User talk:ToBeFree/A/7

As I could see in this template, the page about Greta Thunberg should be extended confirmed protected. However, it's now just autoconfirmed protected which makes the related editnotice template inconsistent with current protection level.

Should I request EC protection at WP:RFPP?

Sincerely, 79.191.125.253 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi 79.191.125.253, this is fine: The key is "parts of this page". The notice is only about content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (WP:CT/A-I). If users persistently violate the restriction, an increase in protection may be needed, but at the moment, this is only enforced by semi-protection and reverting the contributions of autoconfirmed users who add something about the topic to the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Understood, have a good day (or night :D)!

79.191.125.253 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

You too, thanks for asking! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Article apparently is being edited by employees of his production company.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, on a quick look, the current revision seems to be more promotional than the original version, and the editor who had edit warred with two accounts is now blocked from editing the page. If you carefully check if the content is verifiable, feel free to restore the pre-edit-war revision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

When I have time, I'll see about creating a neutral version which incorporates both.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Unless somebody beats me to it. :)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Administrator ToBeFree, i pray i'm not disturbing and hope you could spare a moment to read my appeal for the rollback feature on the en. platform;

I am kindly requesting you for rollback priviledges to gain an upper-hand in reverting abuse to pages and articles in a more advanced procedure. Wikipedia is a great community that has huge potential, and as long as Everyone follows the policies and rules, We could have a greater impact, not just on society, but on influencing the lives of other people that use the encyclopedia. It is in my favorable duty to contribute to this project by keeping Wikipedia's pages clean and free from vandalism, poorly unsourced content, mispelling errors, and other activity that violates our Rules. Re-assuring the fact that all editors, including myself, New or experienced, follow and excersise the rules on the platform. And with my skills added to the team of rollback editors, I'm inclined to believe that this website will even live to inspire the future generation. Thank you for acknowledging my request.

I humbly look forward to your response. Criticize 16:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Criticize, thank you very much for the kind request. I'm not a deity though, nor a fearsome magical being with sovereign power over what happens on Wikipedia.

May I ask if there's any language in addition to English you're also fluent in? I mean, your English is great but I see from capitalization and wording it's probably not your native language and your account isn't active on any other wiki, so I wonder. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable response, ToBeFree.

No, i'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. English is my main language respectively. I understand some of my first context impressions stated in my topic opener are considered an error to the nature of grammar. I do this mass capitalization as a modification to emphasize a word (in other terms; make them stand out). Honest! I truly hope you understand this.

However, I personally belong to the en. platform as it works perfectly for my activity.

The other Wikipedia language platforms I am attached on, were accessed in search of an article I personally failed to find on the English website.

I Greatly look forward to your response, once again Criticize 00:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree... ?? Criticize 19:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification!  Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you ToBeFree.

And thank you for making that beneficial tweak on my user page.

I vastly appreciate all that you do on Wikipedia.

Wishing you a pleasant week. __Criticize 21:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem, thank you very much for the kind words. To you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Why have you applied extended-confirmed page protection to Adult human female? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sweet6970, because it had been edited disruptively by Molikog who turned out to be a sockpuppet of Golikom who appears to be a sockpuppet of Orchomen, and by Mazerks, who is a sockpuppet of Benga502, and because most of the disruptive contributions would have been prevented by the protection but not by semi-protection. Also, the topic is obviously contentious, so protecting it under WP:CT/GG to prevent further disruption seems like a good idea at least for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought that protection was only applied when there was no alternative to prevent disruption? Any disruption could surely have been deal with by measures against the disruptive editors – and Molikog has now been blocked as a sock of Orchomen (he was open about being Golikom). Mazerks was blocked in February. Disruption in gensex is not limited to editors with fewer than 500 edits. There has not been a decision that this topic is reserved for EC editors. So I see no justification for the protection. What is the procedure for challenging a decision to protect a page? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Sweet6970, the policy for when this protection can be applied is at WP:ECP. Measures against the disruptive editors had been tried and resulted in block evasion. As described at WP:ECP, Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Standard set and WP:CT/GG, page protection at any level is an authorized measure against disruption in this known-contentious topic area. The procedure for challenging a decision to protect a page can be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction. If all of this is new to you, I'd recommend reading the relevant section of the protection policy and at least some details about the Contentious Topics procedures before deciding whether the decision needs to be challenged or you just learned something new. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t appreciate your sarcasm. My comment was addressed to Raladic. And I was not explaining anything – I was quoting a policy. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

And I replied there with the policy explanation on @BusterD's talk page - even though it shouldn't have been necessary - you can't just selectively pick the policy sentences you like and omit the ones you don't like from policy, that's called WP:WIKILAWYERING.

Why did you reply here instead of directly responding to ToBeFree's comment on the other talk page? Raladic (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

That's okay. I think this can be archived. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree – you owe me an apology. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I misunderstood who your message was directed at, so I thought you were quoting WP:ECP to BusterD, which, as you have clarified, is not the case. I'm sorry for the unnecessary ... yeah, I think sarcasm is the right word. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick apology. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this a loutsock agreeing with its master?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Skywatcher68, checkusers are prohibited from publicly connecting IP addresses to accounts. If there is a behavioral connection to a blocked user, you can simply revert; if there is a behavioral connection to a non-blocked user, you can use {{uw-login}} on both users' talk pages and perhaps point out your concern in the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your help at the edit war page. I have a question regarding wp:onus though - I originally reverted the edit after the user removed the text without an explanation and Huggle alerted me to it, and Huggle has an option for "unexplained deletion of content" so I used that. Later they gave a reason, so fair enough. But wp:onus seems to suggest I should not be using that option or reverting those kinds of edits at all using Huggle, should I avoid those kind of edits on Huggle in the future? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 15:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Notcharizard, all good. The user is now blocked because they have a habit of intentionally making edits that are as un-revertable as possible while insulting other editors and especially the quality of their English. It's not their first account blocked for this.

Restoring referenced content after an unexplained removal is generally fine, although even in such situations, you are legally responsible for material you add to Wikipedia. If possible, you should check if the source actually directly supports the content, and if the source is at least not obviously unreliable on first look (a self-published blog post from someone else than the article subject, ...).

If you notice that someone selectively removes something that might be controversial, such as crime accusations, statements about sexuality, diseases or other things an article subject (company, person, ...) wouldn't want to see in an article about them, then you're probably not dealing with a vandal. You might be looking at an edit of someone with a conflict of interest, or someone actually just caring about neutrality. In such cases, you can restore the content, and you can use Huggle to do so if you choose the "unexplained deletion of content" reason or explain your restoration in similar ways. But if you do this, prepare to get involved in a complicated discussion where you either fully participate or lose. As soon as someone has voiced a good-faith concern about the content while removing it again, you should not restore the content again.

And as if thinking about all of these things didn't slow down recent changes patrolling enough, you should then even also create a section on the talk page about your restoration and invite the removing editor to it. Not by reverting, but by leaving a message on their talk page.

My identity is something between "public" and "at least not a big secret", and I live in a country where insulting someone is a criminal offense. I always avoided restoring content when patrolling recent changes. It's usually not worth the trouble; there are ten other edits waiting to be reverted for each questionable removal of content from a biography. I prefer zero information to wrong information, and surprisingly often the removal of an entire section improves the article more than it damages it.

Restoring content is for people who write the article, not for drive-by patrollers. But that's just my personal biased opinion and I have often been thankful for people daring to restore content while I dealt with the behavioral issues of the COI user.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This is such a detailed and easy-to-understand response, thank you so much! You have a wonderful way of explaining complex things, I really appreciate the time you took to help me here :) -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much for the heart-warming feedback! I guess we managed to make the sockpuppetry unintentionally result in something positive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ToBeFree. I’m a recent changes patroller. Considering how long you’ve been on the platform, aside from AntiVandal and Huggle, what other diff viewer scripts can you recommend? - Arcrev1 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arcrev1, thanks for asking! There is Ultraviolet (previously "RedWarn"), but I haven't tried more than installing it and opening a few menus. It does seem to offer some handy options like directly reporting diffs to User:Emergency via e-mail; I haven't seen such a feature elsewhere yet.

When I was granted the ability to block, I mostly stopped patrolling the recent changes list and focused on processing reports at WP:AIV (or currently primarily WP:ANEW). But there are situations where I see people reporting the same sockpuppeteer again and again, and then I go looking: Can I catch new socks before they're reported? For this, instead of starting Huggle, I often use the Recent Changes page, which was improved enormously by the addition of color filters and machine learning:

• Likely bad faith, latest revision
• Not extended confirmed, latest revision, colorized by faith
• Not extended confirmed, manual revert, colorized by faith
• Not extended confirmed, using antivandalism tools, unlikely ones and rollback in red
• Creation of accounts (yellow) and non-article pages (red: likely with issues or in bad faith)
• Reverted, extended confirmed (article talk in yellow, user talk in orange)

You might have tried this already, but perhaps the list contains some new ideas. I used to link to my dashboard on my user page in the past, but you may have seen that one already back then.

Good luck!
~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Thank you for your suggestions. I usually edit on mobile because I don’t have my own device that can support the more advanced scripts. On the recent changes patrol page, I often end up tapping the wrong button since everything is manual, you have to tap each diff link one by one, right? That’s how I do it on mobile, and sometimes instead of tapping the diff, I accidentally press the rollback button. That’s why I’m looking for a good recent changes tool where the diff opens automatically. Tools like AntiVandal and Huggle already have that, right? Are there any other tools like that? Thank you! - Arcrev1 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Arcrev1, you use Huggle on mobile? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand. I misread/misunderstood that. Hm. As long as you are already using the advanced mobile view, I'm afraid I don't have ideas how to improve this. Wikipedia is still burdensome to maintain without keyboard and mouse; this may be impossible to fix completely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: No, I actually use Huggle on a laptop, but since I’m not mainly a laptop user, I use AntiVandal on mobile. These are the only two scripts I know that can load recent changes with the diff (user's revision) already opened. On the default recent changes page, you still have to tap the “diff” link to view the revision, but I don’t know of any other scripts that can do that automatically. But it’s okay if there are no other tools aside from the default recent changes page. Thank you anyway for your help. By the way, how do you make the recent changes page show colors? - Arcrev1 (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay. No problem. Regarding recent changes colors, that's a bit hidden in the menu where you select what you want to see. There are marker pen icons at the right of each entry that allow you to colorize the results. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree! I wonder if I could impose on you get some assistance again. This editor 2600:8801:2995:1A00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making a lot of edits over the last few days in articles about hotels and casinos, mostly changing information about ownership. All the edits are unsourced, and some of them clearly disagree with what existing sources say. In a discussion on their talk page, they told me to "not change anything (or add anything) at W Las Vegas without my permission. This violates my rules." I explained WP:OWN to them, and explained that edits need to be supported by sources. However their responses show no understanding of what I'm saying, and much of what they write is actually fairly incomprehensible to me. Even when I tried asking a specific question about where they got the information supporting a particular edit, their response did not answer the question at all. I wonder if I could trouble you to take a look at the conversation here and see if you can do something to help this editor. CodeTalker (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi CodeTalker, I think this could be handled without looking (too closely) at the OWNership aspect. Their edits were reverted for lacking sources, a highly common thing to happen on Wikipedia, and if it persists, the usual "request page protection at WP:RFPP or report an edit war at WP:ANEW" applies. The user is discussing on the talk page and doesn't seem to be doing so just to tell everyone they're the article owner. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I remembered to take a look at the article and re-removed the content sourced to the Daily Mirror.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Whoops! It was Emmanuel Kelly I said I would look at!   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Finished there.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 00:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

180.150.36.182 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)

Hi, I came across this IPs edits and was wondering if you could check their edits to see if it's still being used by Hawthorne 41 (talk · contribs). Thanks. 71.59.186.230 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi 71.59.186.230, the connection was purely behavioral (I performed no checkuser actions), and if I see correctly, based simply on the revision history of the "Creed (perfume)" redirect. If there are similarly clear signs of the same user continuing to edit, please click here to create a sockpuppetry investigation. This link works even without an account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

OK. I made the SPI page: Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Hawthorne 41. Could you please move it from the talkpage to the mainspace? Thanks. 71.59.186.230 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hawthorne 41. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on July 11. Please help translate. The bulletin will be back after Wikimania with a special issue on the 19th August.

---

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

• Wikimania 2025: Register to join virtually the 20th Wikimania taking place from August 6-9. The programme has highlights from across Wikimedia projects and communities including the reveal of who will be this year's Wikimedians of the year.
• Strengthening a neutral point of view: An overview of NPOV policies across Wikipedia projects, shows that 153 Wikipedias out of 342 (45%) don’t have easily accessible guidance on neutrality. The research was conducted to help understand how neutrality is ensured in our projects. and to provide an opportunity for peer learning across project communities. Read the full research and join the conversation.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Tech News: See all the 60 community-submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks in Tech News week 29 and 30. For example, the request to add Malayalam fonts in the Wikisource Book Export Tool was resolved and now, the rendering of Malayalam letters in exported Wikisource books are accurate.
• Temporary Accounts: After the rollout of temporary accounts on 18 large and medium-sized Wikipedias, we are monitoring the impact of this change, and preparing for the next deployments. See the full project update.
• Add a link: Administrators can now limit "Add a Link" to newcomers, as opposed to keeping it open to more experienced editors as well. "Add a link" helps newcomers to start editing, so restricting the feature to them enables Administrators to cater the feature to that specific group, which they can do via the Community Configuration feature.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events

• Digital Safety: PEN America shares 5 tips for bolstering your safety and privacy online.
• Amicus brief: Our amicus brief in Patterson v. Meta: Defending free speech and the open internet in another Section 230 legal case.
• UK Online Safety Act: Court hearings for the Wikimedia Foundation's challenge to the UK Online Safety Act "Categorisation Regulations" happened on July 22 and 23. A verdict is not expected until August.
• Advocacy sessions: Collaborate for change at these policy advocacy sessions at Wikimania 2025.
• Public-Interest content: Expanding Indonesian Wikipedia with Public-Interest Content through Project Gayatri.
• The Wikipedia Test: Learn how to use the Wikipedia Test, a tool to protect the public interest internet.
• Equity Fund: As it closes, the Equity Fund has announced its final round of grants to six past grantees. It will also be providing four "Connected Grants" to movement organizations who will pair closely with one of the grantees to collaborate together.
• Don't blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
• Content Translation: Translators who use the Suggestions feature in the Content Translation tool can now select and receive article suggestions that are customized to geographical locations of their interest using the new "Regions" filter.
• Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions now has a new kind of Types: Wikidata-based enumerations, also known as light-weight enumerations.

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: Progress on the annual plan

• Endowment: Sharing the Wikimedia Endowment’s Form 990 for fiscal year 2023 – 2024. Learn more from the frequently asked questions.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

• Annual plan: The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved the Foundation's annual plan for next year virtually in their quarterly meeting. You can read more about the goals for next year and a summary of the continuous conversations that shaped the plan.
• Board selection: The Elections Committee shared a list of the all eligible candidates. As there are more than 10 eligible candidates, a shortlisting process is currently taking place. Representatives of Wikimedia movement affiliates that are currently compliant with their reporting obligations can participate in the shortlisting process. Learn more about this process and next steps on Meta.

