries, Shibbolethink. As "involvement" is mostly defined by others' impression in general, I'm not sure if I can shrug off any such concerns as "inaccurate" at all. I'll have to accept them; the usergroups a user is a member of don't influence this much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Heya!
Hey there, To Be Frei ;) Thanks for the new rights grant! That's quite a good music. I liked the second one. :) Danke Dir! -- DaxServer (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, DaxServer, enjoy editing! Thanks for the kind feedback, gern geschehen. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Google Translate puts it in two ways. you're welcome -> gerne geschehen ; You're welcome -> Gern geschehen ; languages 🙈🤯 Dict.cc and Leo puts it as gern :O -- DaxServer (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(referring to my edit summary in Special:Diff/1036975755) – Heh, both is orthographically correct, but I've actually only ever heard it without the "e". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Can you help me?
Hi, ToBeFree. I just wanna ask, is there anything can you do to this IP address 180.247.186.213? This person kept on changing too many unnecessary information on several Malaysian beauty pageant titleholders such as Kiran Jassal. This person started an edit war. It could be better if you can help me to protect most of the article that he tried to constantly edit. ~ Lara Hatsumi (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2021 (MYT)
Let's try a week-long block on the IP address first. If the block is evaded from a different IP address, the articles can be protected against further sockpuppetry. If the same behavior continues after a week, when the block has expired, I'll try a longer block duration on their current IP address. Please keep me updated!
Thank you very much for the notification, LordKulgur. Done.
At the moment, it seems that reverting all of the low-frequency block evading edits, and then applying a long-duration block to the pretty static IP address, is more effective than selectively protecting the affected pages. This may well change if the user persists in editing the same page three or more times. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
You can read but not edit 17 wikis for a few minutes on 10 August. This is planned at 05:00 UTC. This is because of work on the database. [256]
Changes later this week
The Wikimania Hackathon will take place remotely on 13 August, starting at 5:00 UTC, for 24 hours. You can participate in many ways. You can still propose projects and sessions.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 August. It will be on all wikis from 12 August (calendar).
The old CSS <div class="visualClear"></div> will not be supported after 12 August. Instead, templates and pages should use <div style="clear:both;"></div>. Please help to replace any existing uses on your wiki. There are global-search links available at T287962.
Future changes
The Wikipedia Library is a place for Wikipedia editors to get access to sources. There is an extension which has a new function to tell users when they can take part in it. It will use notifications. It will start pinging the first users in September. It will ping more users later. [257]
Please start at the top of the manual of style where it states, "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams". A club or team in a nation does not represent that nation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
But to address the actual request (Special:Diff/1037950454 at AIV): Interpreting it as new vandalism and blocking them for getting this wrong seems to be a bit far-fetched. I think we should wait and focus on the verifiability-related rather than the MOS-related issues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is one thing, the culmination of all behaviour is another. The football project is not in agreement with your assessment. They agree that teams participating in the tournament may have flags in the infobox, but not the host itself. I am not longer active, but take your request to their talk to change consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, I wrote "I see why the lack of a flag next to the 'Host country' makes sense." Isn't this in line with the agreement? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The football project being at odds with policy (as ever so often happens with all kinds of Wikiprojects) would be the kind of stuff dealt with by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, was in a rush and only skimmed your response. The FOOTY project is in agreement with the MoS. Many other sport projects ignore it and wave flags at every possible instance, even when inappropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
The Padlock Barnstar
Thank you for all the protections (and blocks). FDW777 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I hope Jerm doesn't mind my addition of {{PD-ineligible}} to the file's description page. I'm happy about being able to use the icon on my user page with a link to this section because it is a color-modified collage of two public domain images.
Thank you very much for the kind feedback, FDW777, and please let me know if the sockpuppetry continues. For AIV, you may like to copy the text "Block evasion of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A41.204.44.235&type=block 41.204.44.235], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A93.173.75.187&type=block 93.173.75.187], 85.250.178.53, 184.146.38.102, 196.170.74.182 and 24.76.105.82." during the next weeks, to make the decision easy. It may be advisable to wait a few minutes after the report instead of reverting directly, to deprive the evading user from the rewarding feeling of interacting with the community.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
This is really only about content from my side, but I'm happy to see that a few additional eyes are looking at the general situation. Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Q.. You removed the notability tag but are you sure she's actually notable? The given refs don't seem to meet GNG (many are SPS or basically Pinterest mirrors etc, even the decent sources seem to be passing mentions) and a quick Google doesn't bring up much. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, nah, I don't have an opinion on the notability, apart from the observation that articles which attract an unproportional amount of promotional editing are usually about low-notability topics, as there is no need to promote something truly neutrally notable for its great features. I just didn't want to revert Special:Diff/1038296464, which removed the template, without having done a notability research. I accidentally did so in Special:Diff/1038296505 but avoided doing it again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Legend has it that one day a chosen one will appear whose request will be parsed... El_C 12:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
😅 Wonderful, El C. I have already wondered whether I'd be able to create a request that is correctly interpreted by Cyberbot I. I think that isn't possible at the moment. On it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 100 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
A late followup: El C, I hope this is not longer an issue. I didn't forward it to Cyberpower678 as the list of reported issues was already large and I expected this bug to disappear in the process of other bugfixes. If that's not the case, please message them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Small Question
Hello ToBeFree!
I hope you are doing well. I am writing today with a small question: maybe you remember how you banned a user named ClassicYoghurt[259] for battleground mentality and then they came back as a sock account [260]? Well, the user came back recently once again and I reported them to SPI and the new sock account was banned again [261].
Considering the user's disruptive behavior last time, you used a rollback on their edits and placed protections on pages they were editing. I was wondering if this is the right instance to do the same thing with their new sock account? Please let me know what you think. Thank you in advance for your response - WimpyDood (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey WimpyDood, thank you very much for the notification. The amount of battleground editing, attacks, sockpuppetry and general disruption in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area surprises me, but well... 14 edits rolled back, three pages deleted per WP:G5, one article proposed for deletion, four pages protected, one talk page access revoked, one unblock request declined. Things can only get better! Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes you are right! Of course things can get better, thank you so very much once again. Wish you all the best :) - WimpyDood (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence
For being an all-round diligent, considerate, and helpful Wikipedia administrator who helped deal with a sockpuppeting cases [262][263] in a fast and efficient manner – WimpyDood (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, WimpyDood, that made my weekend. Happy to help and all the best to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can add language links in the sidebar in the new Vector skin again. You do this by connecting the page to a Wikidata item. The new Vector skin has moved the language links but the new language selector cannot add language links yet. [264]
Problems
There was a problem on wikis which use the Translate extension. Translations were not updated or were replaced with the English text. The problems have been fixed. [265][266][267]
Changes later this week
A revision tag will soon be added to edits that add links to disambiguation pages. This is because these links are usually added by accident. The tag will allow editors to easily find the broken links and fix them. If your wiki does not like this feature, it can be hidden. [268]
Would you like to help improve the information about tools? Would you like to attend or help organize a small virtual meetup for your community to discuss the list of tools? Please get in touch on the Toolhub Quality Signal Sessions talk page. We are also looking for feedback from tool maintainers on some specific questions.
In the past, edits to any page in your user talk space ignored your mute list, e.g. sub-pages. Starting this week, this is only true for edits to your talk page. [269]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 August. It will be on all wikis from 19 August (calendar).
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Time for a certain individual to be blocked from editing their own talk page...me thinks
Based on this edit I don't see how this editor is here to build an encyclopedia nor are they here to collaborate.--VVikingTalkEdits 22:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The tip of an iceberg, more so than I thought. Thanks for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Roy Kim
Hello ToBeFree, would need a third opinion, could you please help. It's about the article Roy Kim, see talk page. Thank you in advance for your effort. Best wishes --Serols (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for asking. If I see correctly, your main objection was to the removal of material. We probably agree that the material isn't suitable for the lead section of the article, at least not in this detail. Others seem to have been concerned when they saw that the material was moved back to the lead section. The concerns seem to be about neutrality (undue weight), and the text was arguably not a "summary of the article's most important contents" as defined by WP:LEDE.
I am however also a bit concerned about Special:Diff/1039245250. Sleptlapps's behavior is unusual for a new user: Special:Diff/1032765547 makes me raise both eyebrows, and responding to an experienced user's revert with a variation of {{uw-vandalism1}} without ever having received such a warning template themselves is similarly strange. Still, "Please first familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia, you have only registered for a month" is practically never a helpful response. If you feel it's absolutely necessary to give a broad hint into this direction, you can start your message with a "welcome to Wikipedia".
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello ToBeFree, I read your comments and explanations on the appropriate pages and am impressed - that rarely happens to me. Thank you very much for your explanations and your help.
"Please first familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia, you have only registered for a month" was actually just the attempt to appeal to her/his reason regarding the choice of words, which obviously was misunderstood.
May I contact you in the future with a problem (is quite seldom)? Best wishes --Serols (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Small supplement -> that's not ok. One edit and two warnings. Regards --Serols (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind feedback! You're welcome, of course, and I'm happy about such questions, so always feel free to ask. Regarding the wording, yeah – no worries. I'll try to figure out what the context of Special:Diff/1032765547 was and have now asked YoungForever for input. Perhaps this is a case of sockpuppetry, but perhaps there is a different explanation; I'll insist on getting an answer and perhaps create an SPI if I find additional evidence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppet page deletions
Hello, ToBeFree,
With these mass deletions of pages created by sockpuppets, are you checking to see if these articles had contributions by other editors? Because if other editors contributed to the authorship of some of these articles, they shouldn't have been deleted. I don't see how you could have checked all of these hundreds of pages so quickly. LizRead!Talk! 00:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Liz, I have opened each page's history and checked for substantial contributions from other editors, unchecking the box at Special:Nuke or removing the tab from my list for the Twinkle deletions whenever there have been some. I have then sometimes protected the kept page to prevent further sockpuppetry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Angela Rye wiki page
Hello-- I received notice that I have been blocked from editing the Angela Rye wiki page. All of the edits I made were verified and approved by mods, and there is an entire thread showing their approval. The article is being vandalized by someone seeking to delete entire paragraphs of verified information about the subject.
These deletes and blocking my edits contributes to misinformation deliberately withheld from the public.
there does not seem to have been a discussion about this on the article's talk page, Talk:Angela Rye. 68.63.236.54 seems to have been concerned about the neutrality or verifiability of the material, and treating such concerns as "vandalism" (i.e. intentional damage to the encyclopedia) is problematic by itself.
When there is such a content dispute, the onus is on you to gain consensus for inclusion of the material, on the article's talk page. There is no "mod approval" or similar alternative process.
Please keep in mind that a biography of a living person can cause actual harm to the described person, especially if it contains non-neutral or unverifiable material.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@tobefree thank you for the explanation-- I am currently trying to keep track of what edits the bot has made as those are, of course, fair. I will continue to watch for verified information being removed and handle arbitration on that front. All of my edits are neutral in that they are factual content verified by credible news sources. That they are being wholesale deleted seems a disservice to the public because they are verified material. i am a newbie to all of this but am learning Blindsocialist (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)blindsocialist
Blindsocialist, no worries. The best way forward is probably creating a new section at Talk:Angela Rye explaining why you consider the material to be verifiable, neutral and important for inclusion. We can then also invite 68.63.236.54 to the discussion, and perhaps those who have contributed to the material in the meantime. If you're interested in a neutral notification to all those, feel free to create the section, then notify me and I'll invite them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Score extension (<score> notation) has been re-enabled on public wikis and upgraded to a newer version. Some musical score functionality may no longer work because the extension is only enabled in "safe mode". The security issue has been fixed and an advisory published.
Problems
You will be able to read but not edit some wikis for a few minutes on 25 August. This will happen around 06:00 UTC. This is for database maintenance. During this time, operations on the CentralAuth will also not be possible.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 August. It will be on all wikis from 26 August (calendar).
Hi! I have noticed that you were familiar with the previous sockpuppet investigations of the banned user ClassicYoghurt. I am rarely on Wikipedia and not very familiar with all regulations so I wanted to request your support if you have some free time. There is a high possibility that this user is another sockpuppet account of his [270]. This account was created just a week ago and without explanations reverts back to the Yoghurt's old edits. I am not familiar this the guidelines and don't know how to fill a report, so I was wondering if you could help me with that. If it appears to be him again, I am afraid to say that this guy has serious mental issues and need to be handled by respectiful admins. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the notification; I'll have a closer look at this. Regarding sockpuppetry investigations, the easiest way to file one is to enable Twinkle in your preferences, section "gadgets". When you're looking at the contribution list of a sockpuppeteer, you can click "TW"->"ARV"->"Sockpuppeteer" and fill the form with any amount of sock usernames and IP addresses. Make sure to provide diff links as evidence.
Regarding the health or other personal issues of other users, even if you happen to be a psychologist, please avoid publicly stating such assumptions, especially in edit summaries, as doing so is – depending on interpretation – usually interpreted as a personal attack and/or an outing attempt, none of which are appropriate even towards the most disruptive long-term harassers on the project.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes it is hard to hold yourself back from emotions when you see something like this on the website that is supposed to be the world's largest encyclopedia. But from now on, I will try to be more easygoing and do not use expressions like this - thank you for your comment. I just hope this situation will be handled properly. Thank you for your reply. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Mastersun25, no worries. Regarding the sockpuppetry suspicion, please do report it at WP:SPI instead. It's not obvious enough for me, as the user may have focused on reverting your edits, not necessarily on restoring ClassicYoghurt's edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Also during this time, operations on the CentralAuth will not be possible (GlobalRenames, changing/confirming e-mail addresses, logging into new wikis, password changes).
For more details about the operation and on all impacted services, please check on Phabricator.
A banner will be displayed 30 minutes before the operation.
Please help your community to be aware of this maintenance operation. Thank you!
Hi ToBeFree. My heartful appreciation and thanks to you for reverting it back, and time and efforts in reviewing and publishing this article in Wikipedia. Being a global and credible platform for a source of information, would like to contribute more. Gardenkur (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gardenkur, thank you very much for the kind response; I hope the process of overturning an incorrect rejection wasn't too frustrating. I'm left a bit puzzled as this should not have happened. The page was declined when it already contained the relevant information to satisfy WP:NPOLITICIAN, then improved by you to meet the already-met requirements in 12 further edits, re-submitted correctly, rejected in a decision gravely incorrectly marked as "final", nominated for speedy deletion because of its promotional parts instead of reduced to the facts, deleted in disregard of the guidance about notable subjects at WP:G11, restored for "one more chance", edited heavily to address the neutrality concerns, ignored by a person you asked for help, and then randomly found because that person brought attention to their talk page archive when making a request for a permission. We all should thank you for contributing articles about notable topics and still coping with a bureaucracy even after it delivered unjust decisions to you. Perhaps "a bit puzzled" is an understatement. I'm sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree. Thanks again for your apologies. Every challenge will end with much more happy memories. With good guidance and support would like to add more in this platform for many members of public to get guidance. Fortunate enough to get to your notice as lot of efforts in last few months have gone drafting it. With disturbing thoughts gone on issues of getting rejected looking forward to add more in this platform. Heartful thanks and well wishes again. Gardenkur (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Gardenkur, that makes me happy! Regarding the creation of new drafts, if you're sure that a topic meets the notability guidelines, you can now create the article directly instead of as a draft. This should only be done if you're really sure that you're writing about a notable subject – for example, because you have cited multiple secondary independent sources describing the subject in detail (the general criterion). The article doesn't have to contain much text when you do so. Sometimes, two sentences with the right citations are enough to demonstrate notability. A short neutral article is preferable to a long non-neutral article in this regard. People can hardly complain about promotion when you simply state the basic facts.
