User talk:ToBeFree

Hey, I'm sure what's happening here but various editors – both logged-out and -in – have been trying to keep the Controversy section out for nearly a year.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Skywatcher68, I won't judge if that content needs to be in the article eventually, but if it is re-added, that should probably ideally be the result of a discussion at Talk:Sani Sha'aban or at least an attempt to discuss it there. I have semi-protected the page for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

You removed my "Edit fully-protected"-request on the talk page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Endemic_COVID-19

I'd ask you to please have a closer look at this matter.

- Firstly, your edit also removed previous comments from the talk page.

- As described in my report at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1343697306 the following had happened:

• We had a lengthy discussion on the topic (spanning over two sections) for two to three weeks in February,

• Whatamidoing's version was the consensus of the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endemic_COVID-19&oldid=1340359392

• That version was live for three weeks until this week.

• Then a sock (which was banned) together with Roxy_the_dog kept reverting that without participating in the discussion, and admin Ponyo reinstated the good version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endemic_COVID-19&oldid=1343363600

• Then Roxy_the_dog started the edit war. He reverted without participating in the discussion (his only participation was a personal attack).

- I'm asking that you please reinstate the good version, as requested, and please fix the talk page, where you've accidentally removed a part of my comments that was older.

Thank you Worstbull (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

According to standard practice regarding edit warring, the page should be restored to the WP:STATUSQUO, which is the last stable version before the disruptive edits began. Reverting to a version pushed by a now-banned sock violates the core principle of reverting WP:VAND. Also I think my older talk page edits were deleted my mistake (WP:TPO). Worstbull (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Worstbull, WP:STATUSQUO is part of an essay, not a policy or guideline. The actual standard practice is described at WP:Protection policy § Full protection.

Nothing in the banning policy prohibits an article from ever containing content that had once been added by a banned user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, that's not what I was saying.

I'm saying that you reverted to the wrong version, and you threatened me at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Endemic_COVID-19&diff=prev&oldid=1343698016

("you're close to a block or a topic ban if you continue this way. You should not describe the changes as vandalism (or now "vandalism-like" as if that was much better), full protection is in place due to a dispute and the request template is for uncontroversial changes")

for following the rules: "Editors convinced that [...] protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy

- which is exactly what I did - I added the "Edit fully-protected"-block and you deleted it. I **did** explain - I'd rather go as far as to even say "document" - the circumstances thoroughly!

The locked version *was actually* the resulting version of something we'd treat as vandalism in the German Wiki, which is my home: using a sock for an edit war. The sock got banned, another admin restored the *good* version.

(I actually wrote "vandalism-like" - being perfectly aware that I don't know the exact definitions here in the English wiki.)

After the edit war you restored the *bad* version: result from the banned sock's action, post-edit war version, not pre-edit war version.

I was not perfectly familiar with the exact definition of vandalism here, because it doesn't really matter to me usually as a regular user; the important thing is that I did not talk about Roxy_the_dog here, but about the banned sock when referring to "vandalism-like"! And I find it quite disturbing that I get threatened for that (referring to the admin-reverted edits of a banned sock as "vandalism-like", whether it's bureaucratically 100% correct or not, I'm thankful if you can shed light on that please).

May I ask you kindly, to take a quiet moment later this week to read through what I've explained above in detail about what happened. Worstbull (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Worstbull, sorry, I had overlooked the part of the protection policy that suggested the addition of the {{edit fully-protected}} template. You had previously been warned not to describe others' edits as vandalism and your response was to describe them as "vandalism-like". Perhaps the term you are looking for is "disruptive". Anyway – your fine-to-make request has been declined. Please keep discussing the content instead of focusing on other users' behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of talk page messages, the edit summary of Special:Diff/1343698016 is accurate and the indentation of your lines was broken, so I'm not even sure where exactly I'd restore the unproblematic parts of your message. You can, however, do so by using the "Reply" link next to whichever message you were replying to, and copying text from the last lines of that diff as they were fine. Just please avoid describing other discussion participants' edits as vandalism or throwing a big yellow inapplicable template into the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)