Foundation statements

• WIPO permanent observer: For fifth time, China blocks Wikimedia Foundation as permanent observer to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 21:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Just letting you know about an SPI and a BLP hoax, complete with an AI-generated image of the supposed subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much! Please don't empty the talk pages of articles proposed for speedy deletion though, at least if they contain a statement objecting to the deletion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts on this. In truth, when Untamed1910 first left me a final-level warning, besides wondering why it was a final level instantly (and then immediately followed by a terrible ANEW), I thought they'd just named the wrong article and didn't realise hitting 3RR =/= exceeding it. But no, they really seem to think that any and all edits which could constitute reversion of some material, regardless of what the edits are, count towards 3RR. For a user who's been here three years and is incredibly active in reporting others, that's a bit concerning. I have thought about it a little, if maybe with the timing it was Ikhouvanjou14 calling on another user to report me as some kind of attempt at tag-team harassment - separately, Ikhouvanjou14's (earlier) AIV report is absolutely inappropriate and abusing the system - but having thought on it, I don't think so. Just a drive-by user with poor understanding of 3RR and coincidental timing. Kingsif (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kingsif, reversion of any material, unless done in consecutive edits, counts towards the three-revert rule. If you remove a section, someone restores it, you remove a paragraph somewhere else, someone re-adds it, you re-add content that had been removed three years ago, someone makes an unrelated edit and you then re-remove the section, you have technically violated the three-revert rule. Are you aware of this or are we in disagreement about its (unnecessarily strict) wording? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

We're in agreement. If I was unclear, there's (as yet) no user who I reverted/they reverted me back anywhere at the article being reported, is what I mean (in addition to the zero-sum effort of DR) by meritless. (Besides all the edits being consecutive). Kingsif (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, all good then; this wasn't entirely clear to me both from your initial reply to the ANEW report and the message here. I agree that even with strictest-possible interpretation, there was no 3RR violation there. I'm currently mainly waiting for Untamed1910 to reply that they aren't able to provide the requested diffs of the violation and misunderstood the rule. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we're done here.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I think he WP:OWN the UEFA Women's Euro 2022 final and UEFA Women's Euro 2025 final, implicitly insisting that only his edits that are correct and others shall never dispute them. I am tired of debating with him. I really hope you as an admin can be neutral in solving this. Thanks. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ikhouvanjou14, have you ever edited Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 2022 final or Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 2025 final? How can you be tired of doing something you haven't even tried yet? But in general, if you're tired of a discussion, you can always disengage from it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Talking to him is like talking to a statue, because he insists on his edits and whatever I did have been reverted to his version of text, even if it is against the usual standard of an article's lead (compare UEFA Women's Euro 2022 final and UEFA Euro 2024 final, I tried to make both articles' (2022 and 2025) lead similar to the 2024 one, but he always reject it and gaslights me as if I always mess up his work). Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Ikhouvanjou14, instead of using other articles' states as an argument (which is a very weak argument on a community-generated website where lots of articles have lots of problems), you can choose to:

• discuss on the article's talk page, or
• disengage from the conflict.

There's no other advice you'll receive from me, so please stop asking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I started an SPI regarding a hoaxer you blocked. Two suspected socks are still active and the most recent is from today.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Now blocked by Izno.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Article is being edited by two IPs, one of which claims to be the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification! Turns out the content was added by Onlythefactswriter, a single-purpose account for adding negative content to biographies of living people. I understand Arjayay's revert; I'm less sure about JeffSpaceman's revert and I'd say Dmartin969 shouldn't have reverted at least without an edit summary. But fortunately, the article has a talk page and three users in favor of adding the material can probably quickly document their consensus there so it can be restored in a WP:BLPRESTORE-compatible way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello ToBeFree, unsure if you would accept or deny my request, but as I was informed to contact you 1 August 2025, I am hereby asking later due to my vacation, I will keep this short, as I've wasted your time on previous, but I have learned from my mistakes and wish to move on from them to start a new journey, by using Huggle and other various softwares, I understand if this gets denied I have to wait until the new year, respond when you have time, no rush!

Thanks,
Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Valorrr, thanks for asking! I've had a look at the context and the user talk page history again. Mmmh well.

It's okay but if you receive complaints, please take them seriously; they may well be right. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 03:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about restoring that content. I saw that the subject had removed it, and I was operating under the section of WP:PUBLICFIGURE stating, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I felt that this was also a WP:COI issue, per my warning on the IP's talk page, but I appreciate the clarification above. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi JeffSpaceman, all good, thanks for the clarification and you may well be right about that content belonging on the page. I'd just like to be able to point to a consensus when overriding their concerns with a page protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Administrator changes

• CoconutOctopus
• Curbon7
• Hinnk
• Jlwoodwa
• Kj cheetham
• KylieTastic
• Ser!
• Smasongarrison
• UndercoverClassicist

• Bbb23
• Beeblebrox
• David Gerard
• Oleg Alexandrov
• Satori Son

CheckUser changes

• Alison
• Bradv
• Joe Roe
• RickinBaltimore
• ST47

Oversight changes

• Bradv
• RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

Hey, you might want to take a look at the Controversies section here. I just removed some WP:BLPGOSSIP + WP:SYNTH.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, there's also a COIN discussion regarding the editor responsible for adding that.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Also see my user talk.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed the BLPN discussion.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

What a chaos. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard § Merge proposal of filter 766 into filter 11. RaschenTechner (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

These Minneapolis-based IPs have been adding COVID nonsense to articles about the recently deceased:

• 65.128.207.191 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
• 67.4.225.76 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
• 67.4.224.194 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)

  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've seen this pretty often while doing RCP -- not so much the emoji edit summaries but the "Guinea pig" summary edits are more familiar. @Skywatcher68, you should consider reporting these to AIV as LTA (or just as vandalism in general). --tony 14:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, very likely the same one from last month.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse#Budding COVID misinformation LTA added.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, AIV reports for these please; I can't do much 5 hours later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Ser! blocked the most recent for a week and the complete list has also been posted to WT:FTN as suggested by Johnuniq.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Skywatcher68, can I add contribution links and/or {{ip}} to the list here and there? The raw numbers are surprisingly cumbersome to deal with. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Do what you need; no problem.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Done, thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a couple of partial blocks are needed: 2001:579:9230:118:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) & 2001:579:92C4:18:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS). Thanks for that useful template tip, by the way.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, no problem regarding the template; thanks for the notification and the links. Regarding the content or blocking these, though, I don't think so. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked Special:Diff/1305376797, which is a good diff. And the removal of the unsourced birth date. Thanks for these.
There's always something positive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me that the edits by 92.40.193.17 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) need to be revdeled. Both of todays IP editors have already been reported to WP:AIV.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notification – I have semi-protected the page now and wouldn't object to someone revision-deleting the edits, but I personally think at least WP:RD2 is not fulfilled by, oh my god, calling someone female. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

As long as it's not done towards a trans person, that is, of course. Deadnaming or fabricating a complex hoax is a different thing than childishly calling a cis male person female as an obvious attempted insult. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Could've sworn I saw something about him being trans rather than just cross-dressing.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You may even be right about that, I didn't check again. And removing such claims from the revision history doesn't damage the encyclopedia either. I think it depends on the situation/context, and how obvious the vandalism is. There's no fixed rule for this. Content that's revision-deletable on one page may be absurd enough to not qualify for revision deletion on a different page. The diffs I had checked were absurd enough to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree,

It's nice to meet you! I just made this account because I'm in a protracted discussion with Grayfell about use of a source. You stepped in and as I'm new to the site (well, new to editing, long time reader) — I'd love to understand Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms. You can read on his talk page the contours of the dispute. I admit I may be understanding the WP:SPS policy incorrectly, but it appears there's a colorable argument for what I'm saying — I don't think this is something Grayfell is willing to entertain.

Can you please provide guidance on how we ought proceed?

Thanks so much : - ) WikiNixon37 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello WikiNixon37, welcome to Wikipedia; thank you very much for creating an account and asking.

Imagine for a moment that maxraskin.com was blacklisted from use on Wikipedia. Technically, preventing anyone from adding it due to earlier mass-addition of links to the website.

Which questions would you then have, and which steps would you like to take?

Or asked differently: Imagining that using maxraskin.com was absolutely not an option, why would this impact your Wikipedia editing noticeably? Where does the focus on using that specific source come from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for the clear questioning and framing. Please tell me if I'm writing too much or too little.

The simple way I would answer is that there is information available through the Raskin interviews that I believe is a) valuable to a Wikipedia page and is b) not available for sourcing elsewhere for various reasons. I'm happy to provide examples if you'd like, but as I understand the WP:SPS rules, if there are reputed sources that cite the subject matter expert, self-publication is not a categorical prohibition. In this case, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, among others, have cited some of the important facts that these interviews contain and Raskin has published his personal interviews in the WSJ as well as other newspapers. Examples of such facts include self-described religious beliefs.

The next question is where the focus comes from — to be honest I am a fan and discovered this whole edit warring thing when someone wrote about it on an email chain we have of friends reading the interviews. She explained how she got into it with a Wikipedia editor from a few years ago when she was trying to add information that she wasn't seeing elsewhere. I think the example at the time was about Al Franken's belief in God. Then I went on and I saw all these good facts taken down and have since become sucked down the rabbit hole.

I understand some people may have put up information that was trivial (e.g., Al Franken's self-reported perfect SAT scores, lol), but some things seem a tragedy to remove (e.g., the self-reported reason for Nobel Laureate's loss of faith in God or the reason for Curtis Yarvin's pen name which was only reported by the secondary source after the interview came out). WikiNixon37 (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

an email chain we have of friends reading the interviews, really? WikiNixon37, you're almost shouting "I have edited Wikipedia under a different username before" or "I have an undisclosed connection to the website".

I think the best advice I can currently provide is to have a look at the Task Center and the community portal for ideas unrelated to the website, and to contribute independently of it for a while, and if it's just to prove that you're not only here to promote the website.

But to answer the original question, you'd need to convince others, perhaps a third opinion, that adding content from this source, or linking to it, is needed in a specific biography. This needs to be documented on the talk page of that biography, and then the content can be added with the consensus found on the talk page. Restoring it where it has been removed without seeking a consensus first is not an option (WP:ONUS, WP:BLPRESTORE). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

So I disclosed my connection to the website — I'm a paying subscriber and a fan who is involved in the community.

I guess my understanding from all of this is that there are two separate issues —1) the merits of the additions on their own 2) the individual contributor's bona fides/good faith.

I checked out the Task Center and it actually looks like fun, so while I had just planned to get involved in this issue, I think I'll stick around and report back if that's what you advise!

Thank you for all your help with this — you were very helpful and straightforward. WikiNixon37 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to copyedit the Jimmy Page biography – is there a template/example of a quality biography page so I can see how to model it? WikiNixon37 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Cool! The tags had been added by Fortuna imperatrix mundi in Special:Diff/1292225789; perhaps they can provide details about the most noticeable issues. The best place to discuss them is probably the article's talk page, Talk:Jimmy Page. A list of the newest featured articles about living people is here and might serve as examples of very well-written articles (top 0.1%). There is a manual of style for biographies and articles in general, but these are huge. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 23:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not even going to try to figure out what's going on there; leaving that up to an admin.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, turns out the account is a sock of Nimchimpski. Thank you very much for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello ToBeFree, You mentioned before in an email that you were willing to self revert to display my comments on the Big Brother 26 talk page once my block period has expired. I am here to let you know my block period has expired. If you are able to self revert and display my previous comment on the talk that will be great.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, it's been a week already, sorry. Welcome back, Welcometothenewmillenium.  Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you and yes time flies by. I have been on my best behavior since then. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree,

I noticed Your changes to the "JKDefrag" artice. I quite don't understand what's wrong with the deleted passage concerning newer Windows OS versions. JKDefrag only uses the internal Windows defragmentation api, which is still valid and supported in current Windows versions. So it's only the defragmentation algorithm, which could mess things up. Same as simple "contig" but tries to be be smarter. So, what could possibly go wrong? (TM)  ;-) OK, worst case scenario for me is, it defragments "bad", making things worse, when it comes to acces times. But, else?

The original author isn't working on this project anymore, so obviously, he cannot, or more likely doesn't want to, make any statements regarding modern OS. But there's to my best knowledge nothing in the source code which would confilict with modern OS. Well, of course, I wouldn't risk all my money to this :-P, but I think the warning in prior versions of the JKDefrag is enough to keep wikipedia from being sued. So, I wonder if we could readd a paragrah which adresses this issue. Maybe with a kind of "results may be unsatisfying" or else warning....

Looking forward to hear from you,

Nick

Nikolas75 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Quick addition: Ich habe gerade gesehen, Du kommst auch aus NRW. Natürlich können wir auch auf Deutsch schreiben ;-) Nikolas75 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

English please ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nikolas75, thanks for asking! All I'm looking for is a reliable source that directly supports the content. If there is a specific statement I had removed and you are aware of a source directly supporting the statement, please let me know! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that some, apparently including the subject himself, have put a WP:RESUME here.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notification! While I currently see no need to revert, it's good to see that this is also at WP:COIN and people will have a look at it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello ToBeFree,

I came across the edits of "SunshineeDarkness" (SD), whose full edit history consist only of removing info about Germans/Germany (also when properly sourced), see e.g., here, here and here. The user sent me a general message after being reverted and having ignored my initial talk page message, but SD dodged the issue, only saying later that they find that "articles about Germans contain exaggerated descriptions" (which is subjective, not a specific German issue, and what does it even mean?). Playing innocent at first (the general/not sincere message), suddenly altering the tone when caught, and eventually saying their real reason (somewhat) is the typical behaviour of someone who is in the wrong IMO. Furthermore, SD also removed for example a normal photo, or simply lied (a simple search, and a reliable source indicated that the founder was, indeed, a German immigrant), and lied again (and probably a few times more). It's also odd that when it's said that a company is German, it's "irritating". Lastly, SD lists some odd and, frankly, nonsense reasons why an article should be deleted, an example of I just don't like it. I fear that this WP:SPA just doesn't like Germans and is NOTHERE, and deserves a block. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Eem dik doun in toene, thank you very much for your message, but please use WP:ANI for such reports. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

An editor, who appears to be the subject, is making a privacy claim on the page.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm it's a very unspecific claim and the user seems to seek the removal of everything in the article. I have semi-protected the page for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Just letting you know about the WP:SPA here.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, I'm happy about Unpredictable9877 having created an account! As long as they always edit logged-in from now on, all is fine. The edit war is interesting, though, and I think WP:BLPRESTORE is on Unpredictable9877's side at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 00:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that I'm being sealioned by a loutsock?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, I'd need more than a feeling to check, and I couldn't share such results with you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to share anything but an anonymous editor (2A09:5E41:146:5E20:9D52:A11E:1EE8:A0D6 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)) who suddenly started throwing accusations of edit warring over a simple restoration of sourced content is mighty strange.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree it's strange but there's not even an account which has made similar edits before if I see correctly; there's nothing I could check against and no real reason to check blindly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried checking edits from that range and couldn't find anything similar, either. Does sound like they've been here before; could just be an overly enthusiastic fan.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I do think they're an experienced editor, I just have no idea if they have an account they're hiding. These are clearly not their first Wikipedia edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's see what the IP does now that @Joseph2302: reverted all their edits.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on July 25. Please help translate.