If other editors doubt the notability of your article's subject, they can then nominate the article for a normal deletion discussion. Such a discussion usually takes seven days, attracts community attention and is often preferable to the draft review process done by individual overworked editors fighting against an ever-growing queue of spam, copyright violations and attack pages.
If you would like to enforce such a discussion for a declined draft, please notify me and I'll have a look at the available options. Alternatively, you can click "More", then "Move", at the top of the draft, and replace "Draft" by "(Article)". This should usually not be done by the article creator, however, as most review results are correct. You'd at very least need to provide a good explanation in the "Reason" field of the page moving form and explicitly write "I prefer proper deletion discussions to the draft process" if you do this yourself.
All the best to you too! Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree Hearty thanks for your valuable feedback and suggestions for writing any new article. Would like to add value to wikipedia either through a new article or in existing ones only if it follows wikipedia policies. Regarding adding secondary sources will try to keep it to relevant ones and reduce the text as suggested by you. Your inputs on any new article are valuable and will always keep refering them in case of need. Got a good insight on steps which are followed in any article marked for deletion. However, not only for a discussion on declined draft but in general too would be happy to associate with you as learning is a endless job. Kindly keep guiding. Will reach you in future as reference for direction in wikipedia. Wishing you a good day. Cheers. Gardenkur (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, and no worries. Feel free to ask any questions that arise, be they about article creation or any other Wikipedia topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
I am retiring, but I just wanted to say thank you. I wish there were more admins like yourself. Luxofluxo (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
It's a rainy day here, contributing to a mood of farewell, perhaps the saddest subject I've ever seen in movies and books. There's nothing worse than having to wish farewell; at least the weather will brighten up over the next days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Some musical score syntax no longer works and may needed to be updated, you can check Category:Pages with score rendering errors on your wiki for a list of pages with errors.
Problems
Musical scores were unable to render lyrics in some languages because of missing fonts. This has been fixed now. If your language would prefer a different font, please file a request in Phabricator. [271]
Changes later this week
The parameters for how you obtain tokens in the MediaWiki API were changed in 2014. The old way will no longer work from 1 September. Scripts, bots and tools that use the parameters from before the 2014 change need to be updated. You can read more about this.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 31 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 September. It will be on all wikis from 2 September (calendar).
Future changes
You will be able to read but not edit Commons for a few minutes on 6 September. This will happen around 05:00 UTC. This is for database maintenance.
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes in the week of 13 September. More information will be published in Tech News later. It will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [272]
My submission Draft: Padma Rao Sundarji was rejected. After modifying the draft further, I requested for advice at the help desk and I was asked to write to the person who rejected my submission. I have done the same twice but haven't heard back. I am clueless on the way forward and looking for some expert guidance, please!
With what I understand of the wiki guidelines, the news articles that cover the subject in detail hold a lot of weightage as a reliable source. I have provided print media sources that cover the subject and her work in detail. However I am not able to understand why they were not considered to support the notability of the subject, although the cited newspapers articles mention otherwise.
Also, I have now included the Award section & provided references for the same.
I have read and understood the comment left on the draft at the time of rejection. However, what I wanted to highlight is that the book reviews that have been cited as print media sources have recognised her work as an author as well as a journalist. She has been recognised and was awarded the Rajiv Gandhi Excellence Award 2015 for Best Literary Personality of the year, which is a well recognised award in India. She has been one of the senior journalists of India who has been highly appreciated in many news articles (print media quoted). Google search bring up a lot of links to her work too (although I am aware the articles itself cannot be quoted as references).
Even if Wiki does not want to accept her journalism as notable enough, would she not be considered notable as an author and for the award she received? (I can assure you that neither the print media articles written about her nor the award are connected to her or the places she worked for, unlike the wiki article of another journalist mentioned in the reviewer comment of my submission. :-) I am not connected either)
I request you to read the article and give me your expert advise please! I have made some changes to the writeup and also have provided a lot of print media citation as independent, secondary and third party verifiable sources for every point mentioned in the article, to prove her notability. Would appreciate your guidance on the way forward! :) Thanks a lot in advance! DivineTogether (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for improving the article further, and for asking for advice.
I've had a look at the draft and did a short search for the newspaper article appearing as a screenshot in the firstpost.com source's title image collage, because that German newspaper is familiar to me. I have added a "Further Reading" entry with a link to the article.
I can't provide an authoritative analysis of the person's notability, but I can offer you the following two paths forward:
Re-submitting the article for review, which is possible now, or:
Moving the draft into the main (Article) namespace, where it will be scrutinized by a different group of editors, Wikipedia's "new page patrollers". If it fails their assessment, a regular deletion discussion will be opened by someone at WP:AfD. The discussion will take approximately 7-14 days, and will likely attract feedback by multiple experienced community members. The result of such a discussion, however, is pretty final.
To re-submit, click the blue button for re-submission. To move the draft instead, click "More" at the top of the draft, then "Move", then replace "Draft" by "(Article)" and provide the following reason: "If you disagree about the notability, I prefer a regular deletion discussion to individual draft reviews".
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I am so thankful to you for taking time to give me a detailed reply. Its such a relief to read your elaborated message, as brief responses leave beginners like me in the middle of nowhere. Your clear guidance really helps a lot!
I am really grateful to you for giving your time and considering a review of my draft, and also allowing me another chance to re-submit. I really appreciate adding a link that gives a significant coverage of the subject.
As per your advise, I have moved the page to the main space as I was unable to find the blue button (for submitting the article for review). Will now look forward to the feedback I receive from the New Page patrollers. Thank you so so much once again! Really appreciate your expert guidance! God bless you in abundance! :) DivineTogether (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I had forgotten to restore the {{AfC draft}} header with the blue button. The move worked successfully, however, and I'm happy to see the result. You're welcome, DivineTogether, and thank you for writing the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
Greetings! It seems that you have banned me from editing Angela's page as well as creating a Wikipedia account? I decided to take the initiative to make the edits because it was clear your account contained biases, and there was insufficient evidence to support what you were saying. In addition, some of the information you provided did not pertain to Angela's work at all (i.e. the lawsuit against her father). It was never my intention to go back and forth with you - my firm belief is simply that as writers, we have a responsibility to write with honesty and integrity. I hope there are no ill feelings on your part (there are none on my end!), and that we can settle this quickly and put this all behind us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.236.54 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi 68.63.236.54, thanks for asking. The account creation restriction was only meant to prevent block evasion: The block only applied to logged-out editing from your IP address, and creating an account would have circumvented the measure. I'll change this: The block will now apply to logged-in editing as well, but you're welcome to create an account.
Regarding the block reason itself: When there is a disagreement about the content of an article, please start a discussion on its talk page (in this case: Talk:Angela Rye) and provide policy- or guideline-based reasons for your position. For example, in your case, you could argue that the material adds undue weight to the controversies, making the article negatively biased against the living person, which must be avoided (WP:NPOV / WP:BLP). You can also argue that, unless an explicit consensus for inclusion of the material is properly found on the article's talk page, the material must not be re-added to the article (WP:ONUS). Furthermore, if you have concerns about the reliability of the used sources, please voice them. The huge colored table at WP:RSP shows what you could look for when making such arguments.
Please have a look at the very helpful essay WP:DISCFAIL to learn a powerful strategy for how to deal with a lack of discussion. In the end, those who discuss will always determine the future of the article, and their discussion results overrule those who refuse to discuss. If you have attempted to discuss the matter on the talk page and others re-add the material without joining the discussion, please notify me and I'll protect the article against further similar disruption.
The block does not prevent you from starting a discussion on the article's talk page, and it no longer prevents you from creating an account, so feel free to do both now.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Seeking your guidance
Hello ToBeFree, I hope you, your families, and your colleagues are all doing well, given the impact that COVID-19 is having around the world.
Well, I've a doubt. Last day I've placed notability tag on Lakshmi Nakshathra, because I didn't find any reliable sources. The sources added in the article are primary source too. So that I've placed BLP sources too. And after that it comes to know that the article was created by Krishnamanu123 who is a sockpuppet. For lack of my knowledge I've placed {{db-banned}} there. Today, JoxinMcDaniel placed a red warn in my talk page regarding the tags on Lakshmi Nakshathra. Let me know is there is anything wrong in my side? And one more thing, Krishnamanu123 is the person who created the article and he is blocked as a sock now. JoxinMcDaniel created his account 8 months ago, and his first and majority editing is on Lakshmi Nakshathra. [273][274] . I doubt JoxinMcDaniel belongs to Krishnamanu123.
Sorry, if I have made any mistake. I wish to be a good Wikipedian. Thank you --Sreeram Dilak 12:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sreeram Dilak, thank you very much for the kind wishes and for asking. I hope you're well too.
When the article Lakshmi Nakshathra was created on 2015-07-01, the sockpuppeteer Sanju Vishnudas was not blocked. The article was thus never created in violation of a block or ban in the first place. Additionally, the speedy deletion criterion WP:G5 only applies if the article had "no substantial edits by others", but it had a lot of substantial edits by others. For these two reasons, WP:G5 didn't apply. Mistakenly adding the tag was clearly done in good faith, as you had not been aware of these two circumstances. If I understand correctly, JoxinMcDaniel interpreted your {{db-banned}} tagging as a sockpuppetry accusation. JoxinMcDaniel probably thought that you consider them to be a sockpuppet of Krishnamanu123. Sadly, JoxinMcDaniel has not assumed good faith; they should have read their own warning. Thank you very much for your calm explanation in Special:Diff/1042123554; it is important to respond to others' concerns, and you did so correctly.
If there is evidence, usually in form of diff links, of further sockpuppetry by Krishnamanu123, you can report it at WP:SPI. Outside of SPI pages, please avoid statements about unproven sockpuppetry, as doing so would be casting aspersions.
Starting a regular deletion discussion was the right decision to deal with the situation. There is currently no other action needed.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm doing good. Thank you so much for your kind words and appreciation. Much obliged --Sreeram Dilak 00:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, hope you are doing great. I just read about Wikipedia:Autopatrolled rights. Am I eligible for that right now? I've created 26 articles. Thank you -- Sreeram Dilak 14:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Sreeram Dilak, if I understand correctly, this question was influenced by John B123's {{notability}} tagging of the Rajini Chandy article. However, requesting a permission that makes one's creations invisible to new page reviewers isn't an appropriate reaction to their concerns.
So no, that would be too early. Autopatrolled is one of the few permissions that others can request for you if they feel the time has come. I recommend waiting for that moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I'll wait till the time comes. Thank you for your time. --Sreeram Dilak 15:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The wikis that have Growth features deployed have been part of A/B testing since deployment, in which some newcomers did not receive the new features. Now, all of the newcomers on 21 of the smallest of those wikis will be receiving the features. [275]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Future changes
In 2017, the provided jQuery library was upgraded from version 1 to 3, with a compatibility layer. The migration will soon finish, to make the site load faster for everyone. If you maintain a gadget or user script, check if you have any JQMIGRATE errors and fix them, or they will break. [276][277]
Last year, the Portuguese Wikipedia community embarked on an experiment to make log-in compulsory for editing. The impact report of this trial is ready. Moving forward, the Anti-Harassment Tools team is looking for projects that are willing to experiment with restricting IP editing on their wiki for a short-term experiment. Learn more.
Good day, ToBeFree! This user with IP address 180.253.161.90, started to change way too much unnecessary information especially on the past Miss Universe Malaysia winners and several Malaysian beauty pageant titleholders as well as some other articles! I have also thought that this person prolly the same one as before with IP address 180.247.186.213. He/she is starting an edit war, again. I wish that this time you can help me to protect most of the article that the person have changed. Before this, I have spent so many hours just to edit the articles this person have changed. I don't have time to do the same thing again all over again :(
Big shanks!! ~ Lara Hatsumi (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh my! Hey Lara Hatsumi, thank you very much for the notification. I hope to have dealt with this now; please let me know if I have overlooked something or if there is new activity from a different IP address. Now the user is blocked, the edits are mostly reverted, and the pages are protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
If it's of any interest...
When I'm editing on a computer I normally check global contributions before posting a "this is English Wikipedia you may like to contribute to..." message. Recently, however, I have been doing a lot of my editing on my phone, because of computer problems, and on a phone I find moving to global contributions and back to the user page just one more bit of trouble to add to others, so I sometimes skip the check. Just saying. FWIW. JBW (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
JBW, I was half joking. I just wanted to point out that a minute after your suggestion, they had been blocked for doing that, so the advice became unfollowable within a minute. I figured you might like to have a look, as you could not have seen this at the time of writing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I read 📚 your comment as being somewhat jokey, but I didn't follow up by checking the editing history on de, so I didn't realise the point of the joke. I do now, 😅 I think. 🤔 JBW (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Are you making fun of my emoji-rich writing style? I even have a subpage for them, at User:ToBeFree/s.css. The page title is as short as possible to make it as quickly accessible as possible while still enjoying CSS protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
A late update, JBW, it seems we have been trolled. Thanks, Yamla. The new global contributions speak for themselves. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
It looks as though a global lock would be in order. JBW (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Reply-link officially superseded by DiscussionTools
Hi! Reply-link has officially been superseded by mw:DiscussionTools, which you can install using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. DiscussionTools, developed by the WMF's Editing Team, is faster and has more features than reply-link, and it wouldn't make sense for me to keep developing reply-link. I think the Editing Team is doing amazing work, and look forward to what they can do in the future. Thank you for using reply-link over the years! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Enterprisey, thank you very much for inventing and having provided this awesome feature. I've been using DiscussionTools for a while now and am not aware of JavaScript transclusions of reply-link, but I may have overlooked something. I think I signed up for a message list about reply-link somewhere, but I forgot where that was. Which link/page triggered the notification? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah! No worries, thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
TBF, I would also suggest the alternative Convenient Discussions, which I installed a few days ago and have found extremely helpful. I'm not sure what the features overlap is, but I think CD has more stuff like: redirecting to archived discussions, watching sections, highlighting of comments based on age/user in addition to reply-link. — Shibbolethink(♔♕) 18:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Shibbolethink, I'm impressed, especially by the "Changed · [show] Diff" link shown in the screenshot. That's something I have actually been looking for quite often, and tedious to do manually frequently edited pages. Yet I hope you'll forgive me: I have a strong bias towards using the features provided by MediaWiki itself, or at least by its server-admin-maintained extensions on this wiki, or the gadgets in the MediaWiki namespace. I rarely transclude userscripts even from administrators' userspaces, and I usually do so temporarily only. This currently reduces the number of Wikipedia users who can take over my account to three people, Lourdes, MusikAnimal and Enterprisey.
