User talk:ToBeFree: Difference between revisions

Please click here to add a new message!

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Archives [megabytes]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Asking you because I see your name at page sanctions for the Russia/Ukraine topic area, provisions I have just noticed, and requiring extended-confirmed would definitely benefit whoever closes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira (5th nomination)...Is this RfPP? I would appreciate some guidance if possible. Thank you Elinruby (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elinruby, thanks for asking!

WP:RFPP is indeed usually the best place to ask for any kind of page protection including WP:GS/RUSUKR- or WP:A/I/PIA-related ones. For the latter, WP:AE may arguably also be a place where protection could be asked for, but I haven't seen that happen yet – probably because AE sections require more time to create and process, and the additional formality isn't needed.

I have extended-confirmed protected the page now, and I might remove or strikethrough the existing restriction violations later.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it both the information and tbe protection. Elinruby (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For last 7 days, this editor keeps edit warring to incite a new edit war on Shambuka[1][2][3] while falsely describing other's edits a "vandalism",[4] (also see grave-dancing in edit summary) and also assume bad-faith by referring to the opposing stance as "brahminical superiority".[5] This is all when he is warned over this very article since 2020 to this year.[6] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ArvindPalaskar, thank you very much for the notification. I have partially blocked Phule lulu from editing the page and, considering the history of disruption, extended-confirmed protected the article afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On same thinking, the edits by Wareon in five days period from 15th of Jan to 20th of Jan would also amount to disruptive editing, and there is an edit where they removed a chunk of the topic along with the citations added by a different editor, with the comment 'meaningless verbiage'. Wanted to bring it to your attention. Phule lulu (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, thank you – I warned them about the edit warring and mentioned this in the ANI thread. In general, I think the main issue with the article at the moment is not the lack of consensus itself but rather many editors' attempts to restore what they perceive as the "status quo". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim 'assume bad faith' is ad hominem, and using 'Brahmin' wiki page to explain 'Brahminical superiority' to someone else is disingenuous when a primary source itself—then used to justify the uncommon phrase 'interpolated character'—called the Shambuka story to be 'an interpolation and a fabrication that was created to justify the caste system and Brahminical domination' Phule lulu (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My action is unrelated to those claims; for example, the talk page can still be freely edited. This is purely about the edit warring from my side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks. Phule lulu (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a lot of trouble to find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#Disruptive editing by Yae4 on elive article and others. The section doesn't show up in ANI search results when searching for "Yae4" (although the archived page itself has two sections on Yae4). The Special:Log/Block reason for Yae4's CBAN links to a WP:ANI revision Special:Permalink/1163489790#Community_ban_proposal, which has been unfortunately suppressed for unrelated reasons (HazaraHistorian discussion on that page, suppressed from 22:36, 4 July 2023, to 10:57, 9 July 2023‎). Question: Is it possible for you to re-apply Yae4's block with a new link to archived and non-supressed Special:Permalink/1189736348#Community ban proposal for the CBAN discussion, for transparency, so that editors (and unrelated admins) can better understand why he was blocked and what the CBAN consensus was? 84.250.15.152 (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally his talk page notice for being banned was automatically archived by a bot (so I probably shouldn't change the suppressed revision link reply the archive), but that's tangential. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]