---

Group photo of hundreds of Wikimania attendees

Special Wikimania issue This is a special Wikimania issue of the Bulletin. We'll be back to our regular format in the next issue

• Wikimania Nairobi: Catch up on missed sessions of Wikimania 2025 by checking session pages in the program. These links will be replaced by Commons links when the uploads are finished.
• Meet the Wikimedians of the Year 2025: The Wikimedian of the Year awards give us an opportunity to pause, taking a moment to recognize people who make our mission possible. Learn about all of this year's winners.
• Highlights: Daily highlights from Wikimania:
  • Day 1 - Celebrating 20 years of Wikimania,
  • Day 2 - Technology in a changing world,
  • Day 3 - Connecting with communities in Africa,
  • Day 4 - Bringing generations together.
• Product and Tech: Wikimania 2025 sessions about Product and Tech you can watch, with links to the recordings.
• Affiliate Strategy: Wikimania 2025 Brings Affiliate Strategy Recommendations into Focus.
• Twentieth edition of Wikimania: Celebrating humans who make Wikipedia possible.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Tech News: Some of the latest update from Tech News week 31, 32, and 33: The Wikimedia Commons community has decided to block cross-wiki uploads to Wikimedia Commons, for all users without autoconfirmed rights on that wiki, starting on August 16; The WikiEditor toolbar now includes its keyboard shortcuts in the tooltips for its buttons. This will help to improve the discoverability of this feature.
• Collaborative Contributions: Share your comments on Collaborative Contributions. This project aims to create a new way to display the impact of collaborative editing activities (such as edit-a-thons, backlog drives, and WikiProjects) on the wikis.
• PTAC: The Product and Technology Advisory Council published a set of proposed experiments the Wikimedia Foundation can try to improve communication with community. Feedback on the proposals are welcomed until August 22.
• Watchlists and Recent Changes: The Foundation will be focusing on wishes related to Watchlists and Recent Changes pages over the next few months. Please read the latest update, and if you have ideas, please submit a wish on the topic.
• Wikifunctions: The Foundation is working on demonstrating functions that generate sentences and fragments in several languages. This is a considerable step towards creating text for Abstract Wikipedia.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events

• Wikimedia Futures Lab: The Wikimedia Futures Lab is a process and convening co-designed by the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland that will help us all learn more about global trends and discuss potential movement-wide responses. You can apply now to join the in-person convening hosted on January 30 – February 1, 2026 in Frankfurt, Germany with participants from affiliates, contributors and external experts.
• Don't Blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
• Language and Internationalization: Read about language support for new languages and other highlights from the July 2025 edition of the Language and internationalization newsletter.
• Language Community: The next language community meeting will be held on August 29 at 15:00 UTC.
• UK Online Safety Act: The High Court of Justice has dismissed the Wikimedia Foundation's challenge to the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA) Categorisation Regulations. While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for, the Court’s ruling emphasized the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected as the OSA is implemented.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

• Affcom News: Read the latest issue of AffCom News (April-June 2025), the newsletter that distributes relevant news and events about the work of Wikimedia's Affiliations Committee.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 19:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know about the newly-registered editor claiming to be the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 21:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I am NOT using multiple accounts. I am one person with one account Itstheschist (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Itstheschist, thank you very much for the clarification! I was mostly concerned about how you found the discussion about the Zak Smith article. It must have been through a path that others took too. Perhaps a public message on Twitter/X or something like this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you ToBeFree. I follow various art museums and arcitects on Instagram, onenof which shared a post about Zak Smith's verdict being on a Canadian site. Went down a but of a wormhole, ending up here today. Itstheschist (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah well, that explains it. Itstheschist, please be aware that even with best intentions, you're currently perceived as part of a large group of similarly-acting users with few other contributions outside the dispute, which can lead to you being affected by measures that would normally not have affected you personally. For example, if the group acts disruptively, such as by harassing one specific contributor with messages on their talk page, even one single edit can suddenly lead to a block from editing that would normally have been reserved for cases where you continue after a warning.

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.
— Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry § Meatpuppetry

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Didn't get a response on my talk page so I thought I should hop over here and sure enough, some other folks did talk to you here. I wanted to allay your concerns and while I have't done a ton of edits, I am looking to get more acquainted with the platform. Thank you! Cairnesteak (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Cairnesteak, thank you very much for the clarification! I was mostly concerned about how you found the discussion about the Zak Smith article. It must have been through a path that others took too. Perhaps a public message on Twitter/X or something like this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw some information on Instagram, and went and located the court decision on Canlii, and ended up here - I had located some old screenshots I took of errors on the list of Egyptian deities so I had some other edits I wanted to make as well. Cairnesteak (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

All right, thank you very much. Cairnesteak, please have a look at the advice towards Itstheschist above; it applies to you as well then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you - I will go look at that. Cairnesteak (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you messaged on my page asking if I'm using multiple accounts. I wasn't sure if I should respond there or here. I think I had another Wikipedia account years ago but I lost access to it and create this one about a year ago - it's the only one I'm using now. Ansible52 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ansible52, thank you very much for the clarification! I was mostly concerned about how you found the discussion about the Zak Smith article. It must have been through a path that others took too. Perhaps a public message on Twitter/X or something like this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there was a post on Instagram about the court case being decided. I took an interest in the situation and discovered the conversation going on in the talk page. Ansible52 (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, please see the section above and below for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Just looking for a bit of clarification about you reverted my hatting - was asilvering's suggestion ("Sariel Xilo, you might want to just hat the previous discussion and start again") incorrect? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sariel Xilo, oh, uh. I could have noticed this too. I think neither Asilvering nor me when reading their comment were thinking about a fully-involved editor being in a position to close the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries! Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo, I meant hatting, as in, using {{cot}} and {{cob}} to collapse the socked parts. I'll do that for you now. -- asilvering (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I see where WP:HATTING goes now, and I guess I have been using this word wrong for years. Cool. Blame's on me. -- asilvering (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for collapsing at the talk page! I've definitely seen hatting used as both a suggestion for closing an entire discussion and as a suggestion for just collapsing parts of a discussion so it is on me for assuming the maximalist approach. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess the etymology of the HATTING shortcut is "hidden-archive-top"-ing, which is weird as adding {{hidden archive top}} tags, with emphasis on "hidden", is not what a closure usually does. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Per your request -- I am repeating the question here:

Hi. First, thank you for flagging this as a contentious topic. I have read above that wiki norms are more strictly enforced. Great and thank goodness. I don't believe in people's lives being affected over opinion. May I ask... if a subject is designated as a contentious topic -- May i understand why then the page was locked with "damaging" information on a living person rather than having the burden or proof laid on those who wanted the information reinstated? please and thank you. Slacker13 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Slacker13, thanks! Anywhere on-wiki is fine. I had replied on your talk page by quoting my original e-mail, but that was a quote from when the question hadn't been asked publicly. I didn't mean to say that publicly asking on your talk page wasn't enough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I am, always still learning.

warmly, s Slacker13 (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I received a message concerned that I may have multiple accounts. I can assure wiki that this is my only account. Is there a way that I can verify this? Thank you. Friendlypup13 (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Friendlypup13, thank you very much for the clarification! I was mostly concerned about how you found the discussion about the Zak Smith article. It must have been through a path that others took too. Perhaps a public message on Twitter/X or something like this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel a bit in over my head trying to do the right thing, Help in any capacity would be appreciated. Slacker13 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you need a new RfC. Please start one at Talk:Zak Smith. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tobefree, just a note to let you know that I have reported the two users mentioned for sockpuppetry investigation. Thank you for responding so quickly and for attempting, as best as you could, to keep the discussion dignified.

warmly, s Slacker13 (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh noes. :)

Slacker13, you're overdoing it... But someone else will have a look and explain. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The closed SPI for the record. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi TBF. I have no hard evidence, but I strongly suspect that there is some off-Wiki canvassing going on. The sudden arrival of all of these low edit count users in this frankly obscure page is making me think meat-puppetry. The irony, is that I think the puppets are basically on the right side of this issue. Thanks for locking the page. However the current discussion ends, and I'm now INVOLVED; I think the page should be EC protected indefinitely. Well, I'm off to bed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, most of them appear to come from Instagram; at least they said so in sections above. Extended-confirmed protection sounds good to me and will probably be automatically restored when the protection ends. I think I'll downgrade to it shortly before that happens, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: - fair enough. - MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie, Slacker13 has now removed their comment too. In hindsight, my edit summary has been unnecessarily harsh for example by writing "anything" instead of "the situation". It was written relatively hastily; I normally use proper en dashes instead of two minuses, so I didn't even take the time for that. I think I was trying to prevent yet another reply from conflicting with the edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, they tried, but what they actually did was remove quite a lot of comments and then get reverted. But I suppose I appreciate the effort. MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I should have checked instead of relying on an email notification. I think this diff should fix it and the edit summary explains what probably happened there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, apologies. I didn't quite know how to edit out the talk page comment, so I went into the source to take it out. Once published I realized I had inadvertently reverted. It was not intentional. far from an html expert by any means. Slacker13 (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I read your note about doing a new rfc. I thought carefully before editing Zak's page because it very much is a hornets nest. I don't believe an RFC will help because the main advocates of including the controversial information are entrenched. They are not motivated by the rules of Wikipedia -- they just don't like this person. So we can do an rfc, but my guess is the same conversation will play out in pretty much the same way. Is that what you want? Do you think that will be helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slacker13 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Slacker13, either Wikipedia's community (which is far larger than those you have met so far, and which would be notified about the RfC) is horribly unfixably biased and an RfC will never help – then you can give up, but then please stop messaging me!

Or there's hope and you take it. These two options. In your next edit, I'd be happy to see the creation of an RfC, not another message here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I implore you to be just. The page has for years been weaponized against a living person. I'm cutting and pasting what I posted on the talk page here, so it doesn't get buried. I apologize in advance if that is inappropriate. But I very much feel like we have a life in our hands.

1. There is already an issue with unproven accusations left within a BLP

2. There is already an issue with the original source (a removed Polygon article) being an appropriate source for such a serious allegation.

3. There are next to zero reliable sources, and zero in mainstream media – that have covered the court case before or after the verdict. This speaks precisely to my original claim which is that Smith is not a public person by virtue that no mainstream media is covering him.

4. Resorting to a primary source is, in this context, is yet another way to bend over backwards to justify the inclusion of contentious material that should not have been part of the BLP in the first place.

Inclusion of the unproven accusations and weaponizing this page has already damaged this person (not in a maybe sense, but in a real, measurable sense).

Finally, because there has been no mainstream media coverage of this, inclusion of the original source and or the court decision then effective turns Wikipedia in a news source – which is against one of it’s 5 pillars.

As everyone knows, the social effect of advertising that accusations were made—even if they were disproved—is basically as bad for a subject as saying they are true. This is Wikipedia's rationale for excluding unproved accusations from BLP in the first place.

This is both against the rules and unnecessarily harmful to the article's real, living subject. Slacker13 (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Slacker13, I imagine the following will happen:

1. an RFC will be created at the weekend
2. page protection will expire or be downgraded to extended-confirmed protection on Monday
3. you will remove the material while the RfC is still running, pointing to WP:3RRNO #7
4. I will re-fully-protect the page in response, and I personally won't block you because I don't block people for the removal of disputed BLP content (I'd else have done so far earlier).

Does that seem like a realistic prediction? Great. Should I encourage you to do this? I don't know. You risk being blocked for edit warring. Not by me though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi ToBeFree! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! I had forgotten when it was! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You're very welcome! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The edit is a bit tough to find; it's at (2010-08-23, 08:40:09 CEST at de:Federal Bureau of Investigation). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I have finally started one. Slacker13 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Slacker13, were you aware that MrOllie had already agreed to do so when creating the RfC? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I understood three things: 1. It was suggested that an RFC would be a good idea. 2. It was suggested that I should make an RFC. 3. That it was possible that MrOllie was making one. However, after waiting for an RFC from MrOllie, and not seeing one. I decided to create one. It was my understanding that an RFC was a good idea for the discussion, not particularly who was making it. Slacker13 (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

This is generally true, thank you for the clarification and for creating an RfC. It's why I had asked you to create one, but (like my request for talk page messages instead of e-mails), this went unheard while you continued to discuss on the talk page. Which is why I then asked MrOllie to start an RfC (and implicitly to reduce the amount of unnecessary pre-RfC meta-discussion on the article's talk page). When you then even replied to the message in which I had requested an RfC instead of further replies, I lost any expectation of you creating it, and I was relatively fine with that as MrOllie would have had the experience to formulate a neutral, useful RfC and was waiting for the matter to cool down and for the meatpuppetry to decrease, which also seemed more reasonable the longer I thought about their choice. So I had initially pushed for an RfC, found an experienced user who agreed to create it and everything seemed well-organized until you changed your mind and created a non-neutral RfC before the neutral one could be created. To me personally, this looks as if you had done so to improve the position of your standpoint, to obtain a kind of first-mover advantage you suddenly saw running away.

And if that's the case, please don't expect me to be happy about the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Slacker13 This is still fixable. Just retract the RFC (you can do this by removing the rfc tags and adding a note) - or alternately say you agree to that here or on the talk page and I can help you with removing the tag if you're uncertain of how to do it. Then in a week we can have another go at it. RFCs take a long time - usually a month - so this is a slow process anyway. I for one would not revert if the disputed section were removed in the mean time. - MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

If that's the result, that seems like a great offer to me. Slacker13, I'm sorry for having insisted on you creating an RfC. I should have expected this to become far more complex than it initially seemed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I need some time to think about this. Please give me a minute. Slacker13 (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

What if we just changed it to this: (and took out the term "unproven?")

== RfC about removing allegations in a BLP ==

Should allegations in this BLP be removed from the page (the subject was recently exonerated in court)? Slacker13 (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Slacker13, how many minutes ago was your last message to an AI (ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, whatever) or someone related to the article subject? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. The comment was that the RFC was not neutral. I'm wondering rather than scrapping the whole thing, we make it neutral. I'm wondering if removing the word" unproven" makes it neutral. Slacker13 (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering where that idea comes from, since either you suddenly noticed a neutrality problem or intentionally created a non-neutral RfC. And if you suddenly noticed it, I wonder who or what suggested that specifically changing this word would fix the issue. I wonder if between "Please give me a minute" and the subsequent proposal, there was any kind of off-Wikipedia communication, even if just with an AI. The AI concern isn't new, it was voiced on the article's talk page before at least once. Phrased more directly, I wonder if there's someone or something giving you bad advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Why did it take me a minute? I asked someone to help me write a neutral RFC, and then looked at it and did it myself. Slacker13 (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

See, as I expected. This explains a few things in my eyes but it's not prohibited. It was just becoming obvious. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

So, with that clarified – someone giving you advice in the background, or less neutrally phrased from my personal perspective, someone giving you advice of such low quality that it becomes noticeable you can't have had the bad ideas yourself – perhaps you could again, using your own mind, consider MrOllie's offer. I'll get some sleep in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what that means. It is obvious that this is my first RFC, yes, the person I asked to help me draft a more neutral version was Ad Orientem. Slacker13 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

You can view the exchange on their talk page. Slacker13 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

You said it in your comment above. When I posted the rfc, i asked Ad Orientem to look at it. They seemed to think it was fine -- and even then I sugggested I was happy to change the wording -- you can view the exchange. I'm happy to be flexible and fix it. It is true that I'm doing reaching into how to make an RFC more neutral. I'm happy to take suggestions. Slacker13 (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh come on, now my 04:26 message looks as if it was about Ad Orientem. I thought "someone" in your confirmation is an AI or a personal friend. I didn't check Ad Orientem's advice yet but they surely didn't say removing the word makes the RfC fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

No they didn't. I'm trying to find a compromise. Slacker13 (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie offered a good one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

In writing something more neutral (per your comment). I'm trying to also make it simple. Slacker13 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

May I have a chance to do that? (write something more neutral) Slacker13 (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

You can't really fix that RfC anymore by changing the initial question others have already replied to, and if the change is only removing that word, then you couldn't have fixed the RfC with this approach even when it was new.