I mean, really: If you find a checkuser or oversighter who has transcluded something from a non-admin userspace, that non-admin user has access to checkuser or oversight data by modifying their Javascript. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I totally get that! With great power comes great responsibility :P Or at least with a much heavier mop comes a necessity for stronger hands :) — Shibbolethink(♔♕) 18:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
lol
The paranoia is much older than the mop for me though; I created a 1:1 copy of Enterprisey's script on 2018-12-06T12:32:26 to prevent external modification; neither of us had been an admin at the time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe what the paranoids generally do is import frozen-in-stone copies of the scripts 🙂. Eg. mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:Anomie/previewtemplatelastmod.js&oldid=683547736&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); – SD0001 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
oooh! That's a really good idea, thank you! I think it probably presupposes that I understand enough of the javascript to know if it's already exploited, or that the community would notice :) But still definitely a good idea lol. — Shibbolethink(♔♕) 17:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Could you please grand me the rollback right? It would be useful to have because when reverting non-single-edit vandalism it makes it easier to do a neater job. I'm aware of the policies and guidelines and have gone thru WP:ROLLBACK. Thank you -- Sreeram Dilak 00:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sreeram Dilak, please note that rollback isn't necessary to undo multiple edits at once: Try selecting a range of contributions in the history, then click "Compare selected revisions", and the "Undo" link above the right diff will undo the entire selection.
For reverting clear and pure vandalism, intentional damage to the encyclopedia, it's a fine tool. Done. Please have a look at WP:SIGIMAGE, though... I'm not sure what a "verified" checkmark from Twitter is supposed to mean in a Wikipedia signature anyway. "I'm autoconfirmed! I'm more important than you! I'm displaying this to make you envious!"?
My (not really popular) opinion about custom formatting in signatures in general can be found at WP:SIGRANT.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I've changed my signature back to normal. Sorry for the mistake. And thank you so much for the rollback rights --Sreeram Dilak (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Yay! Beautiful. In the end, it's your choice, only the image was a problem. No worries about that. I personally like the new signature very much. Enjoy patrolling, thanks for your work! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I am very pleased to hear that. Thank you so much for all your help and advices. Much obliged. --Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Need guidance
Hi ToBeFree. Hope you are well and remember me. Got your review on article Sanjay Bhatia (administrator). Can you please review this article and help me getting into main space. Spent months making amends and modifying it. Thanks in advance and appreciate your help. Gardenkur (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gardenkur, how did you learn about Chennai Interventional Pulmonology and Critical Care Associates, and what is your connection to them? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree. Thanks for your reply. I found an article about them in one of the magazines some time back which I included in references too. Pulled out more details to check their efforts. As you can find I did lot of efforts for months so dont want to drop it easily. I dont have any connection. Gardenkur (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah okay, that's fine. You have correctly submitted the article for re-review. As there are 1368 other articles in the queue, this will take some time – perhaps a month or two. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
A majority of Wikipedias now have access to the Growth features. The Growth team has published an FAQ page about the features. This translatable FAQ covers the description of the features, how to use them, how to change the configuration, and more.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 September. It will be on all wikis from 16 September (calendar).
Starting this week, Wikipedia in Italian will receive weekly software updates on Wednesdays. It used to receive the updates on Thursdays. Due to this change, bugs will be noticed and fixed sooner. [280]
You can add language links in the sidebar in the new Vector skin again. You do this by connecting the page to a Wikidata item. The new Vector skin has moved the language links but the new language selector cannot add language links yet. [281]
The syntax highlight tool marks up code with different colours. It now can highlight 23 new code languages. Additionally, golang can now be used as an alias for the Go programming language, and a special output mode has been added to show a program's output. [282][283]
A great Wikipedian who shows how talented he can be at both editing on this website and the piano. I particularly enjoyed his version of Korobeiniki.
I aspire to be like him one day. Brakeragas (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey Brakeragas, thank you very much for the kind words and the cool barnstar! I've had a look at your userpage and was surprised about the story behind the account. I'm happy to see the development, and I'll be available for policy-related questions that may arise over time. Also, the people at the Teahouse are really kind and will help with any question, even if you think it may be "too silly" or too easy to answer. Asking there is often the best approach to any problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Oops part
I was honestly about to slap you with a trout for thanking the sock in an edit summary when I noticed that you corrected yourself. I don't think we really would want to thank the sock for socking anyways lol Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
When I received your thanks, I hoped for a moment that you hadn't noticed the error! I just took the last [[User:...|...]] wikilink in the comment and didn't notice it was from an IP editor. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
About rollbacker right
Hey @ToBeFree did u remember me :) you said I could ask about rollbacker rights :) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 22:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vikipolimer, of course I do. Would you mind waiting until 07 October 2021, as I had recommended "a month or two"?[1] Feel free to simply ask again then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah sorry, @ToBeFree that's great! I'll be waiting for 07 October 2021, and thanks for your kindly response, by the way, can you look at my new barnstars, the feedbacks will be useful :) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 22:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries; thank you very much for your work. The barnstars are beautiful! I like the Tree of Life one best, as it really makes use of the unique barnstar form. The metal barnstar has nice light/shadow effects; the Civil Parish one has my favorite color. A very cool design working without animations is the Recent Changes idea. I can almost see it moving! The Technician Barnstar needs some additional work, I'd say; it currently looks a bit flat, and the wrench lacks an outline that distinguishes it from the same-colored background. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree Thanks for your feedback, I'll work on all of them one more time, but for now, I'm remastering the old barnstars, after then I'll make some changes to them. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 22:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that does sound like a good plan. Thanks for remastering them. The results are really beautiful. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Reported edits
Hi,
Thanks for your message and the kind tone in it. To be honest, I am relatively new to editing and just trying to add the things that I would like to see. Mainly I correct timings where total time does not equate with the sum of the track times but I also like to add what I consider useful info.
I don't know how to reference a source which I think is the reason why a couple of people have objected. Is there anywhere I could learn to add that and support my additions which, as you say, are not vandalism and in good faith. I never add a personal view and anything I add is factual if unreferenced.
Thanks again for your help. Poolietrev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolietrev (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Poolietrev, That's fine, thank you very much for asking! Do you know the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREF? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Blocked but not sure why?
Hi there. I was browsing wikipedia on my phone, tried to make a comment on a talk page...and found out I was blocked by you as part of blocking a whole IP group. I believe this to be an error. Hope I'm posting in the right place about this. Could you unblock me please?
Pencilgame (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pencilgame, as you have been able to write here, your current IP address is not blocked from editing. Please try to edit the page "WP:Sandbox" via your mobile data connection. If this does not work, please click the following link on your phone: Special:MyTalk. This link will redirect to a page titled "User talk:Your IP address". If you are comfortable with sharing this address for a block review, copy the address and paste it here, please. You can alternatively ask for an IP block exemption using the unblock ticket request system. Make sure to specifically ask for an IP block exemption, and make sure to mention the IP address. Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it more closely, Pencilgame, you'll probably just need to log in. When you're logged in, you'll likely be able to contribute to Wikipedia from any device. Only if this is not the case, please copy the entire error message here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
MediaWiki had a feature that would highlight local links to short articles in a different style. Each user could pick the size at which "stubs" would be highlighted. This feature was very bad for performance, and following a consultation, has been removed. [284]
A technical change was made to the MonoBook skin to allow for easier maintenance and upkeep. This has resulted in some minor changes to HTML that make MonoBook's HTML consistent with other skins. Efforts have been made to minimize the impact on editors, but please ping Jon (WMF) on wiki or in phabricator if any problems are reported.
Problems
There was a problem with search last week. Many search requests did not work for 2 hours because of an accidental restart of the search servers. [285]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 September. It will be on all wikis from 23 September (calendar).
The meta=proofreadpage API has changed. The piprop parameter has been renamed to prpiprop. API users should update their code to avoid unrecognized parameter warnings. Pywikibot users should upgrade to 6.6.0. [286]
Future changes
The Reply tool will be deployed to the remaining wikis in the coming weeks. It is currently part of "Discussion tools" in Beta features at most wikis. You will be able to turn it off in Editing Preferences. [287]
The previously announced change to how you obtain tokens from the API has been delayed to September 21 because of an incompatibility with Pywikibot. Bot operators using Pywikibot can follow T291202 for progress on a fix, and should plan to upgrade to 6.6.1 when it is released.
Not sure if you get auto notifications so I am messaging you here. Please see my last edit to the "Talk" page (I am requesting that you make the changes or give me permission to do so). Not totally sure how best to proceed with this though.
Thank you very much for asking. It's sad to see that noone has replied to your message at Talk:Tuite baronets; at the time, I was the protecting administrator and could not take a position on the content itself.
This is over a year ago now; I'll respond to your request.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
User:MasterOliverTwist
Hello TBF, I saw that you unblockedMasterOliverTwist in December 2020 with some conditions including Not creating nor submitting new drafts until you have made at least 500 edits to already-existing Wikipedia articles (i.e. the main namespace). They are yet to satisfy this condition yet they drafted and submitted Peter Trailblazer at Afc. The draft was declined thrice at AfC but has now been moved to mainspace by Femitv93. Princess of Ara 11:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow, this went unnoticed for quite a while. I'm surprised to see that MasterOliverTwist managed to violate all of their unblock conditions including the one prohibiting them from editing one specific article. It's almost as if they looked at the list of conditions and went through them as a kind of "to-do list". Thank you very much for the notification, Princess of Ara. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree. You blocked Akash Noatia from spamming/promotion recently, but he's continued it on his talk page: [288] Could you please remove talk page access as well? Thanks. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Drm310, thank you very much for the notification. The new promotion has already been reverted, and the user finally appears to have noticed that they're blocked. They are now asking for an unblock, which is an acceptable use of the talk page. I'll have a look again later, but I'd say there is currently no need for talk page access revocation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Sie schlafen doch nicht? Mind semi-protecting 2021 German federal election - the request at RfPP is a bit slow and I don't think I'm particularly good at predicting the future but I have no illusion that stuff like this (number-change and stuff) is likely to keep happening. 03:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)
☺️ Done, thank you very much for the notification, RandomCanadian. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Banned me
Why was I banned? For 3 years? Really? Boles P94 (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Boles P94, as you are currently able to edit and have likely seen one of the two following messages...
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
iOS 15 has a new function called Private Relay (Apple website). This can hide the user's IP when they use Safari browser. This is like using a VPN in that we see another IP address instead. It is opt-in and only for those who pay extra for iCloud. It will come to Safari users on OSX later. There is a technical discussion about what this means for the Wikimedia wikis.
Problems
Some gadgets and user-scripts add items to the portlets (article tools) part of the skin. A recent change to the HTML may have made those links a different font-size. This can be fixed by adding the CSS class .vector-menu-dropdown-noicon. [289]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 September. It will be on all wikis from 30 September (calendar).
The GettingStarted extension was built in 2013, and provides an onboarding process for new account holders in a few versions of Wikipedia. However, the recently developed Growth features provide a better onboarding experience. Since the vast majority of Wikipedias now have access to the Growth features, GettingStarted will be deactivated starting on 4 October. [290]
A small number of users will not be able to connect to the Wikimedia wikis after 30 September. This is because an old root certificate will no longer work. They will also have problems with many other websites. Users who have updated their software in the last five years are unlikely to have problems. Users in Europe, Africa and Asia are less likely to have immediate problems even if their software is too old. You can read more.
You can receive notifications when someone leaves a comment on user talk page or mentions you in a talk page comment. Clicking the notification link will now bring you to the comment and highlight it. Previously, doing so brought you to the top of the section that contained the comment. You can find more information in T282029.
An IP who you blocked for three months in June appears to be the same guy as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EAXAE, based on behavior. Fortunately, his distinctive mathematical interests allow us to follow his progress on Wikipedia. His anonymous edits geolocate to Bavaria. All his registered accounts are now blocked indef. This could be of interest in case he reappears on any articles you follow. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the notification. I'm surprised and impressed by the work done in that SPI. I didn't expect the engineering-related-mathematics edit warrior to react in this way.
Ping: Kuebi, He3nry, mostly for information regarding the dewiki edits of the confirmed accounts. Temp3782 and the master account EAXAE may be interesting; the requested global locks have not yet been applied. I think there's no urgency in this case either.
The main problem with some of the contributions, especially those done as 188.192.184.231 (de) and 188.193.103.199 (de) on both wikis, seems to be that gaining a consensus for overturning them can be tough. Arguing about citations for mathematical statements quickly becomes tiresome; the editor has caused a lot of frustration in this area.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Expertise required
I came across this my question is, is there an SPI case page? I’ve long watch-listed the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
If that was all that had happened, it would already have justified the G5 deletion without any sockpuppetry.
That said, we do have Femitv93 (talk·contribs) and 102.67.12.18(talk·contribs·WHOIS) because at some point, MasterOliverTwist seems to have noticed that openly using their account for creating and editing this page was a bit careless and too obvious. So MasterOliverTwist stopped editing and Femitv93 took over, less than 8 hours later, using 102.67.12.18 on their mobile phone before logging in there too. I really had to smile when I saw that Femitv93 requested a G7 deletion for the page ("author requests deletion") at one point. They quickly undid that, removed the AfC decline templates and pushed the article to the mainspace afterwards.
There was no SPI, just a lot of amusing quacking.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks TBF, this explains a lot and would definitely help me in my fight to deal with less than ethical editing practices. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries; thank you very much for reviewing and declining the article, and for noticing and pointing out the apparent COI or copyright issue regarding File:Peter Trailblazer at a Street Comedy Shoot.jpg ("own work") as well. Your review and your comment had been silently removed by the sock as a "minor edit". I guess if MasterOliverTwist later denies having any connection, it may be worth investigating the copyright status of that image. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Ha! I’m just doing the job I signed up for, if anything it should me thanking you instead, the block was indeed imperative, now that’s one COI editor down. Great job TBF. Lest I forget, this here;Draft:Limoblaze might also interest you or at least something you mind want to keep an eye on, I have added the draft article to my watchlist. Celestina007 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Hi. If you are getting xwiki noise on your user or user talk pages from LTAs then please let me know. For the smaller and medium wikis we can put in place global AF against this person that is akin to page protection. Ping me at meta or email me if there are issues. — billinghurstsDrewth
Hi billinghurst, Thanks both for dealing with the recent case and for the kind offer! It very, very rarely happens, and even the recent ping was just one single occurrence on Meta without any additional wiki being involved. At the current rate – less than once per year – it's rather an amusing sign of having done something right than a nuisance. I'll keep the filter(s) in mind and will happily take you up on the offer if it ever becomes disruptive enough to inhibit my work. That said: I do of course not object to the filter being enabled if doing so noticeably reduces the amount of work caused for Stewards and Global Sysops by the trolls. When you become annoyed by such messages, by all means feel free to enable it without asking. I'm not active in smaller wikis, so there will not be collateral damage. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Sweet, just ping me if they go xwiki as they occasionally do, and the AF is all set up and active for a range of usernames where this is already the case. I have given up differentiating these geese and just, yawn and look to lessen disturbance. I refuse to feed them. — billinghurstsDrewth 23:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Pavin Chachavalpongpun
Hi. I'm a bit concerned with how Special:Permalink/1047466735#Pavin Chachavalpongpun was dealt with. Both User:Khiikiat and User:Newmantra violated 3RR, yet you elected to block only Khiikiat, the good-faith editor who reported the incident, but took no action on Newmantra, the instigator of the edit war by their unexplained removal of the image. Khiikiat's actions were obviously based on the assumption that he was reverting obvious vandalism, an exemption to 3RR. While his assumption might have been faulty, and explanations should have been made via edit summaries and attempts at discussion been made, I don't see how the ultimate outcome was desirable.
As you've pointed out the image's licensing problem, I've restored another earlier image from a more trustworthy source, but I won't be surprised if Newmantra or other SPA editors come back to remove it. You might want to keep the page on your watchlist for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed, specific feedback. Yeah, dealing with cases of edit warring usually leads to undesirable outcomes, independently of the action taken, and even (or especially) if no action is taken. There's usually no right decision, just an attempt to select the least problematic option for the encyclopedia.
Newmantra had (insistingly) removed a copyright violation, so I didn't take any action against them. I do see that WP:3RRNO contains the requirement "unquestionably" in bold text, but it was a violation of the non-free content policy. I can't take action in good conscience against someone who has – even if accidentally – enforced a policy with legal implications, such as WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO.
Khiikiat had been warned about edit warring in the recent past. I visited their talk page to add a short custom message, or perhaps at least a template, to inform them about the edit warring policy. Sadly, that would just have been a duplicate, so I had to assume that warnings don't have the desired effect in preventing the behavior. A partial block from editing the specific article seemed to be a logical next step. I understand that Khiikiat believed to be reverting a "vandal", but disagreement about the inclusion of an image isn't malicious, and it is especially not obvious vandalism. At very least in articles about living persons, the removal of any content, even entire sections, is not necessarily "vandalism" and has to be analyzed carefully. Yes, WP:3RRNO does mention "page blanking" as an example for obvious vandalism, but this wasn't page blanking; it wasn't vandalism at all.
When you add something to an article about a living person and someone removes it without comment, do you re-instate it repeatedly instead of waiting for an explanation? You likely don't, for all the reasons that Khiikiat needs to understand before continuing to edit biographical articles.
Newmantra may need to be indefinitely blocked one day, and I hope to keep an eye on the situation often enough to notice any further disruption. I'll also happily deal with notifications about their behavior, for example if your (reasonable) prediction becomes true.
Thanks again and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the explanation. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
violating copyrights
These images have been deleted for violating copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmantra (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
First of all, thank you very much for finally taking the time to voice your concern. The edit summary "Images removed due to violation of copyrights." is a good description of what you have done, and why you have done so. If you'd like to improve your editing style further, please make sure not to use the "minor edit" checkbox next time, as removing the main image from an article is not a "minor edit".
As the images have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, you'll need to voice your concerns there, not on the English Wikipedia. Removing images from English Wikipedia articles does not "delete" them. When you have concerns about the copyright status of an image, please:
Click the image in the article.
Click the blue "view details" button at the bottom right.
Follow the instructions at commons:COM:Deletion policy to nominate the image for deletion. In most cases, requesting "speedy deletion" using the {{copyvio}} template ({{copyvio|source=https://www.example.com/example.jpg}}) is the correct approach. However, this was not sufficient for ปวิน ชัชวาลพงศ์พันธ์.jpg, which required a regular deletion request with a more detailed explanation. Again, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ปวิน ชัชวาลพงศ์พันธ์.jpg for how this was done.
You are not allowed to repeatedly make the same change again and again, unless the copyright violation is "unquestionable". This was not the case for ปวิน ชัชวาลพงศ์พันธ์.jpg, this is also not the case for File:ปวินนนนนนนนน.jpg, and this was clearly not the case for Andrew_MacGregor_Marshall.png.
You may be blocked from editing if you make the same change again and again. I'll add a standardized information message about this problem to your talk page.
The proper way to deal with image copyright violations on Wikimedia Commons is to voice your concerns on Wikimedia Commons, not in English Wikipedia articles.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
A more efficient way of sending changes from Wikidata to Wikimedia wikis that show them has been enabled for the following 10 wikis: mediawiki.org, the Italian, Catalan, Hebrew and Vietnamese Wikipedias, French Wikisource, and English Wikivoygage, Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikinews. If you notice anything strange about how changes from Wikidata appear in recent changes or your watchlist on those wikis you can let the developers know.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 October. It will be on all wikis from 7 October (calendar).
Some gadgets and bots that use the API to read the AbuseFilter log might break. The hidden property will no longer say an entry is implicit for unsuppressed log entries about suppressed edits. If your bot needs to know this, do a separate revision query. Additionally, the property will have the value false for visible entries; previously, it wasn't included in the response. [292]
A more efficient way of sending changes from Wikidata to Wikimedia wikis that show them will be enabled for all production wikis. If you notice anything strange about how changes from Wikidata appear in recent changes or your watchlist you can let the developers know.
Future changes
You can soon get cross-wiki notifications in the iOS Wikipedia app. You can also get notifications as push notifications. More notification updates will follow in later versions. [293]
The JavaScript variables wgExtraSignatureNamespaces, wgLegalTitleChars, and wgIllegalFileChars will soon be removed from mw.config. These are not part of the "stable" variables available for use in wiki JavaScript. [294]
The JavaScript variables wgCookiePrefix, wgCookieDomain, wgCookiePath, and wgCookieExpiration will soon be removed from mw.config. Scripts should instead use mw.cookie from the "mediawiki.cookie" module. [295]
Hey ToBeFree, hope you're doing well. I noticed that you blocked this user for edit-warring, I had the unpleasant chance of interacting with them yesterday. I removed the edit/part which showed the page of source as 494, despite the cited source having only 480 pages, here please take a look. Literally physically impossible to WP:VERIFY cited content. And what do I receive in response? Bunch of ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations of misconduct from what seems to be a very battleground focused user who quite frankly doesn't understand half of the things they're saying, yet has nor problem at attacking their fellow editors. So many WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PERSONAL attacks cast in one comment. Could you please take a look? Their battleground mentality and baseless personal accusations/attacks worry me to a great degree. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi ZaniGiovanni, on article talk pages, even when dealing with users who personally attack you, please focus on the article content. On the article talk page, please act as if there had been no attack; simply ignore anything in their message that is unrelated to the content. This quickly forces them to focus on the content as well, and it makes it much easier to take action against repeated attacks. If noone has yet replied to the comment, please take the opportunity to remove anything unrelated to the content from it.
Regarding the behavior, please directly approach the user about it on their user talk page. You'll probably need to take the time to explain to them that being an administrator is never required for informing a user about policy, nor for making policy-based decisions about article content.
Regarding verifiability, offline sources are fine, but they need to be cited properly. If the citation is about a specific edition and that edition has 500 pages, that's okay, but the citation has to explicitly and unambiguously refer to that specific edition. It should not contain a weblink to a different edition.
If the citation is about the weblinked edition, it has to unambiguously refer to the weblinked edition. It should then clearly not contain page numbers that are not present in the weblinked edition.
When in doubt, WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS are your friend: The burden is usually on those seeking to include something, not those trying to remove something, to gain consensus for their view.
If disruption persists and other methods of dispute resolution are not viable, for example due to persistent personal attacks, please create a section at WP:ANI and notify me about it as well. The essay WP:DISCFAIL may be very helpful in general, as it contains a lot of specific, useful advice for dealing with editors who revert instead of discussing.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, you still have the opportunity to remove the personal/conduct-related text from your message at Talk:Yazidis in Armenia, even without having to strikethrough anything, simply by removing it. That's only possible because noone has replied yet; please use the chance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree, I'm gonna be honest I don't know what you want from me. I responded briefly to the user, showing WP:NPA guideline regarding their personal attacks and baseless accusations. They would indeed benefit from reading it. The bulk of my reply is in fact related to the article and the source in question [296]. If you want to be helpful, you could've notified the user of personal attacks in their talk page. Not sure how removing my brief adequate response to their attacks is gonna help anyone, especially when they most certainly need to read WP:NPA. Please don't ping me again regarding this, if the user will continue to attack again (which will show that they didn't read anything), I'll follow your advice and report them. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
(without ping, as requested: ) You're currently using an article talk page to discuss user conduct. Article talk pages are unsuitable for discussing user conduct; doing so distracts from the content questions. If you read this before someone replies to your message at Talk:Yazidis in Armenia, please move your conduct concerns to the user's talk page. The reason I haven't informed them about WP:NPA is that I currently hope for you to finally do so in the right place, which is the user's talk page, not the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Reminder
Hi, @ToBeFree I remind you, am I eligible for rollback rights? :) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 02:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The recurring block-evading vandal that inserts false information into Conan articles is back as this IP. Edited previously as this IP. Can you block him again?LordKulgur (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bri.public, Thank you very much for the request and for the additional information. Special:Diff/1022116110/1048420854 (45 semi, 20 ECP) should cover all the pages edited by the confirmed sockpuppets Dxcm1089 and Dxds1161. That's all I can do at the moment; please notify me when Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dyhp612 has been closed. If the IP addresses are declared as sockpuppets at SPI, I can protect the pages edited by them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for all that. If you are amenable to more, can I recommend Puteri Indonesia 2021. Vielen Dank! ☆ Bri (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
No problem.
Regarding Puteri Indonesia 2021, I lack a sockpuppetry block on one of the editors to act there at the moment. Lukewon doesn't count as they hadn't been blocked at the time of their edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Oops, you are right. Wait a sec, wasn’t the master INGA blocked 26 December 2020. And sock Lukewon editing as early as 30 August 2021? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Bri.public, I mixed up Lukewon and Lemon.public there. Lemon doesn't count. Having a look at Lukewon's edits to the page later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Edits rollbacked, Pages need protection ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Bri.public, it's hard to keep an overview of all these socks. If I see correctly, all pageant-related pages edited by Missologa.world (talk·contribs) are now protected. I was unsure about Mylène Halemai, whose notability is given by WP:NTENNIS due to her participation in the 2019 French Open Women's Doubles main draw, and whose article was originally only about her tennis career (Special:Permalink/899028197). Still, I think the condition "known as a beauty pageant contestant" encompasses cases of dual notability too.
As Missologa.Ecu (talk·contribs) was blocked together with F.222xd (talk·contribs) in their original sockpuppetry case on 19 October 2020, my previous strict interpretation of "sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet" as referring to block evasion wouldn't have applied. I have read through the AN discussion leading to the sanction approval again, thought about this for a while and believe that my original interpretation was too strict. For example, "sockpuppet of a blocked editor" or simply "block evasion" would have been simple terms to convey such a restriction, while "sockpuppet account" includes those leading to an initial block for sockpuppetry. I'm thus also protecting Ecuador at beauty pageants now, as the article was edited using a sockpuppet account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
SPI report
Hey! So uh.. how exactly would I open an SPI report on an IP and a registered user? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Blaze The Wolf, Twinkle makes this easy! If you have a master in mind (always the account if there's an account), simply open their Special:Contributions page, or their user page, or their talk page, and click "TW"->"ARV"->"Report type: Sockpuppeteer". Keep in mind that creating an account, and then sticking to that account, after a history of editing without an account, is not sockpuppetry but encouraged. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Alright, but what if I"m reporting an registered account for abusing being logged out. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Blaze The Wolf, in this case, the master is the account, and the sockpuppet is the IP address. Entering the IP address, or multiple, is possible using the Twinkle report form. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah alright. Thanks for telling me! ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Blaze The Wolf: Also, don't check the "notify" box. (IMO Twinkle shouldn't even make it possible, or should at least strongly warn against it.) A clerk or CU can notify users if necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Thank you for protecting L. Murugan. Could you please bock Suneye12 for impersonating me from the edit history of that page. This user is very likely a block evading sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweetindian and they have a history of impersonating other users. Thanks - SUN EYE 1 01:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Suneye1, thank you very much for the notification. Their editing style is really similar enough for a sockpuppetry block; done.
In less obvious cases, please (also) create a report at WP:SPI and notify me about it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I was about to file an SPI on them with a bunch of other IPs and accounts. - SUN EYE 1 01:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
No worries. If there are more, please do – I'll try to process the SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I restored the long standing content to an older version before the socking and edit warring that started yesterday. I was reverted by another user citing your edit summary. The sockmaster has a history of using false edit summaries and now has claimed Deccan Herald is a political mouth piece while it is not and considered as a reliable source in Indian articles. Do you oppose in restoring a previous version before edit warring? Thanks. - SUN EYE 1 04:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for creating the SPI, I'll have a closer look at it later today. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Blocking of User Sefer12
Hi ToBeFree, I am not related to the authors. I am passionate of complex systems theory, and often follow leading scientists in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefer12 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Girth Summit's description of the situation at User talk:Sefer12: This is difficult to believe, and I had hoped for a credible answer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
About Autopatrolled
Hi @ToBeFree, I would like to ask you about autopatrolled rights, I was applied and rejected a few times for it, I've created 29 articles that are reviewed. Is there any count for application? I think 25 well-written articles are required for application, as you will see in my last two articles, I started to create articles that were not created before on Wikipedia without violating the WP:NOR. I want to learn more about the application process. Regards. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 02:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vikipolimer, autopatrolling – contrary to all other user groups – should ideally not have any effect on your editing. It does not add any buttons, it does not add any special capabilities, it is meaningless to the editor themselves. The only purpose of autopatrolling is to reduce the amount of work by patrollers. For this reason, this permission can be requested by patrollers for you – colloquially speaking, when they're annoyed enough by your many good article creations that they don't want to review each of them anymore.