You can discuss a neutral wording for another RfC with MrOllie for sure? Their offer was to have another go "in a week", you both surely have time for finding a neutral wording until then? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

FWIW here's my advice from my last comment on my talk page... I think you should contact an uninvolved admin and ask them to close the RfC based on the concerns raised. Beyond which I'd let someone else write it and post it. This needs to wait at least a week. There's too much emotion involved here and the level of obvious off wiki canvassing is going to make an immediate RfC problematic. This is turning into a bit of a time sink. I will keep an eye on the page and when the next RfC is posted, I may have something to say. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see 'obvious off wiki canvassing'—this page was swarmed by editors when the original accusations were made and now it is swarmed again—in both cases, news was announced, I don't see why this would require canvassing. I also don't understand why a 'problematic' RC is bad and, still, no-one has explained why we're even having one if it is non-binding. Slacker13 (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

And to be honest, this comes back to my original issue of doing an RFC in the first place. What you Tobefree and Ad Orientem are seeing -- is normal. It is precisely why I haven't wanted to go near this page. I've been to the RPG forums briefly to see what all of the commotion was about and there definitely is a faction of people who will stop at nothing to make sure this person experiences as much damage as possible -- and it seems to have been edited and maintained to keep that status quo. There are niche RPG forums where the mere mention of his name gets you banned. They call him "he who must not be named" and "Voldemort" -- all based on the accusations that he just prevailed against in court. If you are hoping that this will slow down or go away in a week or a few weeks time -- it won't. They won't stop. Even the new sources that were brought up as relevant, at least one is written from a person from that same RPG scene. It is a mess. That is not of my doing -- so I do think its a bit unfair to blame the chaos on my word choices. What I am fundamentally trying to do, is allow the win in court to allow a living person to live without anymore undue damage.

Slacker13 (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tobefree -- you basically suggested I trust the system. That I haven't me "all the editors" yet. It's just me. I can't speak for the others that are jumping Smith's page. But I alone, cannot fight a mob intent on pulling up every single reference, no matter how obscure (or not) whose original distribution is minimal -- to ensure that Wikipedia's maximal distribution spreads what they want spread. I'm trying to do the right thing. Slacker13 (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It should also be noted that although both have significant editing history with Wikipedia --both MrOllie and Sariel Xilo (the two main editors of Smith's page) have deep connections to the role playing game (RPG) scene -- evidenced by their Wiki editing history. Slacker13 (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not accusing either of anything. Slacker13 (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

That's completely baseless. I've edited the Zak Smith article exactly -3- times. I came to it in the first place because I was responding to the first RFC on that talk page. I am absolutely certain you have no evidence of my 'deep connections' to RPGs because I have none. - MrOllie (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, I am not accusing you. I did a search of the editors to see who had role playing connections. I found several under your name. It is possible that I misundertood them. It doesn't seem like The page has gone through many edits in general since the last RFC. From the archive it seems that many who have tried, are reverted. It is good you were able to get yours to stick. Please understand my caution -- I thankfully haven't been a target of the RPG mob, but I've seen what they can do. Slacker13 (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

FWIW -- what i found was a reverted edit for Robotech Role Playing game, and off-wiki -- a MrOllie listed as a contributor to Elder Scrolls, a role playing (video) game. Slacker13 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Slacker13, the last part of your latest comment is an outing attempt that normally qualifies for suppression. I would normally remove this, and I will remove it if MrOllie requests so. That said, it's probably absurd enough and in response to an already-existing denial above so I guess MrOllie would prefer to have the opportunity to respond rather than it being removed and you continuing to believe in a big conspiracy.

Afterwards, I want to see no more messages while the RfC is running on my talk page about the RfC, and I'll revert edits that add them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh god Slacker13, you're referring to the automatically generated list of contributors of the article The Elder Scrolls appearing in a PDF generated from the Wikipedia article. MrOllie's name is included for legal reasons because they contributed to the page with three diffs (, , ) as part of their >250,000 recent changes patrolling contributions removing spam and vandalism.

Please leave me alone with this nonsense until someone closed your RfC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

No, don't suppress it. I suspect the diff will need to be discussed at a noticeboard sooner or later. MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the openness/permission. When it became clear that by "contributor to Elder Scrolls, a role playing (video) game" they actually meant "contributor to the article about Elder Scrolls on Wikipedia", it lost its suppressibility anyway, I'd say. When I refer to articles, I usually actively try to prevent such misunderstandings by referring to "the article about [wikilink]" rather than the wikilink title only. More people should do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Slacker13 started a discussion on Smith's talk where they claimed "Historically, the page has been edited and controlled by people with ties to the RPG community". Then like an hour later (I guess because I hadn't engaged with discussion), Slacker13 posted on my talk saying I must have an undisclosed COI ("I also know that you have ties to the RPG scene"). I don't have a COI simply because tabletop games are one of my primary wiki focuses. Given the WP:HOUNDING/WP:ASPERSIONS, I've requested they not post more on my talk page (outside of like required templates per WP:USERTALKSTOP). Flagging it here because of the discussion about Slacker13's identical COI post on MrOllie's talk. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Considering my anonymity on this platform has been compromised and considering I have written professionally about D&D I was also concerned that my interest in neutrality was being impugned. I have spoken at Slacker13's page, suggesting they WP:FOC and avoid attacking the reputation of specific editors who disagree with them. I very sincerely hope this advice is received in good faith. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Would you be inclined to protecting this editor's talk page? A recent post seemed threatening and/or insulting(I didn't waste the time translating the non-English portion). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, hmmm. I'd be generally fine with semi-protecting a retired user's talk page as the usual reason for not protecting user talk pages is that the user may have made a bad edit and needs to be reachable by complaining unregistered users. Which doesn't happen if the user doesn't edit. But one single such diff in a year isn't a good argument for protection yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

OK. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. User: Simonm223 is collapsing editor comments that disagree with theirs in the active RFC. I have reported them to the edit warring board and placed a notice on their page. Thank you. Slacker13 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

-- disregard this notice. Wasn't Simonm223 --- Slacker13 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

It is obvious I am not tecnically adept here. Please note there is a notice for active canvassing from an online hate mob to start messing with the wikipedia page here:

https://bsky.app/profile/silveralethia.puppygirls.online/post/3lxa32x4l3k2u

collapsing of the votes, I believe started happening at this time. Slacker13 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI I mentioned you in the AN/I thread about Slacker13. Here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I guess an ANI discussion was bound to happen sooner or later. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I am sincere sorry it came to this. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

That's kind, but it's no problem. Both the RfC and the ANI discussion increase visibility for experienced editors who haven't looked at the matter yet, and with all the canvassing/meatpuppetry stuff going on, I guess wider attention is the best for the encyclopedia that one could wish for. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 00:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the log, when the full protection expires, can we convert it to 30/500? I can put it on my calendar and ask at RFPP if you prefer. Not sure what the best way to deal with this stuff is. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Polygnotus, thanks for asking. This is a good idea. It will probably happen automatically because the page was extended-confirmed protected before and Protection Helper Bot restores such protections. I'll probably downgrade to extended-confirmed protection before it expires, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, it is rare to see an adminbot in the wild. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Feel like removing the WP:DOB? Lead, infobox and cats, there's not a cite in sight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, removing an unsourced date of birth is probably always a good idea. Thanks for noticing this. Regarding protection, uh, I'll let it expire and wait a few minutes for the bot. Re-protecting in case of further edit warring after protection truly expired is probably better than manually downgrading and then upgrading again, from a proof-of-necessity perspective. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The bot works :) Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you wanted to make an edit. If the remaining protection had been longer, I'd have evaluated it as an edit request but it was so close to unprotection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The page is re-protected and the edit request is implemented as a matter of caution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

A pair of Canadian IPs have been removing large swaths of content, essentially claiming "fake news". They might have a (misguided) point – is all that undue weight?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The diff is huge and "false information" may be a bad-faith description of text that summarizes (rather than confirming) accusations. I didn't closely check the content, though, and I opened none of the sources. I assume that Igor123121, Gommeh, Oshwah and Stickymatch, the latest of whom is currently legally responsible for the content they have (re-)added, have done more thorough checking than me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I looked at some of the content, and from what I saw, it was all referenced and appeared to be in order. I see this happen quite a bit; users will remove content like this and make statements like this (or none at all) in their edit summaries. This is why I restored the content. I typically ask the user to discuss the removal on the article's talk page, but it looks like I didn't do so this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, I think it's all good; I just wanted to point out that, despite recent changes patrollers often seemingly being unaware of this, there are situations in which one doesn't want to be the person who added the material to the page, and these situations can't be ruled out by just checking if there are reference tags. Most of these reverts happen so shortly after the removal that it's impossible for the restoring editor to have actually checked the sources. I'm not saying people are or should be forced to do that when reverting vandalism, only that I personally would be more careful than most recent changes patrollers seem to be when restoring material about living people. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I definitely try and be as careful as possible with content removal - especially with BLPs. The last thing I want to do is restore unreferenced contentious material or be responsible for BLP issues or other serious matters. No thanks... lol. I agree with you and I've seen the same thing; patrollers will quickly assume that the removal was in bad faith and then race to restore it without checking anything out first. They definitely need to be careful; I've had to leave a handful of messages to patrollers in order to point out issues with their reverts. Nonetheless, I appreciate the response. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hellohope this message finds you well. I am a returning editor who has come to your talk page in regards to the Little Einsteins article. I feel the article in its current form does not have enough information regarding show, and I would like to replace the brief overview with a more detailed synopsis, and reinstate a character list. However, I am hesitant on doing this because another editor named MrOllie started gatekeeping the article early last year, controlling what information could go onto the page and frequently starting edit wars. He made the page almost impossible to edit for a good while, and many other editors of the page share this belief. However, ever since you protected the page and MrOllie seems to have backed off since then, I have been wanting to finally expand in the page to make it a more comprehensive source of information. Please let me know if this would be possible; if not, that's okay. But, I would just like proof that I got permission to add new information on the page, because I would rather not spend hours improving the article only to have it undone by MrOllie seconds later. JHFF-622 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello JHFF-622, if the goal is to avoid improving the article only to have it undone by MrOllie seconds later, the best approach is to propose what you'd like to do on the article's talk page, to invite MrOllie to the new section on the article's talk page by informing them on their user talk page, and to wait for their response on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI, this topic has a surprising amount of sock activity. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piper Bechtel/Archive. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#c-ToBeFree-20250830115600-Computeracct-20250830063000

Hi,

You had protected the page Param Sundari (film).

Sorry, but that doesn't help in this case. The user @Khogen2410 who has been edit warring can still continue to edit the page since he has 500+ edits.

I cannot edit as I have close to 200 edits, but not 500+

Request you to temp ban user @Khogen2410 (or atleast warn) for WP:3RR and unlock the protected page.

He is the only user edit warring.

Thanks

Computeracct (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Computeracct, I think the article benefits from being edited less frequently at the moment. You can click here to create an edit request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ToBeFree

I will try creating edit request(s) Hopefully a request doesn't take much time to process.

But I request you to temp ban @Khogen2410 or atleast warn him for edit warring WP:3RR as he is free to edit right now, unlike me.

Computeracct (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Computeracct, is there currently an ongoing edit war or are you asking for a punitive block? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

A temp block would be puntive and preventive since @Khogen2410 has edit rights.

But if you are not inclined for a temp block, can you please atleast warn him?

Thanks

Computeracct (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I have now asked them to respond to others' concerns () and will block Khogen2410 if they continue editing while ignoring the messages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.

Regards

Computeracct (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, this IP appeared on my watchlist today. You had previously blocked it for a year, but it came back, with most of its edits made after the expiry of the block being reverted. I believe it's a school IP, not just because of its behaviour but also because it's edited Draft:St Peters College, Cranbourne. Per WHOIS, they're part of the range 103.226.160.0/22, which appears to be used by several private schools in Melbourne. Would you consider blocking either the single IP or its range? Interestingly, this edit from the single IP (which I caught) is a perfect demonstration of what concerns me about the new temporary accounts system, as it's just past the three-month cutoff beyond which IP data will be unavailable ... let alone the other edits by that IP and range. Graham87 (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, checking my contribs to your talk page came up with this discussion about my block of the school IP range 203.54.128.0/17. In my spot-check of their last 100 edits (which go back just eleven days), 93 of them have been reverted. Could you please re-block that one (but as discussed, with account creation unblocked and talk page access enabled)? Thanks. See their block log. The latter one could go to AIV, I guess, but it's not a going concern right at this minute because it's not school-time where the IP address is right now. Graham87 (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Graham87, I have re-blocked 103.226.161.212 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) for two years, but I'd avoid re-blocking such large ranges on direct request; I think a quick discussion at WP:ANI would be better. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Fair enough re the larger range; I've started a discussion there. Graham87 (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 20:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey I'm a new user as you know and I'm part of the discussion on the Zak Smith page Sariel Xilo is collapsing comments claiming they're LLM is that something you can work on or that id put under edit warring- there are several others doing this as well and I'm just wondering if that's appropriate. Garlikgoblin (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Garlikgoblin, the edit summary of Special:Diff/1308933559 is accurate. The discussion will be closed by someone completely uninvolved who will also have a look at whatever is collapsed and get an own overview of the situation. Edit warring about whether something is visible directly or only on click is pointless. Please find something else to do while waiting for the RfC to conclude. The Task Center and the community portal contain ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for clarifying. Garlikgoblin (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on August 16. Please help translate.