I personally do not grant the permission and I personally recommend noone to request it for themselves. Even if someone is perfectly qualified for the permission, I believe that it should be granted to them without having been asked for. I'd even go as far as forbidding people from requesting it for themselves.
On meta.wikimedia.org and mediawiki.org, I was granted the permission by surprise without having asked for it, and without having strived for it. It should always be this way.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your kindly answer @ToBeFree, by the way, I was just curious about the details and I must also state that with I fully understand your answer, I agree with you on this point. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 04:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Brij Kishore Sharma "Tara"
Thank you for deleting Brij Kishore Sharma "Tara" (writer) as created by a sockpuppet - it has now been recreated as Brij Kishore Sharma (poet) with the same unacceptable references - the creating editor has previous edits, so may or may not be a sock/meat-puppet. As you are aware, however, attempts to create this article have been going on for a long time - please could you consider/delete the latest rendition - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Arjayay, I've tagged it for speedy deletion from my mobile account by replacing its entire content by {{db-g5}} and an edit summary pointing to my talk page. Thanks to Blablubbs for solving the issue! (And disabling email access was definitely a good idea, and not even preemptive) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - sorry to have bothered you - Arjayay (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Arjayay, I'm always happy about such notifications. No worries, thank you for keeping me updated about the strangely focused sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 October. It will be on all wikis from 14 October (calendar).
In the Saturday Night Live (season 46) page, it should be noted that season 46 was the final season for both Beck Bennett and Lauren Holt, not only Beck Bennett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blu30Top (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
New pages patrol right
Hello, hope you are doing good. Could you please grant me the New pages patrol right? --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Your account has been added to the group of rollbackers on 08 September 2021. You have used the permission a few times during the 48 hours after it was granted, and then practically stopped using it (5 rollbacks since). You tried to use Huggle before gaining the permission, which is fine and would have worked in read-only mode, but now that the permission for writing is there, you didn't make use of it at all.
Your account has been added to the group of pending changes reviewers on 10 September 2021, since which you have accepted exactly 0 (zero) pending changes. You have used the permission once, again only on the day it was granted, to deprecate a previously-reviewed change.
You have requested the Autopatrolled permission earlier in my talk page archives, which I had to decline because it seemed to have been in response to a new page patroller's concerns about your article creation(s).
You have requested the Event Coordinator permission, and I'm not entirely sure if it was done with a sufficient amount of planning and research (see meta:Programs & Events Dashboard and WP:EDITATHON for advice).
You are now requesting another permission, one of the less common ones compared to pending changes review and rollbacking. One of those which require thorough knowledge about Notability, perhaps the most complex topic this project has. It is such a complex topic area that I personally promised not to close deletion discussions as an administrator, as a condition for being elected at all. New Page Patroller was the last administrator-grantable permission ever granted to me, after everything else, after almost a year of daily editing. I think what you're really looking for is WP:AFC/P, but:
I think you're "hat collecting" at the moment – collecting permissions without needing or using them. Sometimes, even without the needed experience for using them.
That's a problem; please focus on the encyclopedia again and forget about the permissions for a while. If WP:WPAFC is what you're looking for, please wait a few months before joining it. It's currently too early.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Hi Vikipolimer, if you'd like to create an article there, feel free to do so. If your article already exists and you'd like to move it there, please tell me which title it currently has. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @ToBeFree I'll create the article. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 09:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree I've improved the content of the article can you check it if you have time? :) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 13:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm impressed, Vikipolimer, by what has grown out of a simple redirect page. Thank you very much for doing this. I have marked the page as "needing review" by new page patrollers and will wait for their opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! @ToBeFree I'm not done yet, I prefer to create articles that don't exist on Wikipedia. Normally I'm writing in Turkish, When the Turkish one is done then I translate it into English :) 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 13:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, you wrote the Turkish Wikipedia article about the topic as well! That's really cool, finding a topic that didn't exist in either language, then creating it in both. I'm really impressed; this is how Wikipedia grew from zero to six million articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
They are at it again.
Following this it seems MasterOliverTwist is at it again. This editor @Princesszabeth001 recreates the article with their second edit only, see here and this new editor @Uche21(They aren’t pinged) submits the article via AFC see here I believe the former to be a sock of MasterOliverTwist just as Femitv93 was & the latter account to be an undisclosed paid editor or part of a UPE sock farm. See this report. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I watched your many blocking timeline (For example - 1, 2 & 3), you are so different and cool 😎, as usual many Administrators blocking timeline only 1,2 or 3 days, but your blocking timelines are perfect 😂 attackers will get annoyed and leave Wikipedia, if you don't mind I tell you when I'll find such ips & users ~ Limited Idea4me (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind feedback. These are cases where I'd have indefinitely blocked an account, so I chose the longest duration that is still unlikely to cause any collateral damage, for example because during the 20 years of Wikipedia's existence, no other person ever seems to have used the IP address to edit the encyclopedia. There are many other cases where 36-hour blocks are a good balance between preventing further vandalism and not preventing the next user's helpful contributions. When dealing with copyright violations, harassment or libel, I tend to choose longer durations because the type of damage outweighs potential good-faith contributions.
Regarding the notification offer, I prefer reports on central noticeboards (such as WP:AIV, WP:AN3, WP:SPI and WP:ANI) to personal notifications. This is because I'm not online 24/7, and because I'm not always knowledgeable about the specific situation. I am happy about notifications about noticeboard reports, however: If there's an AN3 report or an ANI discussion you think I should have a look at, feel free to notify me about it. If there's sockpuppetry I might be able to help with, feel free to create an SPI page and notify me about the creation.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Your ANI close
You wrote: When others voice concerns about disruptive editing, these concerns should be taken to heart independently of the tone they're voiced in. Responding only to the tone rather than the content of someone's objection
You should find that after the "concerns" I ceased editing the article "independently of the tone they're voiced in". Prior to the outburst I did my best to understand and discuss the concerns; after the outburst I stopped communicating with the user and went to ANI right away. So I would like to politely ask what behavior you are cautioning me for? Is it my edits leading up to the outburst?[1] Or something I said during the ANI discussion?
Regards,
CapnZapp (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi CapnZapp, ANI closures, or closures in general, often summarize the concerns voiced in the discussion, and it would have been an incomplete summary without mentioning others' concerns about your editing. You have complained about the direction of the discussion, yet the discussion did have that direction, so it is described by the closure message. The described behavior ("Responding only to the tone rather than the content of someone's objection") seems to be present in Special:Diff/1049575484; one of the main sources for the "caution" is Special:Diff/1050245360. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Right. I'm being cautioned for bringing up obvious shortcomings in the ANI procedure. (That's a statement not a complaint) Probably ANI closers are customized to people complaining because they don't get the outcome they desire, but in my case I have no complaints regarding the outcome. I will give you that it might be the wrong forum. My hope was (and is) that someone perusing this particular ANI (and likely many others) will realize the ANI procedure is very far from an ideal justice system and fix it. That is not something I'm willing to spend my time on, however.
And to be clear: I'm not asking you of anything, ToBeFree. I am imagining this to be a conversation, or perhaps the end of one. Thank you for explaining your summary. I am not complaining about your actions, and I am not accusing you of anything. I recognize that you were, to the best of your ability, trying to summarize the will of others, rather than handing out any "cautions" yourself. See you CapnZapp (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello ToBeFree, here is the update. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Serols, I'm honestly surprised! If I had known that this would happen, I'd have blocked earlier. Thank you very much for the notification and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase
Hello ToBeFree, can you help please. I want to protect the article John Mara from vandalism, see edit history. The user sabotages my application 123. Regards --Serols (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Serols: It is indeed a duplicate report. You should be more careful. Twinkle usually tells you when there already is a request, no? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello RandomCanadian, I use Huggle, no message. Regards --Serols (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Toolhub is a catalogue to make it easier to find software tools that can be used for working on the Wikimedia projects. You can read more.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 October. It will be on all wikis from 21 October (calendar).
3–5% of editors may be blocked in the next few months. This is because of a new service in Safari, which is similar to a proxy or a VPN. It is called iCloud Private Relay. There is a discussion about this on Meta. The goal is to learn what iCloud Private Relay could mean for the communities.
Wikimedia Enterprise is a new API for those who use a lot of information from the Wikimedia projects on other sites. It is a way to get big commercial users to pay for the data. There will soon be a copy of the Wikimedia Enterprise dataset. You can read more. You can also ask the team questions on Zoom on 22 October 15:00 UTC.
JesseRafe's disruptive removal of well-referenced material
As summarized here and here, user JesseRafe has been repeatedly removing well-referenced material from the article Brian Sims without justification. No other user has objected to this material. The only reason JesseRafe has given is that they think it "makes the subject look bad", which is not a valid reason per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior.
An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions.
JesseRafe also violatedWP:NPA when I linked to the talk page discussion on their user page. They have also failed to respond to this invitation.
Your current approach is at the "Responding to tone" section of this pyramid, which is suboptimal.
Hi 2001:569:7F68:BF00:A575:7727:DB21:8992, Thanks for asking.
Both the discussion "invitation" (titled "Your disruptive removal of well-referenced material on Brian Sims")[297] and the discussion's introduction (directed at one specific editor, demanding them to answer questions about their behavior)[298] are combative and unpleasant; I can understand why someone would refuse to even answer such an "invitation". It's not an invitation to a neutral content-based discussion, it's an invitation to an unproductive fight.
Please re-write the section on the article's talk page entirely. Tips for doing so in a way that actually creates a productive discussion about the article content:
Describe which content you would like to add or replace, exactly, with a quotation. Describe why you would like to do so, ideally citing relevant policies (ensuring neutrality, and how so? Correcting a misquotation for verifiability, and using which source?).
Do not mention any specific user's name, or worse, their alleged behavior, on the article's talk page. Article talk pages are not for the discussion of user behavior; please restrict your message to the content of the article.
Keep the invitation message completely neutral. Use {{Please see}} without adding custom text.
If after all these attempts you do have a complaint about the user's behavior, the only two places you can reasonably voice them are User talk:JesseRafe and WP:ANI. Instead of focusing on the user's behavior, if the discussion fails, you should attempt inviting a formal third opinion about the content matter, or you could ask for a moderated dispute resolution at WP:DRN.
If you have genuinely followed the tips above and still face silence and a refusal to discuss the content, please notify me again.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
IP you blocked seems to be back
Hi. Sorry to bother you. You blocked 82.31.150.203, thank you. They appear to be back as this registered user. I've mentioned it at AIV but I wondered if I should also tell you given your previous involvement? Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi DBaK, thank you very much for the notification ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Protecting these articles seems to be somewhat of an overreaction given that the account had already been blocked. I can't see any other history of sockpuppetry on them? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi MSGJ, possibly. I have now reduced the protection duration at Sam Fender to 2 weeks (BLP violations) and removed the protection from Lindisfarne. We'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Coolest Tool Award 2021 is looking for nominations. You can recommend tools until 27 October.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 October. It will be on all wikis from 28 October (calendar).
Future changes
Diff pages will have an improved copy and pasting experience. The changes will allow the text in the diff for before and after to be treated as separate columns and will remove any unwanted syntax. [299]
The version of the Liberation fonts used in SVG files will be upgraded. Only new thumbnails will be affected. Liberation Sans Narrow will not change. [300]
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
pp-protection in Work to Ride
Hi! I think the protection level on this article is unwarranted. A number of new users started editing this article at the same time but I don't think it qualifies as 'disruptive' editing, most of them added content that was able to be easily backed up with reliable sources, and some did provide them themselves. Maybe one went a bit over the top with WP:PROMO but the rest seem to be sticking to the facts. There is also no evidence of WP:COI , I warned the users but it could just as easily be an editing party by current or former alumni, which I don't believe constitutes a COI violation necessarily. I think blocking all of them from editing the one article they have an interest in is a little bit WP:Biting. Could you please reconsider? JeffUK (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi JeffUK, thanks for asking! Indeed it seemed worse than it is, and the editing was limited to one day anyway. I had seen a false-positive report at WP:UAA, noticed your talk page message to the user and thought it might be a good idea to protect the page for a while. I have unprotected the page now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Someone put a notice on User talk:135.180.153.166 saying that it might be a sock of 135.180.156.116 (which you blocked). What I think is more likely is that they're using a dynamic range. I'm given the range 135.180.152.0/21 for both, but don't know if there's any collateral. wizzito | say hello! 20:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking, but why didn't you do the rangeblock? It's clearly a dynamic IP range, so this user could get another IP and do the same thing again... wizzito | say hello! 20:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wizzito, thank you very much for the notification. The confusing wording "An editor has expressed concern" has been removed from {{Sockpuppet}} and its documentation,[301][302] but {{IPSock}} apparently remains confusing. I have now informed Rzxz0839 that the template sadly doesn't trigger any notification, and about how to quickly create a SPI using Twinkle.
As the user has actively edited until now, I threw a quick single-IP block in before checking the feasibility of a rangeblock. This specific user seems to have a pretty static IP address assignment, for example because their ISP doesn't terminate the connection automatically. This observation led to the long-duration blocks of 135.180.156.116 (log). After almost exactly one month of silence, on 2021-07-29, 135.180.153.166 started editing. Their IP address has not changed for over three months. We'll have to wait and see if their IP address change was the result of manual block evasion or just a random hiccup. At the current assignment rate of new addresses, performing a rangeblock on a /21 range with evident collateral damage (135.180.154.19235.180.159.189135.180.156.55135.180.152.251135.180.158.194) would seem to be a bit excessive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Hi FDW777, thank you very much for the notification. I think Ohnoitsjamie caught them in a partial rangeblock at 1.38.216.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). As it seems very clear that this is still the same editor currently exclusively using the range, I have converted it to a sitewide three-month anon-only rangeblock. Please let me know if they switch their range again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Will do, thank you for the prompt action. FDW777 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a limit on the amount of emails a user can send each day. This limit is now global instead of per-wiki. This change is to prevent abuse. [303]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 November. It will be on all wikis from 4 November (calendar).
Hi Partha Basak, sorry for the late response. I have re-blocked the editor under their new IP address and removed the block-evading comment from your talk page. While it may be understandable that they're annoyed, they have crossed the line to harassment with multiple unwanted talk page messages and should request an unblock the normal way instead of evading their block. Would you mind if I created a talk page archive like mine for your talk page and archived the related conversations? That way, they have nothing left to respond to. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
You can do it, as your wish. Partha Basak 16:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Partha Basak, I have now configured automatic archiving for your talk page. When the bot has run for the first time and created the initial archive, I'll continue by manually moving the last threads there. This will result in a rather empty talk page, so I'll deliver a plate of virtual fruit afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to move the thread, only the link, but see, I'm not understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
On one hand, I was genuinely unsure what you referred to by "that"; on the other hand, you provided more arguments afterwards and I didn't want to omit them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
You wanted me to add that link and I said "you do that", which for me meant unambiguously "add that link". I'm now back from the opera but it was a long day, so please understand that I'm not inclined to say anything more. I updated my talk, and noticed the call to change the climate to more kindness, dated 31 October. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Spam?
Hi ToBeFree, could you take a look at this users articles [304]? I'm not very familiar with the AFD process at enWP but I think at least some of the articles – especially Pirbod and Reza Tajbakhsh don't meet your notability criteria.
In addition Reza Tajbakhsh (which was deleted two years ago [305]) appears to be crosswiki spam. The user created the article in 7 projects [306], deletion requests in deWP, faWP, faWikiquote and simpleWiki are already in place. Best wishes -- Johannnes89 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the notification. Notability is a tough subject I tend to avoid, so I may not be the best person to approach about unclear notability cases. WP:ANI may be helpful when a cross-wiki editor has created articles with an apparent conflict of interest that all appear to have notability problems.
I'm unsure about the notability of Mehran Ghafourian and Nazanin_Bayati, مدلینگ ایرانی's first article creations. The relevant notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (people) ("NBIO") with its subsections about creative professionals and entertainers. If this is a planned attempt to promote non-notable individuals, perhaps even for undisclosed compensation, I'd have started with the creation of articles about notable subjects too. The user has explicitly denied having a conflict of interest regarding Reza Tajbakhsh (Special:Diff/1053856267), so this impression may be false. It doesn't matter much: They have been repeatedly warned for promotional editing, and if they continue to create promotional articles, they'll end up blocked.
Ali Derakhshan (footballer) and especially Ali Derakhshan (singer) may somehow be notable, but it would be مدلینگ ایرانی's task to prove this using reliable, independent sources. We often use WP:42, an oversimplified summary of WP:GNG, to explain this problem to new users. The articles are now in the Draft namespace and will be deleted after six months of inactivity (WP:G13) unless their verifiability is significantly improved. There is currently a discussion at WT:AFD in favor of forced (re-)draftification of articles about even notable subjects, so I guess we're in good company.
Shukufa Orifiyon qualified for a speedy WP:A7 deletion; I don't perform these myself, but {{db-band}} did the job.
Ali Derakhshan was a disambiguation page that, after the draftification of the footballer and singer article, was overwritten by Ali Derakhshan (politician) per WP:G14. I have no idea if the politician is notable, but مدلینگ ایرانی is unlikely to have received compensation from him since Wikipedia didn't exist in his lifetime.
The next steps depend on the result of the two deletion discussions and مدلینگ ایرانی's reaction to the notifications on their talk page.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, regarding the deletion of the article by football player Ali Derakhshan, I needed an explanation to give. This player plays in a professional Iranian football team, that is, a Havadar S.C. in the Persian Gulf Pro League, which is a professional league.And he has played two games in the Iranian Premier League, according to a reliable source.fbref and transfermarkt.Isn't that the reason for a football player's reputation?As far as I have read politics, it is mentioned in politics that if a player plays a game for a professional team in a professional league, he has a good reputation.And the question that arises is that The article does not have enough reputation؟--Modeling(talk) 03:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
And the other thing that needs to be explained is about Shukufa Orifiyon. I translated the article from Persian and the source of this article was the BBC Persian.And the question that arises is whether this article is not famous enough and should have been removed? I know of several articles that, like this one, were created with a credible source on the wiki.--Modeling(talk) 03:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi مدلینگ ایرانی, you may be correct about the footballer Ali Derakhshan (WP:NFOOTY, #2). I was concerned about the reliability of the sources, and my concern seems to have been shared by the reviewer in Special:Diff/1053670936. Thank you for providing additional sources; the draft is now awaiting a new review.
Regarding Shukufa Orifiyon, your article did not "indicate why its subject is important or significant" (WP:A7). The possible existence of other problematic articles does not justify the creation of another one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that @ToBeFree! --Johannnes89 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Opinion
Can you please give me your opinion on my new article- Nanda Devi Plutonium Mission
You can read it in your free time and give an opinion about it.
Any kind of opinion, positive or negative will be appreciated. Partha Basak 17:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Partha Basak, it's an honor to be asked to evaluate the quality of an article. Htanaungg has marked the article as reviewed, and is much more experienced with page reviewing than me. I think we should ask them for their opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I am asking that how do you like the article? Partha Basak 18:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
no issues. Good night or whatever Partha Basak 18:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I found it an interesting read! The article is nicely structured and contains a lot of detailed, helpful information. However, I have found some issues:
The "most vital component" part seems to be copied from the source; I have highlighted this in yellow for now.
The highlighted sentences also contain a citation from Medium, which has a red entry at WP:RSP. It serves user-generated content.
Some of the data was provided only in imperial units; using the instructions from MOS:IMPERIAL, I have provided a conversion from "25,645 feet" to 7,817 metres. When you rewrite the highlighted paragraph, you may like to add something similar for the antenna length, currently given as "8-10 feet".
The reliability of mensxp.com, a "Men's Lifestyle" magazine, may be low. The specific cited article appears to be rather tertiary and doesn't properly cite its sources.
As a general note, I am usually hesitant to answer such requests because a) I am usually less qualified than the page reviewer at determining the article's quality, and b) a proper evaluation requires a lot of time. If I provide a quick but incorrect assessment, people are likely to mistake it as encouragement for errors I haven't noticed.
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
All issues have been fixed. Thanks for your precious time!!
A plate of Samosa for you
Here is a plate of Samosa for you. Samosa is fried or baked pastry with a savory filling, such as spiced potatoes, onions, peas, lentils. This is a popular refreshment food in countries of the Indian Subcontinent, specially in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan. Thank you.
Wow! Today I learned about Samosa. Thank you very much, Partha Basak, for the kind feedback and the food! And of course for addressing the content concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Mobile IP editors are now able to receive warning notices indicating they have a talk page message on the mobile website (similar to the orange banners available on desktop). These notices will be displayed on every page outside of the main namespace and every time the user attempts to edit. The notice on desktop now has a slightly different colour. [307][308]
In the future, unregistered editors will be given an identity that is not their IP address. This is for legal reasons. A new user right will let editors who need to know the IPs of unregistered accounts to fight vandalism, spam, and harassment, see the IP. You can read the suggestions for how that identity could work and discuss on the talk page.
Hi TBF. I hope you're keeping well. Human height page needs protection again and it really is just a new "account" trying to reinsert the old problematic table. See history. This time the claim is that the opposing revision is "without consensus". Can it be protected? Even I myself am debarred for a time. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Coldtrack, thank you very much for your notification. The account has already been blocked with sockpuppetry concerns, and the rest of the disruption might become manageable with a year of semi-protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep up your fine efforts across the site! Regards! --Coldtrack (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Please do not contact me
Please do not contact me when you are letting someone off for edit warring. I did not exceed three edits, this user reached EIGHT! Connorguy99 (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Connorguy99, blocks are not a punishment, and participation in an edit war does not require any specific number of reverts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
A block should be a deterrent. And the level of personal attacks I had to endure from this user was ridiculous. It annoys me that I was blocked earlier this year for an edit war with this user, even though I was later proven to be correct, and this user wasn't even warned. Yet now they escape a block and both parties are warned despite me only reverting a couple of inappropriate edits. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Connorguy99, I have yet to see a response from DarkGlow to the warning, so I'd like to wait a while for their reaction before making further decisions. DarkGlow's personal attacks are not acceptable and will be dealt with, but my message on your talk page was about your behavior, not theirs. What I'd personally be happy about would be an acknowledgement that Special:Diff/1054511194's edit summary was an inaccurate and unnecessary response to Special:Diff/1054503564, and that Special:Diff/1054531391 was a policy-violating response to Special:Diff/1054528331 per the section linked in that edit's summary. Your latest description of these edits appears to be: "me only reverting a couple of inappropriate edits". This standpoint really needs an update before we can even start discussing others' behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Connorguy99, There isn’t any fixed number per se, one revert alone can be considered editing warring for example, if I create an article & you add a text to that article, if I revert you and you revert back you have just edit warred. Doing so three times is when the edit warring may warrant a block. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how the first was "inaccurate and unnecessary" when this user was already edit warring with others and was writing rude comments such as "how many times will this get readded!!!" in the edit section. I viewed it as intentional vandalism. And likewise, I don't see the problem with the second message - a black character was being treated differently to other white characters and I questioned it. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Drmies, especially for providing two additional eyes on this conflict. If the edit warring resumes after the two days, it may be worth considering ECP, perhaps backed by WP:BLPDS, as the two main participants are not extended confirmed yet. That said, the article isn't even reviewed yet, and thus not indexed by search engines. It isn't a highly active page where full protection prevents many helpful contributions each day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Already handled by Acroterion. @FDW777: You should look up IP ranges (there's a page somewhere), the above are clearly all on the same /64... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I have enough trouble with IPv4 ranges, without thinking about IPv6 ones. I knew they were caught in the partial block on 2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RBLs·block user·block log), but wasn't sure whether page protections or a full block on that range would have been better. As it turned out the third option works just as well, with a narrower range blocked. FDW777 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
All done for now, it seems. Thank you very much for the report and the range contributions check. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification; I have now replied in Special:Diff/1054878152. The heading was changed to "Complaint concerning Sarah-Lee Heinrich's article". When the discussion is archived, I'll provide a link here for the record. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that the page Seneca Ridge Middle School was restored fully and that your edit to undo it was undone. Please do not delete that page again, as it has reason to exist.
Thanks,
Ellison Blindonsa 17:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellidon217 (talk • contribs)
Hello there! I believe we have ourselves a confession of sockpuppetry by a blocked abuser here, and definitely ongoing abuse of a way too nice person. Can we get a block and a sockpuppet label? Thanks! — Smuckola(talk) 23:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi 112.187.211.184, I can create a deletion discussion on your behalf, as you can technically not create the discussion page yourself. However, you'll need to specify your nomination text, which I will then copy for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree. My reason is "Fails WP:GNG, the existing sources are not reliable and independent." I just don't even know why how are persian sources reliable in en.wiki. 106.168.123.161 (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Done, thank you for the nomination. Regarding Persian sources, the focus is on the reliability, not the language of the sources. Only if equally (or more) reliable English sources exist, the English sources are preferred. Details can be found at WP:NOENG, part of the verifiability policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Gerda Arendt, and sorry again. "Möge die Straße uns zusammenführen" is a wonderful song reminding me of my childhood. 🎵 🎶 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Did you see who created Mikolaj's article? I would not have known her, - what a loss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I did notice. And I'm grateful for all the work that went into this article, including LouisAlain's. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Most large file uploads errors that had messages like "stashfailed" or "DBQueryError" have now been fixed. An incident report is available.
Problems
Sometimes, edits made on iOS using the visual editor save groups of numbers as telephone number links, because of a feature in the operating system. This problem is under investigation. [310]
There was a problem with search last week. Many search requests did not work for 2 hours because of a configuration error. [311]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 November. It will be on all wikis from 18 November (calendar).
Hey! Hope you're doing good. I just wanted to say hello to you after looking at the Branstar you gave me months and months ago. Thanks for all the work you do on Wikipedia! Stay safe and Best! Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 20:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh hey The4lines! Nice to meet you again, and thank you for all your work as well! The same to you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you! (or maybe 2)
The Admin's Barnstar
I am bored Lopbunny69 (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The Recent Changes Barnstar
So here ya go Lopbunny69 (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have never edited Wikipedia except anonymously before and noticed that you had had a civil discussion on the page of VictimOfEntropy's talk page about Wikipedia rules.
I was wondering if you could take a look at this talk page and maybe referee things a bit:
This user is very possessive of the page, but based on the actual source material as per the television show there is no clear reason why the Will Graham character wouldn't be on the list with Alana Bloom and Bedelia Du Maurier. It appears that the only reason he is not on the list is because the relationship is same sex. The page is getting a lot of attention right now because the creator of the series Bryan Fuller agreed on Twitter that Will should be included on the list (https://twitter.com/BryanFuller/status/1461865453517565952), and I would hate for the page to get locked!
But it also simply makes no sense for Will not to be listed! Especially when Bedelia, who is never shown having sex with Hannibal and like Will shares an intellectual passion with him, is listed.
Edit: I forgot to sign it, I'm so sorry, I'm not used to having a username. Aurorastation (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to spam your page but I think things are getting worked out! I think I've sussed you're an admin and that is in fact different from another especially helpful editor and that I'm starting to figure out how things work around here socially. I was just very concerned about an editing war exploding! I didn't mean to tattle. Aurorastation (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Why have you unreviewed this article? It is adequately sourced for a stub on a non-controversial subject. Ingratis (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ingratis, please have a look at the bottom of the page creator's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh OK - I see - thanks. Ingratis (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
No worries, Ingratis, and sorry for the context-less notification. Do feel free to re-review the article without asking; this was just a quick measure without any comment on notability or sourcing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation - all is now clear! when I get the time I'll check the article against the sources with the help of Google Translate. Ingratis (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
That's extremely valuable work, and the only way 28 articles can be reviewed for copyright violations. One article for me (now deleted), one article for you, and if we find a few others, it becomes manageable. When you have actually taken the time to re-review the article in the described way, please let me know, as you definitely deserve a barnstar afterwards. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
OK - there are two sources in the article. One is apparently dead, and the article is a far too close paraphrase of the second - which is in both Azerbaijani and English, so no need for Google Translate. I couldn't find any other online sources to support a rewritten version, so it looks unsalvageable. Ingratis (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Both are online from Germany, but geoblocking or similar mechanisms may be in place. I first didn't notice that the second reference page contains a PDF at all, though!
Thank you very much, Ingratis! I've had some hope, but apparently it's all copied (or way too closely paraphrased / plagiarized). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! Ingratis (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Question
Hi ToBeFree, sorry for bothering you again, but since you're German speaking, could you take a look at this user [313]? It's a sockpuppet of ErwinLindemann, a user who was blocked multiple times in deWP (see de:Benutzer:Gustav von Aschenbach/Trollinsel#ErwinLindemann).
Now he's taking the conflict to enWP with this sockpuppet, calling other users (including me) Alternative for Germany-members/supporter of [314][315][316] which I consider a personal attack since it is a far right party. He tried to push his theories in this unrelated article [317] and in Death of Oury Jalloh[318][319] + the articles talk page [320] (he is citing his own essay, which was considered original research in deWP, see his real name according to his user page). As far as I know, the rules for edit warring are a bit different in enWP (WP:3RR), but I'm still not sure if I can just revert again? I don't think it's possible to come to an agreement with this user after years of conflict. Thanks for your help -- Johannnes89 (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Johannnes89, no worries and thanks for asking. Regarding the three-revert rule, WP:3RRNO contains an exception for this case (#2), removing messages from your talk page is fine (WP:UP#CMT), and repeatedly messaging someone who has clearly asked for the messaging to "please stop" is harassment. Regarding the article content, WP:ONUS applies: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
It's unlikely that a user keeping up this behavior is compatible with the community, so I'll keep an eye on the situation, preventing this section here from being archived for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that and for your advice! -- Johannnes89 (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Message by PennaRican81
Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Sabbatino, in 2019, wrote this to me: "I will act in bad faith and will restore the MOS-compliant versions and I do not really care if I get banned, because it is you who started it. So you either discuss it or we both get into trouble. Your choice" (see here).