---

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

• Wikimedia Futures Lab: Apply before Sep 4 to join The Wikimedia Futures Lab, the in-person convening hosted on January 30 – February 1, 2026 in Frankfurt, Germany with participants from affiliates, contributors and external experts, to learn more about global trends and discuss potential movement-wide responses.
• Wikimania 2026: The theme and date for Wikimania 2026 have been decided: Liberté, Équité, Fiabilité (Freedom, Equity, Reliability). This edition will take place in Paris, from July 21 to July 25, 2026.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Tech News: Some of the latest updates from Tech News week 34 and 35: An A/B test comparing two versions of the desktop donate link launched on testwiki and English Wikipedia for 0.1% of logged out users on the desktop site. The experiment will run for three weeks, ending on 12 September; Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find.
• Spread Wikilove, thank comments: A new improvement was added to the "Discussion tools" Beta feature; it is now possible to thank a user for their comment. This new feature is released for a 3-months long test.
• Community Wishlist: Template authors can now use additional CSS properties, since the CSS sanitizer used by TemplateStyles was updated. These improvements are a Community Wishlist wish.
• Wikipedia Mobile Apps: The Android app team has launched a new experiment in Italy that lets logged-out readers of Italian and English Wikipedia set their own donation reminders based on how often they read. This new approach responds to feedback from donors who say their motivation to give is tied to their reading habits. Instead of one-size-fits-all banners, readers can now choose reminders that fit their own usage, all while keeping their privacy intact.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events

• Wikipedia 25: To celebrate Wikipedia’s 25th birthday, the Wikimedia Foundation is adding several resources to the Wikipedia 25 Meta-Wiki hub.
• The Wikipedia Library: Collections from Dow Jones & Company, including the The Wall Street Journal, are now available to editors who are eligible for The Wikipedia Library.
• Don't Blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

• Affiliate recognition: The recognition of new User Groups, Chapters, and Thematic Organizations is paused until March 31, 2026.
• Board of Trustees selection: The voting period for the upcoming Board selection process will now open on October 8 and close October 23.
• New Board member: Wikimedia Foundation welcomes incoming Board Trustee Mayree Clark.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 18:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Giving you a heads-up about the apparent whitewashing.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, I'm relatively certain that there's undisclosed paid editing among the recent edits. Thanks for the notification and please let me know if this continues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think I've ever struck another edito's comment in an RfC and hopefully never will feel compelled to again. Frankly I have never seen an RfC plagued with both this much canvassing and antics like duplicate !votes to such an extent before. I notified the editor immediately of what I had sone and why but you are entirely correct I should have been far clearer on-page. So mea culpa to that. Simonm223 (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223, I had only noticed it because of the user talk page notification on my watchlist. All good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I've created something for reference. BusterD (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

SPIs are not really my thing but the pattern here is unmistakable. The subject has largely written and maintained their own BLP since the first hours. With the exception of Emperor and the active defenders, virtually every substantive contribution has been made by a meat- or sock puppet. IMHO, of course. BusterD (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you are right; my current hope is that community attention and a thoughtful, experienced RfC closure will lead to a situation where it doesn't matter anymore if an edit comes from a sockpuppet or not, and those ignoring the consensus can be blocked independently of whether they're socks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

More "agility" stuff added yesterday; SPI initiated.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Noticed your ping asking for that, but not sure what you were thinking of, or if you seemed to imply the site didn't verify the claim? As it seemed to do, even if not explicitly under each player, just in the title, and intro (I really don't know anything beyond this, as sports isn't an interest; also, apology for not replying to your email, I thought of waiting to see if they edited before acting, but then they were handled a few hours later, anyway, and I forgot to reply; next time feel free to act, though, if technical results are clear...) ~Lofty abyss 19:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lofty abyss, the edit summary of Special:Diff/1309666897 was meant to be a courtesy ping for your information, not a request for information I just wanted to let you know that the content added in Special:Diff/1309650456 doesn't seem to be directly supported by the source added. Specifically, nothing in the source seems to say who was the "first". Thus, the general reliability of the source, while questionable already, seemed to be irrelevant for deciding if Cassiopeia's reverts were edit warring or exempt by WP:3RRNO #7, and if 2A00:8B40:64BF:0:C4B1:D216:CDDD:E256's edits were intentionally incorrect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

(As 2A00:8B40:64BF:0:C4B1:D216:CDDD:E256 was clearly edit warring, and probably edit warring unsourced content into a biography, I then just blocked without caring much about whether it's actually vandalism or not) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I had informed the editor on their talk page that the source does not mention " the first" as the source states a list of Muslim players - see here, after their second edit, but the editor continuing to add "the first" in the article. Regards. Cassiopeia talk 23:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

• Admrboltz
• FloNight
• Floquenbeam
• Ganeshk
• JesseW
• Night Gyr
• Nixdorf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. For the record, the discussion was merged to . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to give you a heads up...

After some consideration, I'm dropping my complaint against you (and I will reluctantly deal with the 2 week edit block for Homer Glen), but on your advice, I'm keeping the complaint against Magnolia677 for edit warring & disruptive editing. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

ClarkKentWannabe, you have referred to this as my "advice" multiple times, but the quoted statement You may convince someone else that a block of others is needed of course, and I'd be fine with that too. isn't meant to be encouragement of doing so; I was only making clear that my personal decision not to take action doesn't prevent other administrators from taking action. For the same reasons that made me block only one editor in the dispute, I'd be surprised if anyone partially blocked Magnolia677 from a page they stopped editing and sought help about. If any sanctions against Magnolia677 are needed, if I understand your actual concerns correctly, they wouldn't be blocks. I'm not going to explain these thoughts further though, because it might be mistaken as advice again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

So, on second thought, I decided to remove the comments I had previously left here in response to your most recent remark to me. As a result, I am requesting you close Magnolia677's ANI complaint against me (not sure if you'd advise anyone else who comes across that ANI post to contribute their opinion to the discussion I launched on the talk page for the USCITIES WikiProject), while leaving my ANI complaint against Magnolia677 active.

And so, my honest hope is:

1) as a result of my ANI complaint against Magnolia677, there is *some* worthwhile discipline given to him for his actions (edit warring & disruptive editing), with the Homer Glen, Orland Park, & Midlothian articles, since it's my belief that his actions for all three articles overall show he isn't exactly completely innocent

2) with the discussion I launched on the USCITIES WikiProject talkpage, either: a) a community consensus can be reached stating the elected officials information does in fact belong in the Homer Glen article, meaning Magnolia677's stance on the USCITIES guideline is wrong, or b) someone involved in the USCITIES WikiProject can finally "clear the air" (as it were) as to whether or not Magnolia677's stance on USCITIES guideline is correct. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree, you are a respected admin. Is there some way you could get this editor to leave me alone?

In mid-August, I told ClarkKentWannabe to stop plotting against User:Sbmeirow, User:Reywas92 and myself, and drop the stick, yet here they are still wanting "discipline" given to me for edit warring and disruptive editing. I wasn't even the one that reverted them at Homer Glen, Illinois, it was User:C.Fred.

Yesterday, ClarkKentWannabe canvassed four editors to join this discussion targeting me.

I'm getting the sense ClarkKentWannabe is obsessed with vengeance, not building an encyclopedia. Any help you can give to get them to drop the stick would be appreciated. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

It was not my intent to canvass people to join a discussion about Magnolia677's stance; I was inviting editors who had commented on his ANI discussion to join in the discussion on the USCITIES WikiProject talk page. And, I had explained that I was consulting with other editors (Uraveragejoe) about how to deal with Magnolia677, Reywas92, and Sbmeirow's actions. In the end, all I ask is a ruling be made, from someone involved in the USCITIES WikiProject, about Magnolia677's stance (as far as whether it's right or wrong) on USCITIES guideline when it comes to information about elected officials. Once we find out whether or not his stance is correct, I will never again go anywhere near him, or even Reywas92 and Sbmeirow, for that matter. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

And, considering the fact that one of the editors from his ANI discussion even suggested he drop the stick, as far as defending what sounds like his incorrect stance on USCITIES guideline.

Oh, and I'm sure that it was Magnolia677 that reverted my edit about elected officials. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

And, my desire is not "vengeance"; I simply want to know who is correct about USCITIES guideline when it comes to information about elected official. As soon as that is determined, the article for Homer Glen can be edit accordingly, and then I'll move on to other topics on here. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677, I stopped talking to ClarkKentWannabe because they refuse to get the point and believe expressing opinions is against policy. Any further administrative action from my side would be too involved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

(As a matter of fairness, the above-linked comment was retracted, but – forgive me the framing but that's what it looks like to me – only when they noticed that they do want me to administrate as long as it's in their favor ()). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

And, if I can respond to your latest comment...

It pretty much stopped being about you right around the time when I ended up withdrawing my complaint against you & just now, when I asked you to close Magnolia677's complaint against me.

The latest comments I made was more about the discussion currently going on at the USCITIES WikiProject talkpage. It's always been my stance that Magnolia677 is wrong, based on the wording of the guideline at USCITIES. And, the discussion at the USCITIES talkpage is my attempt at finding out if either a) community consensus states that he's wrong, or b) someone involved in the USCITIES WikiProject can straighten things out, as far as who's in the right. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to respond to the "failure to get the point" charge... I'd like to point out there has been an ANI discussion about my behavior as it relates to my editing of the content of the Homer Glen article, and community consensus for that discussion so far seems to be that Magnolia677 is incorrect in his interpretation of guideline for the USCITIES WikiProject and needs to cease their behavior based on said interpretation. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Re your block of them yesterday, I suspect they are now socking as 2A02:3100:2FFB:2500:C0C8:7F8:B9D1:BB76 (talk · contribs). Two of the three articles (Kaishintō and National Democratic Party (Japan)) have overlap with Erick's previous edits and the edits are in the same vein as their ones on Freedom Bloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), i.e. restoring a load of unsourced (or dubiously sourced) information to the infobox, as well as in line with their history of adding/editing ideologies to infoboxes. It looks a fairly straightforward DUCK to me, but perhaps I'm overly suspicious. Cheers, Number 57 17:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Number 57, thanks for the notification! Whether sockpuppetry or not, it's clearly disruptive and I have blocked the /64. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

One editor is claiming that the article conflates two different Matt Siegels. Seems to me that the editor is the one who is confused.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thanks for the notification! You may be right but let's keep the disputed information out of the article until that's cleared. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that the article is being edited by an IP apparently claiming to be the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems we have a new editor from an IP who doesn't know how to properly format references. As far as I can tell, except for the questionable reliability of Texas Scorecard, the content and references are valid but I won't have time to correct the formatting until I'm off work.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, I've had a look at the article's history for a while now but would currently not protect the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

is one of yours, if you're available to comment. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Y ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Mh. Hi asilvering, I was in a hurry yesterday. The current state of Noritandas's talk page doesn't give me much hope and I have no idea why someone would so insistently want to regain access to enwiki if editing a Wikipedia in their native language is completely not an option and the language barrier is so visibly high. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. It did look like their English had improved, but this is just as clueless as ever. -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

meh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, this article appears to only exist as a way to promote the subject. The primary contributors are an editor who shares their name with the official website (Pabdelrahim123 (talk · contribs)) and an IP (181.55.249.23 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)) which geolocates to the subject's birthplace.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much! Oshwah has semi-protected the page and Gommeh's deletion proposal is still on the page; as long as that's the case, I'd avoid digging into this further. Same if a regular deletion discussion ensues from this. If there is no such community attention on the article anymore, I might have another look. In most cases, editors who join for the promotion of one single mainspace article subject lose their interest in Wikipedia if the article is deleted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought about it a little more and am going to change it to a regular AFD to see what others feel about it. Feel free to vote on it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys Patricia Abdel Rahim Garzón. Gommeh 📖/🎮 02:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gommeh! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. ToBeFree. Nice to meet you. I am a new editor. And I have something. I really think the page was too negative on Robert M. LaFollette that was undid. I believed the editor to make it more positive because many people around him really support him. People kept blocking him, but he just did not know how to answer or justify the change properly. Can you please help me, so we can solve the problem together? Please be nice to me and please don't block me. All I want is understand both sides. Thank you so much. I would love to talk to you more. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello TheHistorianEditor, I think you might be looking for the article's talk page, where you could create a new section to discuss the issue. Feel free to invite those who have reverted to the discussion, for example using {{Please see}} on their user talk pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I haven't talked for long. Is it okay if I revert to the editor's fixed script of him. He lives in Madison and is a big fan of the politician. He read books about him at the library that praises him more, and I think it's a more accurate telling of him. He wasn't trying to cause chaos and wars, it's just that all the other users kept reverting it, with little explanation or reason, and I don't think it's nice of them to do it. Please, can you let me be free to fix the change. I am asking the nicest as possible. Thanks for understanding. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

TheHistorianEditor, I'm surprised by your approach. Why aren't you asking the user on their talk page if reverting is fine with them, and have a discussion on the article's talk page if it isn't? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Because none of them is an admin who reverted the edit and blocked the user. I'm scared if I go back, and change the page this user's version he interprets as, you would most likely revert, start an edit war with me, and soon block me if I don't ask for permission. Besides, many of the comments and people on the talk page are dated 10-20 years ago, and have most likely retired and won't mind if I set into the user's version. From what I see, I am doing the people on the talk page a favor my making this change. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please respond to me? I really want to edit to the user's version. I do not support vandalism and edit warring at all. In fact, I deeply oppose and think they are a stain on Wikipedia. I just believe the user's version was historically more accurate and more respectful to his legacy. Thank you for understanding for me. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I did it. I made the change. Hope you'll accept it. I care about Wikipedia a lot, I think it's a useful website. I oppose edit warring and vandalism as much as you do, but changes should be made and should reflect on history more. I also added more detail, and expressed more admiration for him on the page. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, To Be Free. For letting me keep the edit. Doing the best I can for Wikipedia. You are so nice to me. I just want Wikipedia to be in a better and kinder place. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Good morning. Okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 17:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Apparently a relative is trying to remove the circumstances of Mr. Todd's death in November, claiming a privacy issue.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, Thanks for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on August 29. Please help translate.

---

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

• Wikimania 2026: The scholarship application for Wikimania 2026 is open. Apply now by October 31.
• Wikipedia 25: Help us find inspiring stories to share during birthday celebrations by September 23.
• Wikimedia Research Showcase: "Readers and Readership Research" will be the featured theme for the next research showcase taking place on September 24 at 16:30 UTC.
• Update to banner and logo policies: Feedback is requested on proposed policy and documentation updates regarding the use of banners and logos for advocacy purposes.
• GLAM Wiki 2025: The registration for GLAM Wiki Conference is open until September 30.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Readers · Research · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Better bot detection: How we are improving bot detection and replacing our CAPTCHA.
• Temporary Accounts: Temporary accounts are now deployed to almost all wikis except the last 11.
• User Info: This new feature displays data related to a user account when you tap or click on the "user avatar" icon button next to a username. It's meant to be useful for different users with extended rights as well as newcomers.
• Newsletter highlights: The latest Readers Newsletter is now available. It includes considerations about Wikipedia's declining pageviews in the recent years, how the Foundation and communities may work on addressing this together, and the formation of two new teams — Reader Growth and Reader Experience.
• Activity Tab Experiment: The Foundation launched an experiment testing a new Activity tab in the Wikipedia Android app to our beta testers. Instead of only showing editing activity, this tab also surfaces insights about reading and donation behavior.
• Search Suggestions: To make it easier for users to find articles, logged-out users on both desktop and mobile will see suggestions of articles for further reading on English Wikipedia beginning the week of September 22. All non-English wikis received this update in June and July.
• Paste Check: The Foundation is working on a new check: Paste check. This check informs newcomers who paste text into Wikipedia that the content might not be accepted to ensure it is aligned with the Movement's values. This check will soon be tested at a few wikis.
• CampaignEvents extension: The CampaignEvents extension has been enabled for all Wikisources. The extension makes it easier to organize and participate in collaborative activities, like edit-a-thons and WikiProjects, on the wikis. To request the extension for your wiki, visit the information page.
• Structured Task: The Add a Link Structured Task has been fully released at English Wikipedia. This release is an important step in making editing more accessible for new contributors, especially on mobile.
• Tech News: Read more updates from Tech News week 36 and 37.
• Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions is now available on 65 Wiktionaries and has a new capability to copy function calls from one Wikipedia to another.
• Multilingual Contributors: The Language and Product Localisation team is launching a CentralNotice campaign to attract multilingual contributors to specific Wikipedias. The campaign will feature regionally targeted banners to reach potential native speakers.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events