I request for my userbox privileges to be restored. Furthermore, I want justice, as Sabbatino had everything to do with me being banned after abusing his admin privileges. I did not want to edit war, but Sabbatino has zero interest in userboxes except to fight with other users when they edit his designs. His designs are not consistent with other all teams and he clearly has no intention of completing the project. Neither does Sabbatino keep up with new teams, brand changes, etc. The North American sports userboxes page is outdated and needs major revising. Sabbatino has not done this, but gets in the way of those who do. Sabbatino is destructive.PennaRican (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi PennaRican, Sabbatino was never an administrator. If you have edit warred, "I did not want to edit war" would be a factually incorrect statement, unless you had lost conscious control over your editing behavior, which would also be a problem. The ban is about your behavior, not others'; please see WP:NOTTHEM for the usual advice. I'm always fine with having an unban discussion at WP:AN, but your current list of arguments is so unsuitable for unbanning in general that I didn't even have to look at the case again before declining the appeal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It's clear as mud as what is necessary for an unban. I wish to be unbanned on the userboxes. Sabbatino edit-warred, so should have been banned, too. What do you need from me to unban me on the userboxes? Most of them are being unattended. PennaRican (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi PennaRican, the thread had been archived, so I have un-archived it now and added your response to it. Have you seen my message from 15:40, 19 November 2021? I'm wondering because you're still complaining about the other user's behavior instead of focusing on yours. I thought I had relatively clearly addressed this, with a link to a relevant guide section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
'Edit Warring' Edit on my Talk Page
I did not revert the edits because it was my preferred version. The other user was repeatedly deleting a lot of content, which I reverted. But if that is not in accordance with the rules, then I'll keep it in mind the next time. Thank You. 👍
Kpddg (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This may be hair-splitting, but perhaps it is somehow helpful to focus on the wording for a short moment:
If you do not prefer a revision, there is no need for a revert. I'd say that I "prefer" a non-vandalized version to a vandalized version, for example. So if someone restores a revision, even repeatedly so, I'd say that calling it their "preferred version" is fine.
When there is a dispute about the inclusion of content, normally WP:ONUS applies: The onus is on you to gain consensus for inclusion, not on someone removing material in good faith.
There are, of course, exceptions to this normal approach. Reverting vandalism – intentional (!) damage to the encyclopedia – is perfectly fine to do without discussion. But at Football Association of Indonesia, someone has removed material with the initial edit summary "These are unsourced", and their work in multiple steps was clearly done in good faith, hoping to improve the encyclopedia. You have reverted their work without even providing an edit summary.
Sadly, this wasn't just a quick one-time decision. When the user re-removed the material with the summary "not sourced", you made another revert using the red "VANDAL" link of Twinkle. The link is labelled "VANDAL" because it is meant for summary-less reverts of vandalism.
In response to verifiability concerns such as "not sourced", WP:BURDEN applies: Unless you provide a citation, the content doesn't belong into the article.
You further re-added the challenged material after another removal, this time labelled "Change genre what? I removed unsourced content" in response to your strange {{uw-genre2}} warning on their talk page. You had provided the following additional text: "The article is fine, for any problems discuss on talk page".
In a nutshell, this was indeed "not in accordance with the rules" in many, many ways. Similar behavior sadly repeated at Volt Europa after my message; please stop treating good-faith removal of content as "vandalism".
Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Thanks for the feedback on my Rollback application for that permission. I am excited to contribute in any and all ways that I can on the encyclopedia. I do not think that the encyclopedia would be anywhere near as good as it is without all of the strong and dedicated editors that we have here. I am more than happy to "prove myself" first and wait an additional month from today for a third review. ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey Th78blue, thank you very much for the kind feedback and the chocolate cookie. I'll happily review your request in a month if you like to; feel free to notify me on my talk page when you ask again. However, I can understand well if you'd prefer an independent review from a third administrator, and I won't answer the request (or at least I won't decline it!) unless I'm notified. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd be happy to have you review my request. I love the encyclopedia, and am surprised daily by how passionate various editors are in their effort to protect the integrity of the project. It is very admirable, and something that I wouldn't change. Enjoy the "cookie" ♥ (insert winking smiley here, but I don't know how to make any smiley other than the regular one... Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 01:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I like using basic wikimarkup when possible. Do you know of a list that includes the wikimarkup text such as { { smiley } } and { { smiley|tongue } } (the only two that I know)? Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 15:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah. There is a documentation with a list of available parameters (here: smileys) at Template:Smiley/doc. I'd say there's nothing more "basic" than the raw MediaWiki image syntax, and I prefer not to rely on the persistence of a template's output when writing messages that are archived forever. The thought of {{smiley}} changing one day, modifying all my messages at once, would be a bit uncomfortable to me. You could substitute the template ({{subst:smiley}}), but you'd then notice how unnecessarily complicated the syntax behind the scenes is. I also intentionally use the "alt" attribute with an emoji character instead of the "abbr" mouseover text, as that's invisible to me while being very accessible to blind readers. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 December. It will be on all wikis from 2 December (calendar).
Well, that one was obvious indeed. Done, thank you very much. I'm just afraid I won't always be online when the sockpuppeteers are, so I like to have SPI reports that will be noticed by other administrators sooner or later too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't mind doing the paperwork if needed, and there's rarely any rush with sockpuppet cases unless they involve some articles that are in the news at present, or they are editing many articles and needing lots of clean-up. FDW777 (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
User Lightiggy
Point taken about one-way messaging. I'll note, however, that previous Cadeken socks (and eventually this one will be confirmed as a Cadeken sock; I've deal with numerous Cadeken socks and this one fits the pattern) apparently felt that removing warnings made them disappear, so in a sense it's advice to the editor about that error in thinking. Also note that I didn't tell the user he/she could not remove the warnings. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightiggy is closed with no action, although if they continue to edit I'll likely open a Cadeken sockpuppet investigation. Anyway, thanks for your comments. Sundayclose (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sundayclose, no worries. The SPI isn't closed, just the checkuser request has been declined. A behavioral investigation is still pending; if you have evidence regarding a different sockmaster, you may like to present it as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll present a Cadeken sock report if Lightiggy continues to edit. Cadeken is a prolific sockmaster, so I usually wait to see if another sock pops up soon. Sundayclose (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
You've got mail
Hello, ToBeFree/A. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Wellertalk 10:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you mind walking me through your process?
I read the case but I didn't know how to proceed on this call. Since it's an official process and DS territory I felt shy about action and was waiting for someone I trusted to make the call. Don't mean to break your flow, but I was curious how one thinks about such matters. BusterD (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi BusterD, Thank you very much for the kind request!
My process was as follows:
In the large list of protection requests, notice an unusual and interesting one: A request for protecting a deletion discussion.
Open the page and its history in new tabs
A discretionary sanction protection has been requested; open WP:A/I/PIA in a new tab as well.
At WP:A/I/PIA, check the scope of the sanctions: "any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict".
At the AfD and the discussed article, check if that's the case here.
"pro-Israel campaigner", check.
"Collier's report on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign", check.
At WP:A/I/PIA, check if there is something more specific than "administrators may impose sanctions in this area". There is, "500/30 protection". An unusual remedy reserved for extreme cases: The Arbitration Committee has practically already protected the pages in this area, and extended-confirmed protection is just a technical measure to implement the already-existing protection.
At WP:A/I/PIA, carefully read the section "ARBPIA General Sanctions" again, especially regarding exceptions. In this case, the sentence "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs" made the decision easy. The Arbitration Committee has explicitly asked for this to be done.
At the page history of the AfD, check if a recent contribution was in violation of the 500/30 protection. Revert/undo with an edit summary like "WP:PIA: 500/30 Rule" if applicable. You are not required to do so, however. If an IP editor removed clear vandalism or a BLP violation, that would be an example for something that should probably be left as is (with WP:BANEX in mind).
Check if the page is already protected; protect if it isn't.
Choose a duration: For AfDs, I usually choose automatic expiration; for articles in this specific area, I usually choose indefinite protection. Protecting an AfD beyond its closure is rarely necessary, but wouldn't have been wrong either. Let's assume that 2 months are more than enough time to let the discussion be closed.
Choose a reason: "To be valid, sanctions must be clearly and unambiguously labelled as an arbitration enforcement action (such as with 'arbitration enforcement', 'arb enforcement', 'AE' or 'WP:AE' in the Wikipedia log entry or the edit summary)" (WP:AC/DS#Logging). I like to use [[WP:AE|Arbitration enforcement]]: [[WP:Shortcut to the ArbCom decision]].
Check if that went properly, especially if someone edited through your protection before it happened.
From the Table of Contents, choose the current year's "Palestine-Israel articles". Notice that it has a separate section for protections; edit that section.
Add your protection to the bottom of the list, roughly using the format of the existing entries. This is not entirely standardized.
Not required: Copy the new entry to your edit summary, making the page history easy to read.
Done! You can now close the report at WP:RFPP. You could already have done so after protecting, but I don't want to forget logging, so I treat logging as a part of the protection process itself.
Thanks enormously for the manual! I can see your operational process is somewhat similar to my own. You've answered virtually every issue I puzzled over, plus added the necessary log steps I would have forgotten. I caught myself reading the AFD discussion as a participant and not as a clerk. Old habits die hard. BusterD (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This user keeps adding The Voice Teens on The Voice Kids which in fact has never been confirmed. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Annamargarita0, for removing the unsourced content. 207.237.46.109 is adding it with quite a dedication. See you next year, I guess, for requesting a two year block... Or earlier, for page protection. Please keep me updated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This user keeps adding 2021-2022 for Series 7 of Swashbuckle when all the episodes airing in 2021. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Annamargarita0, done, but I'm not always online. If I haven't been involved in any way, please prefer WP:ANI for general reports. The notification about 207.237.46.109 was fine as I had blocked and messaged the user before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
MediaWiki 1.38-wmf.11 was scheduled to be deployed on some wikis last week. The deployment was delayed because of unexpected problems.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 December. It will be on all wikis from 9 December (calendar).
At all Wikipedias, a Mentor Dashboard is now available at Special:MentorDashboard. It allows registered mentors, who take care of newcomers' first steps, to monitor their assigned newcomers' activity. It is part of the Growth features. You can learn more about activating the mentor list on your wiki and about the mentor dashboard project.
The predecessor to the current MediaWiki Action API (which was created in 2008), action=ajax, will be removed this week. Any scripts or bots using it will need to switch to the corresponding API module. [321]
An old ResourceLoader module, jquery.jStorage, which was deprecated in 2016, will be removed this week. Any scripts or bots using it will need to switch to mediawiki.storage instead. [322]
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello ToBeFree. Per this edit summary, are you requesting another administrator to comment on whether semiprotection is appropriate on LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates? I don't see any recent discussion on the article talk page. I am quite likely to resort to semiprotection myself if there is some kind of a war and the IPs are not using the talk page. When neither party is using the talk page, it takes more study. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, Thank you very much! That's my usual approach. I would normally have warned Serols for edit warring there as well, but I've done that before without noticeable effect, and since the discussion from December 2020, I feel like I'm talking against a wall regarding edit warring towards Serols. It's only been one month since my ANEW report in response to their previous edit warring, and I was pretty strongly in favor of temporarily removing their rollback permission yesterday. Now I've created another ANEW thread, intentionally not at ANI to avoid a huge community discussion about a clear 3RR violation that can be simply resolved by an administrator, and all it results in is apparently a disagreement about the definition of "vandalism", especially "obvious vandalism". Well then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Serols did use rollback but I don't see him accusing the other party of 'vandalism' in so many words. If any of the IP changes *were* genuine vandalism, and if Serols reverted them, that would affect the 3RR calculation. It looks to me that both parties are taking liberties on an article that is clearly controversial. I suppose you can argue that the party who is entrusted with Rollback ought to use it correctly. Meanwhile, User:Serols did make a concession here on his talk page when I queried his lack of response at AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see the new messages on their talk page. Thank you very much for talking to them; the conversation especially including the last message does relieve me. I have semi-protected the article now and am fine with the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I just saw the user is currently blocked, I am running through new page and found some of the stub articles he created. They seemed okay to me so I was trying to work out where the copyright violations are. I am unable translate word for word, so was curious how you're able to do that. Govvy (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Govvy, details can be found in the archived AN discussion. Specifically, the Azerbijani Wikipedia article az:Aratəpə nekropolu was a copy of it source, and the English Wikipedia article Aratəpə necropolis was a word-by-word translation of the source, not hard to verify using Google Translate as it appears to have been a machine translation. Further copyright violations were found in the articles Zirincli and Tamaşalı. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, they didn't seem to bad to me when I was looking at the new page feed, but now you have me pondering what to do with them. I have tagged a couple with stubs on the new page feature, added project history and project Azerbaijan to some of the talk pages. Generally the articles on history and football that spike my interests and I thought Elmar's articles interesting. It's a shame if we have to delete them. So I wasn't sure what process to do with them after seeing the ban and your comments. Govvy (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Govvy, we don't have to delete them all. Unless you are aware of a specific copyright violation, it is perfectly fine to build upon these articles, especially if it results in a complete rewrite of the text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
k, thanks for your input, maybe I shall try a little rewrite on a few. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There are now default short aliases for the "Project:" namespace on most wikis. E.g. On Wikibooks wikis, [[WB:]] will go to the local language default for the [[Project:]] namespace. This change is intended to help the smaller communities have easy access to this feature. Additional local aliases can still be requested via the usual process. [323]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 December. It will be on all wikis from 16 December (calendar).
User user:Graywalls is once again hounding me and going through articles where I have posted images and removing them on his own without any discussion. He was already asked to stop removing my photos a year and a half ago here and is doing it again. Such as removing my photo from this article that had been on there for over a year and a half: Urban exploration, as well as this article Addiction. Matthew T Rader (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Matthew T Rader, thank you very much for the notification. Graywalls, I'd like to hear your opinion about the situation as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree, thanks for the note. Some of these pages are pages I am already watching and I did not feel the images add to the encyclopedic understanding of the articles and I happen to recognize that same exact picture that is being added to multiple articles I am watching anyways on the subject matter I already participate in. They've previously had their user page setup for promoting their various social media outlets, which has since been deleted. I am watching by watched articles, not by user. The other page on which the identical image was added, I looked through, and also removed reference to heroin and such, because it was uncited and clearly WP:OR. Graywalls (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Promoting social media outlets? From a couple years ago? That was an unintentional as I forgot about the rule we can't put them on our personal profile pages and it was quickly removed. I have not posted my social media since then. Also, there are thousands of articles that share images with other articles. Some images appear on over a dozen articles. There is no rule that forbids the placing an image on multiple relevant articles. The image I posted was very relevant to the articles it was on. Matthew T Rader (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Addressing identical image being added to multiple articles based on that image being added for that occurrence to evaluate encyclopedic value is a legitimate purpose. I am now re-reviewing their contribution and I just happened to come across an edit which appears to be self-promotional questionable self citation at Special:Diff/1032650474. Removing the syringe picture from Urban exploration was legitimate, because there was no cited contents referencing anything of this nature and it does not really add to the encyclopedic value. Furthermore, such as... so and so and so type image encourages a formation of collage of everything. I do not remove just your pictures. If I were to be add a picture, then add the same picture across numerous pages of questionable relevance and the first person who happens to notice it go around and remove where they believed to be not relevant, I wouldn't consider that hounding. Graywalls (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hm. Regarding the user page, I think it shouldn't have been deleted, as WP:UPYES explicitly allows "limited autobiographical content" and "a small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material". If I had created the same userpage – and mine did look pretty similar for a while –, it wouldn't have been deleted, at very least because WP:U5 is limited to users who have "made few or no edits outside of user pages". At the time of nomination and deletion, I'd say it has already not qualified for deletion per U5. There was no "promotion" other than simple linking, which we do normally tolerate for established contributors' user pages.
Regarding the hounding accusations, that's an understandable concern especially after the user page deletion nomination and the previous ANI discussion. Content-wise, just like Drmies, I'm afraid I'll need to agree with the image removal. But anyone could have done that, and there is no deadline for doing so. There is no need to fuel the fire by doing so after previous hounding concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
When I am watching pages, changes to those pages come up. I see images added, seems to not add purpose, I remove it, not based on who added it. Graywalls (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Generally a perfectly fine approach, and hard to argue against. If I personally were in your situation, I'd try to avoid removing images added by Matthew T Rader for a while, even if I disagreed about the hounding concerns. Again, anyone can remove the images, the affected articles are generally well-watched, and someone else who agrees (like Drmies in this case) will make the same contribution sooner or later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I am going through the edit history of Addiction and I see I removed that same exact image two years ago in Special:Diff/990645296. Re-adding it, then complaining that they're being hounded when I removed it again (only realizing now I removed it earlier after seeing the edit history) appears questionable. The person that re-added it never started a discussion seeking consensus to re-include it, or offer any kind of edit summary justification why it should be re-added. ToBeFree, you can be assured I would've removed it even if it was a different picture of the similar nature by someone totally different. Graywalls (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
My image had already been on that page for a year and a half. But okay. Thank you for your moderation.
@ToBeFree:, reviewing that ANI discussed, the complaining party was asked to not keep restoring their pictures. I'd like to your opinion with regard to this. They came back and re-added the same exact picture into an article from which I've removed the picture previously and it seems like others like Drmies agree on the editorial merit. I don't remember every edit I've made off my mind, so this second removal was again on editorial ground. All these prior actions are something I am reminded of after searching through edit history. After review of the file usage of File:Heroin paraphernalia.jpg, I personally find the application of it very questionable and one of the insertion was over-writing someone else's article main image with this image. Graywalls (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
To my understanding, Matthew T Rader has not edited Wikipedia since our discussion here. There may one day be a need to address future image additions at ANI again, and it may be reasonable to remove some of their images from the articles they are currently appearing in, but I personally can't take such action in response to a harassment report. That would be completely tactless. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
(and just to have written this explicitly so noone complains about the lack of a warning, I strongly recommend against further similar image removals from your current position, justified or not. A community-issued interaction ban against perceived harassment often happens more suddenly than expected, and it can usually be reliably avoided by voluntarily avoiding further interaction. The alleged lack of this being an option is sometimes perceived as proof for the issue.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Userbox
Hello! I have a bit of an odd question for you. I'm wanting to create a pronouns userbox for TheHamiPotterGeek. Normally this wouldn't be an issue, however the reason I'm asking you is because they have DID, and so as a whole they refer to themself by we/us/our. Due the possible implications of these pronouns I'm here to ask if it would be alright if I created a userbox for them stating that they use said pronouns. 18:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC) ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Blaze The Wolf, thank you very much for the notification, and sorry for the immediate disappointment. I'm afraid we may be trolled, but even if we are not, their intention to build an encyclopedia has yet to be demonstrated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Yep I understand. They have expressed that they want to build an encyclopedia at the Teahouse, although they haven't done so yet (probably due to me chatting with them on their talk page which is a fault on my part). ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
If we assume that this is not trolling, none of you has done anything wrong. There is no fault involved. Don't worry. And if it is trolling, there is at least no fault from your side involved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Yep I understand. I have told them other places that can be used for general chat (which they have said they don't know how to access their account, so I said we might be able to use the IRC so I can guide them through the process) which they seem to have understood. I was actually caught off-guard a little when they responded on their talk page since I thought being partially blocked from the User talk namespace it would restrict their talk page access, but clearly no. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, in the first days of testing partial blocks, they did work in the way you expected them to do. Today, the user's own talk page remains accessible by default. I was in two minds about this: Immediately revoking it would probably have been excessive, so it happened in two steps. Let's see what happens next. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Alright. I also told them to check out The Wikipedia Adventure once they're unblocked since they seem to be having trouble figuring out how to edit. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Well that was silly of them.
That made me actually laugh. Posting that on a CU's talk page, asking for it or what? Mako001 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi 113.253.234.137, thank you very much for the notification. I have created a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/比连等谈 now and blocked Abigailchay independently of the sockpuppetry concern.
That said: When you add a new birth date to a biography of a living person, even when reverting a sockpuppet, the burden to demonstrate verifiability is on you. You can remove unsourced content, but replacing it with different content requires verifiability. The "WP:BLPPRIVACY" section of the biographies policy must be taken into account as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Those page's contents just got damaged by 比连等谈. --113.253.234.137 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
That's a self-published source, a WordPress-powered low-quality blog asking for coffee donations and inviting the reader to follow the publisher's private profiles on Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. I wouldn't be surprised if the information is copied from Wikipedia and thus completely unusable as a source for Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
If you would like to submit an edit request for the article Ma Yashu, please click here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Request?
It would appear that user:UChicagolacall is requesting that you review their talk page access, (but I could be wrong). Cheers - wolf 07:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I have missed their kind request. Thank you very much for the notification, Thewolfchild. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Rangeblock
Hello – thank you for rangeblocking the long-term EastEnders vandal (who we in the community call the "Gavin Ellis vandal"). Will this rangeblock be effective? Or will they be able to evade it? – DarkGlow • 19:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi DarkGlow, the range seems to be quite static: [325]. Perhaps page protection is a better option in some cases, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I do prefer to get the articles protected, but it can be hard with soaps as there are so many articles that they can choose to attack. Hopefully the block is enough! – DarkGlow • 20:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
In extreme cases such as WP:A/I/PIA and WP:GS/PAGEANT, solutions are found to protect a lot of pages in a huge topic area. But that won't be necessary here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News
Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 10 January 2022.
Recent changes
Queries made by the DynamicPageList extension (<DynamicPageList>) are now only allowed to run for 10 seconds and error if they take longer. This is in response to multiple outages where long-running queries caused an outage on all wikis. [326]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week or next week.
The Wikimedia Cloud VPS hosts technical projects for the Wikimedia movement. Developers need to claim projects they use. This is because old and unused projects are removed once a year. Unclaimed projects can be shut down from February. [327]
First I want to make it clear that I was asked to create this page--and that I am not adding any images for "self-promotion" (I am a teacher and do not make money from these sketches). There were no other images of Mazen, so I created one, as simple as that.
Second, I do not understand why the "Appearances" section keeps being removed. The two films listed (Syria's Disappeared/Truth Smugglers) are documentaries where Mazen appears---what is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcnelsonart (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
We should actually clear this before dealing with the article content. Asked in which way? For compensation in any way (WP:PAID)? As a friend (WP:COI)? Where is the connection, and how close is it approximately?
It's relatively alarming that creating a photo of the biographical article subject was "simple", as this usually implies a relatively close connection.
ToBeFree,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey Interstellarity, thank you very much! Same here. It's been quite a year. All the best to you too – Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Help request for Soheil Beiraghi article
Hi.
Many weeks has passed since Draft:Soheil Beiraghi's article has created, but no one reviewed it yet. Could you do me a favor and take a look at it, or help me to make verification process faster? Thank you. Kabootaremesi (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kabootaremesi, neither of both, sorry – but someone has reviewed the draft now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Every time I try to have a proper conversation with him to resolve a conflict regarding edits he reverts without explanation, he reverts the talk page message, and when I tried to do so tonight, he called it disruptive. It's tiring that he does this, as if to declare it his domain that no one else can play with, or else he'll call it a violation. I really don't think he's acting in good faith--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi CreecregofLife, that's tough, but there's a solution. The easiest way to enforce a content-based discussion is to create a new section on the article's talk page, strictly without any comments about behavior or people. Focus completely on the content and describe why your change is an improvement. Provide a diff link of your proposed change, not the revert. Afterwards, you can write a neutral discussion invitation ({{Please see}}) at BrickMaster02.
If you have done so without success, the essay WP:DISCFAIL describes a good way to continue. It's perhaps the only essay I recommend reading at all. The best of the essays out there.
Best regards and a Happy New Year, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for helping to clean up the vandalism spree from that sock! I really appreciate your efforts to keep the project free from vandalism and disruptive editing. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi OhKayeSierra, it seems to have stopped for now – perhaps a checkuser or steward placed a rangeblock somewhere. I wonder if these have been compromised accounts or set up for this purpose. Their account ages have been very similar, all around 5 years. Thank you very much for the kind feedback and Happy Holidays! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
re Gregg Brandon
One person has added sourced info, and multiple IPs are trying to remove it by incorrectly labeling it as slander (which one might think might run afoul of WP:NLT), and no one is actually discussing, I'm trying to figure out why you thought the best first move was to block that one person from the article without taking one moment to actually discuss the issue, especially since they haven't remotely run afoul of WP:3RR. Yes, ONUS is a policy - but citing it while engaging in an edit war and not in an actual discussion does nothing to improve the situation. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I don't see anyone disputing it, I see multiple IPs removing it while misrepresenting their edits and performing no discussion. If they want to dispute it, they can engage in the talk page. That's what talk pages are for. They can give their reasoning for how it's apparently illegal material that doesn't belong. They haven't even attempted to do this yet, so I'm not sure why all the judicial action is landing on Syntax74. --Golbez (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Golbez, the block was both unnecessary and unnecessarily quick; I had incorrectly thought this was an ongoing edit war needing a quick stop. It may have been influenced by the way I found it: A sockpuppeteer compromised (or resurrected) old accounts to make disruptive mass reverts, so I was watching "mw-undo" tagged recent changes. I first thought "oh, it's them again", then continued with "ah no, it's just a good-faith edit war over a BLP" and was probably mostly looking for a quick and simple solution. I have already noticed that this approach was problematic and undone the block, replacing it by a welcome message with a customized edit warring warning and advice how to continue. I am a bit surprised by your in-article override, though – if you have no strong opinion on the content either, I'd generally prefer to see a discussion on the article's talk page before re-including disputed BLP material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for being a bit brusque above. But I decided to take ownership of the content from my friend (full disclosure) because I wanted to foster discussion. That doesn't happen if the content is removed and the person who wanted it in is blocked - that's just a straight up victory for the exclusion side. Because of that, I wanted to step in. Had you not blocked I might still be an observer. Now I'm not. --Golbez (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't complain; the most brusque thing in the situation was the block, not your message. Sorry, that was really a mistake. Ah, and I see now: Okay, that's fine with me. A first rough consensus is not always generated by talk page discussion. This one was generated through editing and edit summaries, and it's currently strong enough not to require a removal. Multiple experienced editors have looked at the source, consider it both reliable and supporting the content and relevant for inclusion. It's now time for the IP editor to join the talk page discussion if they would like to change the situation. Thanks for stepping in and especially for being the first person to actually start a discussion on the talk page. Perhaps we're lucky and the unregistered complainant actually joins us there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding NLT, hm. I'm hesitant to treat the removal messages as threats, as the policy contains a kind of exception for the discussion of defamation. I think many people with a conflict of interest about a BLP inadvertently express their concerns in a way that is perceived as threatening by Wikipedians, and most of them neither actually mean to threaten editors nor to take legal action. They're trying to strengthen their point looking at a high skyscraper and wondering how to get up to the desired floor at all. If actual explicit threats are made, that would be different to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 November. It will be on all wikis from 19 November (calendar).
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 90.255.128.0/17. Thank you. Please leave your thoughts on the thread, thank you. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Done, thank you very much for the interview! 
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Cloud VPS hosts technical projects for the Wikimedia movement. Developers need to claim projects they use. This is because old and unused projects are removed once a year. Unclaimed projects can be shut down from 1 December. Unclaimed projects can be deleted from 1 January. [5]
Administrator changes
Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
This talk page is not a replacement for WP:SPI. I will ignore such reports in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Administrator instructions. I like responseHelper. The bot ignores these templates, but other administrators are more likely to remove declined reports than unanswered ones. I personally try to remove all declined reports after having had a look at them. This ensures that at least four eyes agree with the removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Warned user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the beautiful poem, Interstellarity. Happy holidays and a happy new year to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Merry Christmas to you too, and a happy new year! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year, CAPTAIN RAJU! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
A large A/B test will start soon.[31] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. You can still turn it on or off for your own account in Special:Preferences.
Moved to WP:ANEW
.jpg)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 7 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
Bumping thread for 14 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Levivich and ProcrastinatingReader, with the ultimatum I'd support the proposal. I've had my share of the frustration at phab:T263943. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Resolved by a checkuser in Special:Diff/1022859791 (User talk:Zapientus) and Special:Diff/1022859232 (User talk:Epictrex). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Concern regarding User:Jeas116 and suspected related accounts. I know based on edit history that you may have had an encounter with at least one of the users mentioned in this thread and would like to request comment from you if at all possible. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
Can't have been too bad. Regarding the page content, as the history still allows others to see what you had referred to at User talk:Shiner1037, feel free to remove the strangely copied statement. If attribution is a concern, I hope to have resolved that by properly attributing the copy in the history now too.
Self-trout. That's definitely worth subst'ing for! I apologize for being discouraging and... an idiot. Best, El_C 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
). Best, El_C 13:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
12:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
00:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
00:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 15:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