• Global Resources: Introducing the interim Global Resource Distribution Committee (GRDC).
• Funding the Movement: Key Takeaways, Trends, and Lessons from FY 2024-2025 Community Fund Grants.
• Open Indonesia: Reflections on Open Indonesia, an event in Bandung gathering communities dedicated to advancing open knowledge to build the country's Open Knowledge Roadmap.
• WikiWomen*: Reflections from the WikiWomen* Summit 2025.
• Gender & AI: Is Gendering AI Possible? Reflections from the 2025 Gendering AI Conference.
• Wikipedia 25: What one centenarian can teach us about 25 years of Wikipedia.
• Knowledge Equity Fund: Wikimedia Ghana User Group receives Knowledge Equity Fund Connected Grant.
• Wikimania 2025: ESEAP First Timers at Wikimania Nairobi.
• César do Paço Lawsuit: Update about a lawsuit in Portugal and the Foundation's appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
• UK Online Safety Act: The Wikimedia Foundation will not appeal the UK High Court’s decision to dismiss our challenge to the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) Categorisation Regulations.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

• August board meeting: Updates on board appointments and selection, CEO search, work to strengthen Wikipedia's approach to neutral point of view and updates on three pilots around more shared decision-making and shared accountability across the movement.
• New Endowment board members: Welcoming New Wikimedia Endowment Board Members, Kevin Bonebrake and Ike Kier.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 01:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I've run into an odd issue & saw your name on the active WP:CONTACTCU so thought I would ask for help in determining if there's an issue. I'm participating in the NPP backlog and nominated an article for PROD & then AfD (the article was deleted). The PROD was removed by an IP account & another editor warned the article's creator about editing when logged out. Subsequently, an IP account in that range nominated an article I created for AfD & a different IP in the range voted in the AfD. While annoying, I was going to ignore it but then the same IP range popped up in another AfD I started to vote opposite my position. Does this seem like it has escalated to WP:FOLLOWING & if so, what is the recommended next step? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sariel Xilo, if I understand correctly, the suspicion is that the article creator removed a PROD, then voted "delete" in the AfD about their own article? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah no. The suspicion is the article creator removed the PROD as an IP but neither the creator nor the IP range interacted with the subsequent AfD. Instead, the IP range nominated an article I created for deletion & voted in that AfD. The same range has now voted "keep" in a different AfD I started (so interactions across 3 articles/AfDs). The range all starts with "102.91." & have the same ISP. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for notifying me about this, Sariel Xilo. Please let me know if this continues from an account or a new range or after the /19 rangeblock expires. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for taking a look. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Somebody is throwing around the word "bias". I do not think it means what they think it means, at least where Wikipedia is concerned.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

can you review my rollback request now Manualbadeditfix (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have replied there now :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know about my RfPP concerning the conspiracy theories which have started to creep in today.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Uh. Thanks for that request! Done for 3 months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 22:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a consensus on communist state, and there has been a noticeboard discussion. What are you doing? Either enforce WP Consensus and block him or do not involve yourself. He has already been repeatedly been blocked for edit warring and forcing his opinions on WP. Everyone agrees that "Communist state/Marxist-Leninst state" should be included.. and the article title is communist state. You wont see a single version that contradicts that. Start follow WP Consensus and actively involve yourself in the disputes that take place a 100% if you are going to involve yourself. TheUzbek (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello TheUzbek, the "government_type" parameter of the infobox of the article about the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic has been the subject of an edit war for weeks, including about whether it was a "unitary" or a "federal" communist state, such as in Special:Diff/1309523565. If there is a consensus for any state of that infobox parameter, please provide a link to it. If not, WP:BURDEN/WP:ONUS apply and the disputed content remains removed until a consensus is found. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh actually, the dispute is far older. And not even "communist state" was something everyone agreed on. Perhaps Nikkimaria has an idea how to resolve this. Start an RfC? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

true that.. but again, no one is disputing that communist Czechoslovakia was communist. There is a consensus on that, but not the other clutter... TheUzbek (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

TheUzbek, sorry, you're right. I have now restored the part everyone is fine with. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! It takes courage to admit to a mistake :) I will add that "communist state" is the only thing there is agreement on all the European communist states. Information on everything else should be included in a section that discusses the form of government. TheUzbek (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Continually added by 199.88.52.18 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), who claims to be a relative. I've already told them to put edit requests on the Talk page.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification! The user seems to have replied at User talk:199.88.52.18; I think no action is needed at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That Candace Owens lawsuit was readded today.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hm. Bird244 is extended confirmed, so not even extended-confirmed protection would have prevented this. M.Bitton's Special:Diff/1313021075 seems to have been accepted without reverts, and the last such change was over two months ago. Setting up a protection that covers both this timespan and extended-confirmed editors would mean fully protecting the article for multiple months. I thus don't think there's anything I can do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

was I not supposed to add it? Bird244 (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Correct. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what the deal is with this Mjp1976 (talk · contribs) but it's evident that everyone who disagrees with this editor is a leftist communist.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Just send them to WP:AE if the behavior persists. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I’m very sorry to bother you yet again, but I honestly don’t know who else to bring this to… Seeing that BlueboyLINY reverted the previous edits again (without a discussion or consensus), I know that I am now meant to start a discussion on Craig Parker’s talk page to try to reach a consensus. But before I do, I wanted to ask — exactly how many discussions am I supposed to start? Because given the edits that BlueboyLINY has recently made to the article, I think it clearly shows that I cannot make even a minor edit to Craig Parker without him removing, changing, or reverting every single one of them. Is this meant to mean that I should start multiple discussions on the article’s talk page regarding all of these minor changes? I am really starting to feel like this is some sort of personal attack. He has done this repeatedly to any edits I have made for months. (Even to the few other pages I’ve edited when I was still using my IP address, before creating this account.) He seems to act as if he owns the page(s) and does not want to discuss, collaborate, or work with others. I just wanted to help add to an actor’s Wikipedia page that I respected and was knowledgeable about, but if this is how Wikipedia is meant to work, I really feel like I am fighting a losing battle.

Thank you for your time. NicR77 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi NicR77, a discussion on the article's talk page has a large benefit: Anyone can join and provide their opinion. Simply start a section there for one specific change you currently want to make. Propose making the change, explain why you'd like to make it. And then invite BlueboyLINY to the discussion with a message on their user talk page, like {{Please see}}. Not more. Then wait. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I will give it a try. Thank you again! NicR77 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I proposed deletion of the article over notability and a clear lack of references. Monimutkaisuus (talk · contribs) came along a few days earlier, added a bunch of references at the bottom of the article and removed the proposed deletion.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

As pointed out in Special:Diff/1313819365, we'd need a regular deletion discussion in such cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I just put a WP:PAID notice on Moni's user talk.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I occasionally read things as saying the opposite of what they actually do; must've happened again with that deletion template.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

COIN discussion now exists.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear Admin, I noticed that the majority of the information on Daniele Compatangelo’s Wikipedia page has been deleted, including content that had been documented with reliable references dating back to 2017. I believe this was not an appropriate decision. All the references were included and verifiable, many from Italian sources. Just because a reporter may not be widely known in the U.S., or because some references are in Italian, does not justify the removal of well-sourced information. It only takes a quick search to verify the reporter's credentials and relevance. As an Italian speaker who follows Mr. Compatangelo’s work closely — particularly his reporting from the White House — I was updating the page to reflect factual, sourced content. The removal of this information feels unjustified and, frankly, dismissive of non-English sources and international perspectives. This is not about personal views or opinions; it's about maintaining factual integrity on Wikipedia. I kindly ask that you reconsider restoring the removed content or at least engage in a proper discussion before such significant edits are made. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, not a place for unilateral decisions based on subjective judgments. Thank you for your attention. I'm here to contribute constructively and learn. Titikaka3456 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Titikaka3456, let's discuss this at Talk:Daniele Compatangelo § Promotion / résumé. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear User and Admin,

I kindly invite you to review the links, which are in Italian, rather than repeatedly removing the page unilaterally—especially considering that the content has been available since 2017. I speak Italian and have been following this reporter online for years. If you are not familiar with him, that should not be a reason to simply delete information from the page without providing evidence that the information is incorrect.

It’s important to approach this matter with fairness and understanding. There doesn’t seem to be any clear reason to take such action against a reporter who works from the White House. I hope we can work together to ensure that all information is treated respectfully and objectively.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Titikaka3456 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Titikaka3456, I had mentioned this directly above but I should clarify here again that I'm not acting as an administrator in this dispute and Skywatcher68 shouldn't have referred to me as "admin", especially not as the sole reason for reverting after a discussion on my talk page that led to my edit. That went less than optimal. Anyway: Let us please keep the content-related discussion on the article talk page, not on individual user talk pages like this one here. User talk pages are great for discussing conduct, which is why I had created a few sections on yours, but your concerns appear to be mostly about whether specific material is neutral and worth adding to an article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Apparently the subject is editing the article.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notification, Skywatcher68. What a weird situation emerged there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 20:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me that the recent IP edits are correct in removing the misconduct allegations. I'm unable to find any secondary sources supporting them.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much! Good catch and thank you very much for searching for sources too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree,
146.200.134.81 had IP hopped to 146.200.134.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Just a few days ago (before the partially block ended), 146.200.134.71 are restoring the same edit as 146.200.134.81 (which you partially blocked from the The Wrong Paris) and ignoring the consensus on Talk:The Wrong Paris#Starring cast. Both IP addresses are in the same city. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi YoungForever, thanks for the notification! I have now semi-protected the article for 3 months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on September 13. Please help translate.

---

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

• CEE Meeting: Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2025 will be held in Thessaloniki, Greece, September 26-28.
• Learning Clinic: The next Let's Connect Learning Clinic will talk about "Mastering the Capacity Exchange (CapX) Tool" and will take place on September 30 at 13:00 UTC.
• Big Fat Brussels Meeting: The tenth in-person gathering of Wikimedians enthusiastic in free knowledge advocacy, Big Fat Brussels Meeting, will take place on October 3-4.
• Wikimedia Research Showcase: "Celebrating 13 Years: Wikidata’s Role in Learning and Culture" will be the featured theme for the next research showcase taking place on October 15 at 16:30 UTC.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week 38 and 39.
• Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions is now available on 123 Wiktionary languages and have more than 3,000 functions available.
• Collaborative Contributions: A new feature, called Collaborative Contributions, allows editors to see the impact of their collaborative editing activities. It was live demoed earlier and you can follow instructions to test it out.
• CampaignEvents extension: The CampaignEvents extension was deployed to Wikimedia Commons and all Wikisources -80+ wikis.
• Event registration: Starting the week of October 6, on small and medium wikis that have the CampaignEvents extension enabled, all autoconfirmed users will be able to use Event Registration as an organizer. No changes will be made for large wikis unless requested in Phabricator. More information on Meta.
• Search Suggestions: Upon clicking an empty search bar, logged-out users now see suggestions of articles for further reading on all Wikipedias, in order to make it easier for users to find articles.
• Datacenter server switchover: A successful datacenter server switchover backup test took place on September 24.
• Activity Tab now on Android: Beta users of the Wikipedia Android app can now try the redesigned Activity tab, which replaces the Edits tab. The new tab offers personalized insights into reading, editing, and donation activity, while simplifying navigation and making app use more engaging.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events

• Banners & Logos policies: The Wikimedia Foundation has published draft proposals for policies related to the use of banners and logo changes for advocacy purposes.
• Wikipedia 25: Wikimedia Foundation is creating playful, celebratory interventions on the Wikipedia portal page, the Wikipedia app, and potentially any interested Wikipedias to celebrate Wikipedia’s 25th birthday. Please share your inputs and add your username on the Talk page if you think your community would be interested in participating.
• Regional Funds: Welcoming new ESEAP Regional Funds Committee Members.
• Peer Learning: Reflections from Let’s Connect at Wikimania Nairobi 2025.

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: Progress on the annual plan

• Enterprise: Structured Contents now supports Wikipedia tables as structured JSON.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

• Wikimedia Georgia: Wikimedia Georgia becomes the newest Wikimedia Chapter.

Foundation statements

• Knowledge integrity: The Wikimedia Foundation launches a new series that explores how Wikipedia can inspire new standards of knowledge integrity for our times.

Highlights from other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

• National award: Wikipedian and current chair of Wikimedia Deutschland, Alice Wiegand, receives the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany for her voluntary commitment to Wikipedia and the global Wikimedia movement.
• Supporting admins and patrollers: Motivating, training and networking – Wikimedia Ukraine’s plan to support Wikipedia admins and patrollers.
• Wikimania roundup: A roundup of Wikimania and this year's Wikimedians of the year by the French-speaking community's newsletter, Regards sur l’actualité du mouvement Wikimédia (Views on Wikimedia movement's events, or RAW).

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 16:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

What a mess! Evidently created by Daniele Compatangelo (talk · contribs) himself with relatively recent support by Antonio68246 (talk · contribs) and Titikaka3456 (talk · contribs). Viewmont Viking (talk · contribs) tried to bring the article to Wikipedia standards but was reverted as "a hater" (paraphrased) by Antonio.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, Antonio68246 has last edited over 5 months ago. I went ahead and removed most of the article's content as promotional, but that's something others can do too and now I'd be too involved to take any action. Please avoid asking me to do editorial work. If you'd like to remove something, remove it; if you would like to nominate for deletion because of a lack of notability, good luck digging through the Italian sources. I should probably not have touched this at all; it's a timesink. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't asking you to edit anything; just your opinion. I could have reverted back to the Viking's edit myself if you felt that was a good idea.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah well, all good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Titikaka3456 (talk · contribs) restored content for similar reasons as Antonio; I've reverted to your version.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the history I see Robrob7578 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Andrewikilover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have little doubt there's probably a connection with the latest accounts. FDW777 (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi FDW777, oh! Thanks. I hadn't noticed this might even be block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

" I personally edited this page — as I have done with many others... " I count two other articles under that name; did Titikaka just out themselves as a sock?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not acting as an admin there ... if the material was promotional in your view, perhaps that would have been a better reason for the edit summary ... well well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, can you review this TP-discussion titled "Di Lellio"? You don't need to read the very first paragraph in that section written four days ago, it is not in dispute. My hands are tied dealing with the editor, Ktrimi991, who won't even bother dealing with the concerns raised. This is very obvious stonewalling. Azor (talk). 19:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I know I am yet to get involved in that discussion, but please be aware that Azor has misrepresented sources in that article, and they have done so on numerous occasions on the same article in recent times. I am currently busy, but I will be adding to that section of the article with source precision later on when time permits.

A while back, I asked you, ToBeFree, to deal with Azor’s constant cyclical edit-warring, stonewalling (which they ironically accuse another editor of) and disruptive behaviour in which they lack sufficient source work, since you took it upon yourself to block the both of us from that article temporarily a while ago. Nonetheless, you did not take any action, and Azor has continued with this behaviour. A brief glance at recent discussions and the edit history will show you that Azor keeps engaging in edit-wars over sourced content that was already discussed throughout the previous months, and maybe even years in some cases. Something needs to be done to curb this behaviour. Botushali (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

In January 2024, almost two years ago, I had placed three-months blocks from editing this article and the same people are still fighting over the same page?

Don't you have other things to do? Requesting topic bans for you both at WP:ANI perhaps? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

And what exactly in my behaviour warrants a topic ban here? Is that supposed to be a threat? Botushali (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Treating the page as a battleground for two years, I guess. If you have behavioral concerns about each other, please raise them at WP:ANI. I'm not interested in doing so, so this is not a threat of anything; all I'm saying is you should probably disengage instead of focusing so strongly on a single article and others' behaviors in editing that one specific article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It is disappointing when, for example, Botushali changes the entire article to a version he prefers, despite knowing this is a continuous topic. Major disputable changes should go through an RfC, which I am the only one to initiate. I am not sure if the outcome will favor my version again, but at least it will be decided by a neutral editor. It is unfortunate that disputes persist, though I remain hopeful they can be handled more constructively. I didn’t expect this TP notification to turn out that way, sorry about that. Azor (talk). 19:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

And shortly after, the same version is added back by AlexBachmann. Consensus is not achieved by repeatedly inserting a preferred version, rewriting large parts of the article, and then edit-warring to keep it in place. These are huge changes, yet past discussions are being disregarded. This is exactly why the article keeps going in circles. I am all ears to any advice. Azor (talk). 20:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Azor's revert is a failed attempt to remove constructive edits made by Botushali. He did not provide an appropriate explanation, which was the reason for my revert. It rather seemed like a one mistake = everything wrong argument with no real value. I carefully evaluated Botushali's improvements and find that they are completely eligible for Wikipedian standards. Ironically, Azor reasons with an argument which he himself had dismissed a few years ago when the opinion of Dejan Djokic was included (and still maintains).

In January 2024, almost two years ago, I had placed three-months blocks from editing this article and the same people are still fighting over the same page? Sadly, yes. And when you compare the version of Jan 24 to now, it becomes evident that this article has been subject to the cleasing of everything Albanian. Literally every single discussion of the talk page is about removing something Albanian. Just for your consideration.

I also believe that this is the wrong venue for discussing. Thanks. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It is. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

HI, it is regarding this article. Today another (relatively new) user with EC rights showed up, and tried doing the same . It is OR, since according to the source, the subject wants a divorce, not that they are divorced. Don't know why why all this drama in a Wikipedia article Facepalm . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The BO77!, what are you doing there? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The BO77! has continued editing without responding. Well, and without editing the article again. I guess this can be archived. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, They got divorced multiple news sources are supporting this statement and I think we need to take some time for better source.🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 19:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi The BO77!, I guess a single reliable source would already have been sufficient. If there is none, what makes you so sure? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, In this articles you can find the original post shared by his wife on facebook., and 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 08:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, at least the infobox parameter shouldn't list a spouse if the accuracy of that statement has been challenged in good faith and it lacks recent reliable citations, so I have removed it for now. The rest of the marriage-related content doesn't seem to (potentially incorrectly) state that the marriage still exists, so that should be fine.

Adding content requires good sources and I'm not sure if these are. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• The original post by the subject's wife says nothing about the divorce. It is only in these unreliable sources that we see a WP:OR version of a supposed 'divorce'. These two sources (unavailable) are unreliable (and had been used by other IPs and COI users before). Only this one mentions that they are 'separated', though I'm not sure of its reliability, since the screenshot of the wife's post doesn't mention a 'separation' explicitly let alone a 'divorce', not to mention these posts are unavailable (hushed up).
• Note that there was a divorce rumor in 2019 that was covered in reliable sources, and that time it was the wife supposedly 'filing a divorce' against Biplab Deb, a claim posted by someone named Anupam Paul in Facebook, which was rubbished by both Biplab Deb and his wife Niti , and a police case was also filed against that offender . What if all this is just a rumour, publicity stunt or something.
• Third, I'm not sure why the spouse parameter has to be removed when the subject's marriage to that woman (Niti Deb) isn't contentious but a fact, not only confirmed by these flimsy unreliable sources presented by these by the army of COI/Sock/Meat editors but also by many reliable sources over the years (two RS above), including the Government of Tripura source here and verified handles of the subjects (the ). Also values like 'separated', 'divorced', 'died' are available to be used with the |reason= parameter in the 'marriage' template. Removing the wife's name seems like the she never existed, something which these COI/Sock/Meat users and IPs were doing since the beginning. These reliable sources mention that the subject wants a divorce and the wife's social media quote (unavailable) seems to allude to it. So what I'd like to suggest for now as a "better compromise" (for lack of explcit) is use the 'separated' value as the reason in IB unless we have official confirmation of divorce, and expansion based on it.

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with anything that doesn't imply the marriage still exists unless there are recent reliable sources for this. This is a common and embarrassing issue with Wikipedia biographies of living people who have recently divorced, see also https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64033028 for a case where this absurdity went through the news. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I did the needful changes. Myself came across quite a few such cases——divorces, birth-dates, birthplaces, birth-names, citizenship, profile-pics and the likes, where the ill-informed subjects of the articles chose to bash Wikipedia (they should understand that these articles belong to Wikipedia where Wiki rules apply). What they could have done was simply correct it through third-part sources or interviews (for the non-SPS stuff). Some did, actually, after reading my suggestions in the talk pages and elsewhere. Then there are some who would go to OTRS. I remember one Pakistani actress doing that because we reverted a host of fans reducing her age following an Instragram post where she "updated" her DoB. Nothing of that sort happened before. In another case concerning an Indian actor's BLP, a high profile case of litigation against his spouse's boss was removed by OTRS despite being longstanding and widely sourced. It was seemingly due since associated with the spouse' miscarriage while working under the said boss. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!

In some cases (or even most?), "simply" correcting something through third-party sources or interviews is not a thing. The easier it is to do so, the less independent the source obviously is. If I can just tell someone to write it, it's not an independent source and then suddenly also useless if that's the criterion. That said, WP:BLPSELFPUB may apply to claims of divorces. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I've had it suggested that a CU might be in order for the article and talkpage for Rampal (spiritual leader) - but I've never done that before, and I'm somewhat shy and nervous, so I'm reaching out to you because we briefly crossed paths regarding Zak Smith and I'm marginally less shy and nervous reaching out to someone I've had interactions with. I see that you've got the permissions yourself; would you mind terribly taking a look, or pointing me in the right direction? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi NekoKatsun, thanks for asking! Ponyo was faster Please do try WP:SPI for reporting the next case of sockpuppetry, it's even less personal than having to ask an individual checkuser and it ensures that the report is looked at, categorized, handled neutrally and quickly. Individual checkusers might be away or might lack the time to perform an investigation. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much (and I already thanked the edit but also thanks to Ponyo). I think I'm worried I'll be accused of not assuming enough good faith, so I overcompensate to the other side of things, hahaha. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It's all good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Apparently is being edited by Nate Henry himself. I would simply revert as WP:NOPROMO but one source (Kickstarter) is now blacklisted.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, I think the best approach would be manually removing everything that seems unverifiable or promotional. I went ahead and removed the worst. And if possible, someone should provide sources or start a deletion discussion if a search led to none. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Ist mein Deutsch gut? hahah (übrigens hast Du ein schönes Klavierspiel) CoryGlee (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I noticed on your block message that the non-existence of the reference at Special:Diff/1314439185 was the final straw leading up to the block. However, I did see that there is an archived version of that reference located at Sky Sports' website; why not simply change the reference to add the archive URL instead of blocking them? I'm struggling to see how this could be related to using ChatGPT, could you clarify? Gommeh 📖   🎮 19:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gommeh, I didn't check if there's a copy in the Internet Archive but I'm not surprised that the reference had once existed, became part of ChatGPT and was thus used by a human who never tried to even open the link. It's also the reason why the access date is in the far past. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you take a look at User_talk:73.194.17.8, whom you blocked earlier this year? The block has passed, and they're back to making the exact same unsourced edits. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi NatGertler, Tamzin was faster ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

how long does it have to be since the latest content dispute to get rollback done Manualbadeditfix (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Manualbadeditfix, you're applying for additional rights to undo the contributions of others in an English encyclopedia; you're applying for additional tools in patrolling others' encyclopedia work. In my eyes, doing so requires at least some minimum effort at writing correct, professional English. Please treat Wikipedia more like a workplace, less like a videogame chat. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

okay Manualbadeditfix (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

That didn't yet work. I hope your message isn't the result of trying to implement this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Czarking0, thank you very much for the invitation! I assume this is about my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Compatangelo and have now answered at User:Czarking0/Survey responses. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Your comment says "Second choice to 19.2.". There is no 19.2. --GRuban (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Oops! I hadn't yet created 19.2 when typing this; it became "19.1" as there was no 19.1 yet. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 17:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

• Billinghurst
• Crisco 1492
• DarkFalls
• Spike Wilbury
• Valereee
• Ergo Sum

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

Should I request for rollback rights? I have more than 1,000 edits (most are reverts/warns) and the last time I participated in an edit war was more than one month ago. Manualbadeditfix (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Manualbadeditfix, thank you very much for asking. Please have a look at User:ToBeFree/rollbackgiven. If you summarize these points in your own words (no AI) here in response to my message, I'll probably grant rollback for a month or two as a trial. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

1. When getting the rollback right, users can now revert edits quickly without having to use Twinkle.
2. When users rollback an edit, a warning should be given to the vandal. Otherwise, the rollback user right may be revoked.
3. Using rollback to revert edits may upset or confuse a user. Rollbackers should respond to the vandal in their talk page if this happens.
4. Since the rollback edit summary is not explained (and can't be updated), it should not be used to revert any good faith edits, including disruptive edits.
5. Edit warring using the rollback option is discouraged, which usually happens during a content dispute. Since all rollbackers are expected to follow the three revert rule, it is best to file reports at WP:ANEW.
6. If you encounter issues such as physical harm or private information (including passwords) while using rollback, please file a report at Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency.

Manualbadeditfix (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!  Done until the end of the year. If you liked the trial and want to have rollback without expiry, please let me know on 29 December or any later date. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Manualbadeditfix (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I may have been quick with the report. The useless edit does seem consistent with the vandalism the school's IP has done in the past. This is the first report I have ever made so what is the typical procedure? More vandalism edits must occur first? W00zles (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi W00zles, thanks for the report and the clarification. In some cases, perhaps even most, even a single edit resuming the behavior that led to the block is fine enough with me as a re-block reason. But in this specific case, without being able to provide a general rule to you, sorry, the address had been blocked for many years and resumed with something that could arguably even have been a good edit. I didn't check if the term has been linked further up on the same page, for example, which would make it a fine edit. The bar for a reblock from my side is very low, which is why I was surprised to see someone managing to submit a report below the bar. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I think there is a misconception in your edit note here . I don't think I'm against sanctions as a whole. Rather I'm tend to speak up when I think sanctions are more than is needed. Something I disputed regarding the FoF is the claim that I was defending bad behavior (with the understanding I did screw up in one of the cases). I'm willing to take people to ANI if I think they are acting in a way that is a problem . But even in that case my concern is the problem goes away rather than being sanctioned. From that case, "My feeling is if you understand the CIVIL issues with your comments and you agree to follow CIVIL, AGF, FOC (comment on the content, not the editor in particular), and FORUM type comments, I see no reason for any sanctions. The best outcomes from an ANI are ones where an issue is understood and corrected.". Given that at least some of the incivility was directed at me I'm not trying to defending it. I do have a series of questions related to the tban. Where is the correct place to ask for clarification? Springee (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Springee, thank you very much for the clarification. My edit summary was an oversimplified attempt to explain why the removed comment was bad. I hadn't thought about it enough before sending it and wanted to undo having sent it at all, which is of course not possible on Wikipedia. Regarding clarification, I think the two main places you can ask at are the proposed decision's talk page and WP:ARCA, the latter always and even when the case is closed. If the case is about to be closed, waiting for it to be closed and then asking at ARCA might be preferable. The answers ar ARCA are also more authoritative than single arbitrators' responses on the proposed decision's talk page. Very simple questions about how bans work in general can instead be asked at the Teahouse, but that's really just for questions that could be answered by reading WP:BAN from top to bottom. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding the FoF question and before this is closed, is it possible to change my FoF from "this leads them to frequently defend editors engaging in blatant disruption..." to "frequently call for lesser/no formal sections against editors...". I do think it's important to note that I call for the behavior to stop but perhaps I'm, perhaps unrealistically, optimistic that editors will change without the more severe sanctions. Springee (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Springee, I think this is a matter of interpretation and yours isn't shared by a majority of the committee, but you can of course request this in your section on the proposed decision's talk page. I personally find it unlikely that the FoF is now going to be changed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Part of what I'm thinking about is how would I show this isn't an issue in the future? When an editor is tbanned for in one CTOP, one way to show they have changed their methods is to show how they handle similar conflicts correctly in a different CTOP. How would I go about demonstrating this isn't an ongoing problem at a future review? Springee (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The premise about a "different CTOP" is ... questionable. "I was banned for conflicts in one area but don't worry, I went to another area to have conflicts there to prove how good I'm now at handling conflicts" won't lead to an unban. Far better would be conflict-less editing for years. The list of contentious topics doesn't exist to provide you with a list of other ways to play with fire, and it is absolutely not meant to encourage you to do so. Please stay away from them if you can. The Task Center and the community portal are full of ideas and none of them has to be done in any contentious topic area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't using the CTOP example to say, "look how much more civil my fights are here". Rather, I've seen editors who have successfully appealed tbans in one CTOPs area by both noting the issues that lead to the tban and pointing to clean work/handling issues acceptably in a different CTOP area. In my case there isn't really a parallel to ANI/ARE. How do I show that I'm no longer "frequently defending" bad behavior? I'm sorry if this is too many questions. Perhaps this is something to ask when the case isn't fresh. Springee (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. I think from a "how to argue for getting unbanned" perspective, your noticeboard ban is more comparable to interaction bans than to topic bans. If you're interaction-banned from a specific user, the ban was placed with an already-existing understanding that your interactions towards others are fine. So your interactions with other users are not a useful argument for getting the interaction ban removed. Similarly, any argument into the direction "I would like to communicate with the user again" may fail; you had your chance and especially if the other user doesn't welcome the interactions, the ban would stay. The best argument for removing an interaction ban, or also a block from one specific page, is perhaps that being affected by a ban is a general problem affecting your standing and your ability to participate in the community. You would probably have to argue that despite having lost your interest in discussing others' conduct, you'd like to see the ban lifted because it is not longer necessary to prevent disruption and its collateral damage outweighs the benefits after all the time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, the iban is a helpful perspective. Springee (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this is regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Enigma_orange_reported_by_User:Moxfyre_(Result:_protected)

You marked this case as "closed." Can you clarify what this means?

This page has been (1) protected for 2 days, and (2) left in the state where a lot of relevant information has been removed from it, which is preferred by the newly-created accounts but not by me or the other long-term editors who've disagreed with their edits. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 01:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Moxfyre, whatever is left to be discussed about the page doesn't belong to the edit warring noticeboard. Concerns about which version was protected could be voiced on the protecting administrator's talk page, once (and without a huge debate between more users than the admin and yourself), or on the article's talk page, perhaps including a formal edit request, but not on the edit warring noticeboard if there is no edit war going on. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

(And that said, as now also formally noted on your talk page, I think you'll need to have a look at WP:BLPRESTORE.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm 10gokk10 I have only two accounts 10gok10 and 10gokk10. I made 10gokk10 because I can't log into 10gok10 and Wikipedia say we send you verification email but don't send me email. If you want block my all my accounts block,but fo not block other poor people that has nothing to this 2A01:5EC0:1806:D3CB:1:0:7DE3:8243 (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

If you want more explanation, you can ask me here and I answer it. 2A01:5EC0:1000:569B:1:0:7DF1:2C56 (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I think it's likely TheHistorianEditor, who you indefinitely blocked October 1st, is continuing to use sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia. I reported one here, on the sockpuppet investigation page. There's a user called Expetite that made the exact same edits as TheHistorianEditor had made on the History of the United States page. The difference page of Expetite's edits here. These are almost identical to the previous edits made by TheHistorianEditor, seen here.

I'm inexperienced in reporting sockpuppet accounts so I'm not sure how many examples are needed for these sorts of reports. You were the one to finally indefinitely block TheHistorianEditor, so I thought it would be good to let you know. Senator Aldrich (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for creating the sockpuppet investigation and for the notification! Done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 18:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 19:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Somebody from Illinois doesn't like parts of Mr. Chesney's personal life being in the article and has been trying to keep it out since at least April 2024.

• 69.174.145.23 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.110.123.100 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.110.123.75 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)

    –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thanks for the notification. The essay section you're referring to above and in your edit summary is about deletion discussions. The policy saying roughly the opposite about the content of articles about notable topics is WP:ONUS, arguably WP:UNDUE and anyway WP:BLPRESTORE. I have semi-protected the page for 2 years but removed what really seems irrelevant afterwards. At least without a consensus for restoring it, I don't see why this has been restored again and again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman, Children's Health Defense, and RFK Jr. Most recently Mr. Coleman.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, Chuanist currently edits less than once per year. In case of persistent disruption, I think WP:ANI or WP:AE would be places to go, but at that edit rate, almost every kind of tendentious editing is better manageable than the countless unregistered contributions that lead to semi-protection elsewhere. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on September 26. Please help translate.

---

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

• Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Selection: Announcement of the final ballot for the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election and more answers about the decision. Eligible voters can vote between October 8 – October 23.
• Wikipedia 25: Are you planning to organize events to celebrate Wikipedia's 25th birthday? The Wikimedia Foundation offers grants to support active Wikimedia groups in organizing short-term, low-cost projects to celebrate this milestone. Applications are open until November 1.
• WikiConference North America 2025: WikiConference North America will take place from October 16–19 in New York City, USA.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Readers · Research · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Mobile Editing: Insights on mobile web editing on Wikipedia in 2025 are now available. This report highlights that ~95% of IP mobile users editing via wikitext open the editor but make no changes at all, a vast untapped potential. It also pinpoints where contributors most often drop off.
• Dark Mode: Dark Mode user interface will be rolled out on all Wikimedia sites on October 29. All anonymous users of Wikimedia sites will have the option to activate a color scheme that features light-colored text on a dark background. This is designed to provide a more comfortable reading experience, especially in low-light situations.
• Community wishlist extension: The new Community Wishlist extension has been released. This will allow users to add tags to their wishes to better categorise them, and (in a future iteration) to filter them by status, tags and focus areas. It will also be possible to support individual wishes again, as requested by the community in many instances.
• Paste Check: 22 Wikis are now testing a new Edit Check feature, Paste Check, to help avoid and fight copyright violations. When editors paste text into an article, Paste Check prompts them to confirm the origin and licensing of the content.
• Tone Check: The Wikimedia Foundation is working on a new check for newcomers: Tone check. Using a prediction model, this check will encourage editors to improve the tone of their edits.
• Search Suggestions: Search Suggestions was deployed on English Wikipedia. Upon clicking an empty search bar, logged-out users see suggestions of articles for further reading. The feature is available on both desktop and mobile.
• Unsupported Tools Working Group: A new Unsupported Tools Working Group has been formed to help prioritize and review requests for support of unmaintained extensions, gadgets, bots, and tools. The group has chosen Video2Commons as the first tool for its pilot cycle. The group will explore ways to improve and sustain the tool over the coming months.
• Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week 40 and 41 including about Sub-referencing – a new feature to re-use references with different details.
• Wikimedia Research Showcase: Don't miss the next Wikimedia Research Showcase, "Celebrating 13 Years: Wikidata's Role in Learning and Culture" taking place on October 15 at 16:30 UTC.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events

• Wikimania: Wikimania Nairobi has been featured in more than 100 stories across community platforms and international media outlets.
• Wikifunctions: Rich text is now available for embedded Wikifunctions calls across the 150 wikis where it’s enabled.
• WikiLearn: New Wikipedia online courses you can join to strengthen your Wikimedia editing skills.
• Human Rights: Making sure AI serves people and knowledge stays human: Wikimedia Foundation publishes a Human Rights Impact Assessment on the interaction of AI and machine learning with Wikimedia projects.
• Don't blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
• Digital Safety & Privacy: Frequently Asked Questions about Wikimedia Foundation's Legal Work.
• Transparency Report: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Latest Transparency Report.
• Privacy Policy: The Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy is getting a minor update in preparation for Temporary Accounts.
• Learning Clinic: Join the next Let's Connect Learning Clinic on the topic of "Mastering the Capacity Exchange (CapX) Tool (Part 2)" taking place on October 20 at 17:00 UTC.

Foundation statements

• Knowledge integrity: Lessons from Wikipedia on the 3 building blocks of trustworthy information. This is part of the new series from the Wikimedia Foundation that explores how Wikipedia can inspire new standards of knowledge integrity for our times.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 14:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

He’s back at it again just so you know. 2601:188:C405:F440:6D3B:D814:C719:8C30 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi 2601:188:C405:F440:6D3B:D814:C719:8C30, Mfield was faster. In general, a report at WP:ANEW is sufficient and I'll see it there sooner or later too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Similar to Leroy Cronin, the subject was dismissed from his position due to an unspecified harassment complaint and editors have been removing that content.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thanks for the notification! I've had a quick chat with Plasticwonder who had previously restored the content when the removal reason was less detailed and didn't even question the accuracy of the allegations. After the quick discussion, I'm fine with their decision. Details (and why I think your revert was problematic) can be found at . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that somebody's trying to keep the subject's connection to Jeffrey Epstein off the page.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I told you the whole truth. But if you don't believe me ok I do what you say. Just click at it. And a massage show up and Need reason. What should I write? 2A01:5EC0:1001:70B2:1:0:9FC4:B77 (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I can not reply to your message any more 2A01:5EC0:1001:70B2:1:0:9FC4:B77 (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Because of that send massage here. And ask guidance 2A01:5EC0:1007:3AB:C2F:B70E:95A9:F27 (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Bezartanha, you – as a person – are blocked. Not just the account. You may not edit Wikipedia for any other purpose than requesting an unblock on your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This IP has vandalized both a page and their own talk page. Revoke TPA too. Manualbadeditfix (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Manualbadeditfix, reporting this at WP:AIV was a good idea, thanks. I (or any individual administrator in general) may not be active enough for such a notification to result in the needed quick block, even if I was active shortly before. In this case here, I was eating away from keyboard.

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

As a heads up, Woovee and Aradicus77 have also been at it on the Glam rock page. I'm hoping that the block on the other two pages will have them pause there, as well, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. I've tried to intervene there.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Since when? 3family6. I haven't touched that page in ages. You were the one going back and forth with Woovee there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glam_rock#The_%22Subgenre%22_term_in_the_lead. I'd advise a block at Goth subculture for me and Woovee if that's what you meant since that's the last place we had friction and maybe The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. I still don't understand why I'm being blocked when I was just adding information to the pages while Woovee was edit-warring. I opened talk page discussions and you can see from my last edit there . If this comes off antagonistic I'm sorry but let's assume you made a mistake linking that page, I still don't understand why I'm being pushed under the bus here. Additionally, you were the one who agreed with my edits and integrated them and ended the conflict, so why are you marking this as an ongoing edit war? This is just disingenous.

Glam rock talk page exchange was mostly you and Woovee . Also Woovee kept lying on my name. Even at me reporting him he claimed I removed a list of bands from progressive rock when I had actually only added two subgenres "brutal prog" and "avant prog" not removed anything. . He also claimed I was erasing mention of numerous bands in various articles. When I had only removed the unsourced list of post-punk bands from the lead at post-punk Aradicus77 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

There was also this I opened up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_bad_faith_assumption%2C_accusatory_language_and_edit-warring_by_User%3AWoovee which I have no clue what happened to as people just stopped replying, most users concluded that Woovee was the one being disruptive with only User:3family6 stating I was deserving of a block too. 3family6 even admitted he only really saw what happened at gothic rock and not what was going on other pages, Woovee was the one engaging the edit wars at post-punk. We opened several talk page discussions too only for him to be reverting information and not waiting for a WP:Third Opinion while I was focusing more on expanding the article, which I did by reformatting the lead and adding regional scenes and related genres.

I think this can provide you more context User:ToBeFree Aradicus77 (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification and the ping at ANI. I wasn't aware there's already a (stale) discussion there about the issues that led to the ANEW report and my two blocks. I'll wait and see what happens next. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Please I don't want to step into the Starman (song) page, but Woovee has had an issue with my edits at The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars pertaining Bauhaus (band). He has now started removing this edit at Star Man . What do I do since I don't want to start another edit-war or endless talk page friction which will lead us to an interaction block. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Aradicus77, thank you very much for the notification and for asking instead of reverting. I currently can't dig into this as deep as I'd like to, and the only advice I can provide is that WP:DISENGAGE exists and that Wikipedia is not compulsory. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

That is a fair point. At the same time, is there no guideline that would allow reverting the article to a version not edited by any of us? WP:DISENGAGE suggests stepping back to avoid conflict, but that can sometimes mean allowing disruptive edits to remain until someone else eventually addresses them. I have noticed that when disruptive edits are very obvious, they are often reverted quickly, but when the issues are more subtle, they sometimes remain.

My main concern was reporting Woovee for disruptive editing, and although both of us were blocked, which I understand, I am unsure how to handle similar situations in the future. If he continues to make problematic edits, should I simply leave them in place? Would continued interaction risk both of us being blocked indefinitely?

3family6 suggested that I could bring such issues to the attention of relevant WikiProjects to get input or assistance from other editors, and that advice has been helpful. Aradicus77 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, once you're in a situation where people are annoyed enough to consider an interaction ban, you can only lose by interacting further, at least if that interaction is (yet again) because of a conflict/dispute.

There's a huge difference between what feels morally right and the least problematic approach, and the latter is letting it go even if you're completely right and they're completely wrong. Will the encyclopedia suffer from this? Perhaps. Sometimes, peace is more important than doing the right thing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

(Some people disagree, but some people are blocked.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello ToBeFree,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

• 21:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC) (Axis of evil (cosmology))

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by The Bushranger; I hope this edit to the config of the bot fixes the detection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I advise you extend me and Woovee's block to also encompass the Goth subculture page. It looks like Woovee wants to start another edit war by reverting that entire page to before I had contributed to it which is like 2 months of edits: Aradicus77 (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Aradicus77, I'm not interested, sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, when you get a chance, mind reviewing this discussion on my Talk page?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I suspect a WP:COI here.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, I've had a look but I'm not sure how I'd be able to meaningfully help there at the moment. I see walls of text and two users editing in good faith. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Just wondering if I'm on the right track there. :-)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I really can't judge. If a dispute arises and protection is needed, I shouldn't have analyzed this, so I'm not looking too closely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

S'oaky, I'm pretty sure that any BLP and/or promotional issues have been satisfactorily covered.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I hope your day is going well! I just came to alert you that I re-installed Twinkle for one edit to start a WP:FfD. When I was blocked, I promised to hang up the gadget, so I just thought this one-off earns a mention just so you know I'm not going to go on a spree or something. Also here to just simply say hello and thank you for your patience. October/September 2025 was a wild ride for me (both on and off wiki). Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Babysharkboss2, thank you very much for the notification! All good. Creating a deletion discussion is a good use-case for Twinkle even if you don't want to continue using it for reverts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on October 11. Please help translate.

---

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

• Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection: Additional perspectives on current and future board selection processes.
• Global trends: We are seeing 8% declines in human page views on Wikipedia as some users don't directly visit Wikipedia to get information. Learn about this new user trend, how the Wikimedia Foundation anticipate these changes, and how you can help.
• WECUDI 2025: The second conference of Wikimedia, Education, and Digital Cultures will be held from October 29–31 in Mexico City, Mexico.
• GLAM Conference: Wiki GLAM Culture and Heritage Conference (WGCHC) will take place on 30 October – 1 November in Lisbon, Portugal.
• WikidataCon 2025: WikidataCon 2025 will take place online from October 31 – November 2.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Readers · Research · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Making it easier to say thanks: Users on most wikis will now have the ability to thank a comment directly from the talk page it appears on. Before this change, thanking could only be done by visiting the revision history of the talk page.
• Account security: Improvements to account security and two-factor authentication (2FA) features were enabled across all wikis. Another part of the project is making 2FA generally available to all users. Along with editors with advanced privileges, such as administrators and bureaucrats, 40% of editors now have access to 2FA. You can check if you have access at Special:AccountSecurity.
• Abstract Wikipedia: The naming contest for the new Wikimedia project, known until now as Abstract Wikipedia, is ongoing. Voting is now open until November 3.
• Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week 42 and 43 including the community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.
• Wikimedia apps: The Wikipedia iOS App launched an A/B/C test of improvements to the Tabbed browsing feature into Beta for select regions & languages. Called “More dynamic tabs”, the experiment adds user-requested improvements and introduces article recommendations within the tabs overview, showing “Did you know” or “Because you read” content depending on how many tabs are open.
• CampaignEvents extension: Campaignevents extension will be deployed to all remaining wikis during the week of 17 November 2025. The extension currently includes three features: Event Registration, Collaboration List, and Invitation List. For this rollout, Invitation List will not be enabled on Wikifunctions and MediaWiki unless requested by those communities.
• Event registration tool: Autoconfirmed users on small and medium wikis with the extension can now use Event Registration without the Event Organizer right. This feature lets organizers enable registration, manage participants, and lets users register with one click instead of signing event pages.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events

• Digital safety: Explore how you can help make Wikimedia safer by taking our new self-paced course, Safety for Young Wikimedians.
• Wikimedia Core Curriculum: The Wikimedia Foundation has developed seven online video learning modules covering the core English Wikipedia policies. You are invited to use, adapt, and translate the course.
• Advocacy: The Wikimedia Foundation has signed onto a statement that calls on governments and UN bodies to keep discussions about the future of internet governance accessible to non-government actors like industry and civil society. This statement is part of ongoing joint advocacy with affiliates to influence UN discussions about the future of internet governance such as the Global Digital Compact campaign and WSIS+20 deliberations.
• GLAM: The Wikimedia Foundation and several affiliates have signed onto the Open Heritage Statement, which supports galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM institutions) to have the legal rights they need to collect, preserve, and provide access to cultural heritage.

Foundation statements

• How Wikipedia works: Wikimedia Foundation responds to questions about how Wikipedia works.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 16:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, could you please delete my own User:Divinations/common.js? I no longer need it. Thanks, Divinations (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Divinations, sure, done :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ToBeFree. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 07:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey, what do you think about putting a partial block on 2A00:23C5:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, they edited another article too, so I made it a sitewide block. Was this at AIV and noone blocked? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I wasn't sure which range to put and didn't want to cast too wide of a net there.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, they likely used 2A00:23C5:C31A:301:8557:A1D5:6CF3:3895 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) as well.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait, /32? Uh. I thought /64, had clicked the article link in the title and checked the history, sorry.

That range is indeed too wide for two addresses hitting one article without other vandalism justifying either page protection or such a wide rangeblock, I'd say. I have, however, blocked that second address (/64) now too.

If this persists, I hope page protection will work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)