User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

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.

Block

Recently you have blocked me for editing Anti-Russian sentiment.

The only user who expressed concern regarding my edits does not participate in the consensus as can be seen in the Talk page, and yet he didn't mention any concerns regarding that specific edit you have blocked me for.

I have stated my reasons for that change and I don't see your block as justified. Gigman (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Glebushko0703, we'll see what happens next. If the paragraph is restored or someone complains, the block is fine. If suddenly noone objects to its removal anymore, we can have this discussion, but it's too early to say this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Rsk6400, thoughts? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't justify the 3 month block for a single edit. Gigman (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

QED. LordCollaboration has restored the paragraph in Special:Diff/1329795332 and you remain rightfully blocked. You've been doing this for a while (see the block summary / notification for the diff) and had been blocked for the same behavior three times in two months. If you think it's excessive, feel free to appeal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The page in question deviates significantly from the format of other Anti-national sentiment articles, neglecting Wiki's rules.

Certain group of users eagerly prevents any edits, by questioning the slightest change to a page (like an image) and not participating in consensus. This way they're able to keep the messy status quo they favor. Instead of a neutral postition by encouraging everyone to improve it and engage in consensus you're playing into their hands.

Your actions as admin seem very one-sided. Of course I think the 3 month block for 1 edit in 3 weeks is too excessive. Gigman (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

When I see someone coming back from a block and removing the block message from their talk page, I have a quick look at their latest contributions. If these continue the behavior the block was for, I place another block. The last one was for 2 weeks, sitewide. The issue seemed to be isolated to one article, so I didn't choose another sitewide block. You'll survive being required to submit edit requests in case you want to make constructive, non-controversial changes to this 1 of 7,112,717 articles. You'll hopefully also not get into trouble by edit warring elsewhere while blocked for edit warring. Think of the three months as a kind of probation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You're basically prohibiting me from even slightest contributions to that page until I get a permission from that single specific user who disagrees, since nobody else is participating.

And even that specific user doesn't contrinute to consensus process themself...

Last block I got was for edit warring, I didn't edit war this time yet still got blocked. If my contribution was to be removed, I'd start RFC regarding nescessary changes to this page.

I think the situation we have is not as unambiguous to say how you had mercy on my sinner soul Gigman (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The {{edit partially-blocked}} template allows you to draw the attention of uninvolved other editors to the talk page in case there's an easy change to be made.

If you think you have not edit warred, let another administrator have a look. It's extremely unlikely that my opinion will change through this discussion here; it's comparatively more likely that another administrator agrees with you. The {{unblock}} template exists for this purpose. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

How was I supposed to know that I can get banned for editing the page after my ban has expired? You didn't warn me that I'm not allowed to make any changes in future.

I checked the Talk page, saw no new messages, so I proceeded to remove content that goes against the rules but wasn't mentioned in the discussion (deliberately not reverting any of my controversial changes) Gigman (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Glebushko0703, the discussion starts running in circles. What you describe as "not reverting any of my controversial changes" is [1] and [2] and [3] and [4]. See how identical these are? Allegedly not controversial but reverted four times? Please stop trying to argue about this with me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Now I see...

It seems like after 2 weeks I forgot that this part was deemed to be controversial too. I had no intention of edit warring just after I got unbanned, I genuinely thought users had no problem with it.

Unlike other changes made by me, edit in question wasn't specifically adressed in Talk page, emphasis there was mostly on phrasing in lead section and image.

I admit my guilt, yet I still think that 3 month topic ban is too much for a single edit. Please consider reconsidering your decision. I'm required to discuss this matter with you before putting this issue on admin action review by rules. Gigman (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay.

I'm open to reconsidering the duration after some time has passed. For now, the block is fine in my eyes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Since you asked me for "thoughts", I'd like to mention that Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Some_individuals_may_have_prejudice_or_hatred_against_Russians_due_to_history shows that I participated in the discussion, contrary to what they said in their opening statement. I'm also under the impression that they are more interested in long discussions than in reaching a consensus (see my unanswered question for the specific problems they see on Dec 7, 7:50, repeated Dec 8, 16:32.) Thanks for your quick reaction. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You didn't leave any replies since my original block so it's not a real participation. Just compare the ammount of your messages to mine. All this time I tried to get something from you, and all you had to offer is placing the controvercial parts in "", it's just laughable.

And yeah I have answered your question long time ago and for some reason you still claim I didn't. Gigman (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

By the way, user who have reverted my change said he opposes the topic ban on me Special:Diff/1330124790. Gigman (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Glebushko0703, it's not a topic ban (which would prohibit you from discussing on the article's talk page); it's just a one-page partial block. The use of the term "topic ban" doesn't exactly imply that the person using the term knows what they're talking about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Then it's my mistake. Still I think this user implies that he's against any current block. Gigman (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You quite literally told LordCollaboration that if they opposed your block on this page that you would delete a sockpuppet investigation that you created about them – one I might add, that seemed less like an actual concern and more in retaliation for their participation and the opinions they expressed at the recent Baltic States Infoboxes Manual of Style RFC and the more recent Talk:Kaja Kallas#How should her (and family) biography reflect that Estonia was under Soviet (and Nazi German) occupation from 1940 to 1991? discussion. This has been an ongoing issue with you to openly accuse other editors of being sockpuppets or openly cast aspersions when they disagree with you or have countering opinions. In the case of LordCollaboration, you either didn't fully suspect they were a sockpuppet, or didn't particularly care, so long as they did something to your benefit. Per your tak page: Please stop insinuating that I might be a sock puppet: "If you oppose my topic ban, please express your opinion at User talk:ToBeFree#Block, and I'll remove my suspicions from the notice board." You did, in fact, remove your suspicion from the noticeboard when they (reluctantly) agreed to state they felt you shouldn't have a topic ban. Your behavior has been rather outrageous, in my opinion, and I feel as though mods should be made aware of it. ExRat (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The first part is correct.

I saw that user around anywhere I go quite often, and it's just so happens to be after the RFC with a lot of suckpppets took place. + The speed of this my edit being reverted after the admin stated "we'll see what happens next. If the paragraph is restored or someone complains, the block is fine" seemed to me rather suspicious.

But there's no point of framing my behaviour as a blackmail, I've stated my reasoninng in the discussion on my page and this user insisted not to be investigated, so I dropped the case. I still have plenty of evidence but I won't continue to push through since the user was nice to me. Gigman (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

At least 349 editors get notified about changes to this page here, and 312 users get notified about changes to the Anti-Russian sentiment article. Where it came from, only LordCollaboration knows.

Glebushko0703, can you see why people are unhappy about statements such as I still have plenty of evidence but I won't continue to push through since the user was nice to me, and how close such a statement is to "If you are not nice to me, I'll publish evidence"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said their presence around me was persistent, not unique to this page. I had socks following around me before in related (similar) articles as seen here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3 Löwi (some of them have even participated in the same discussion as him), so I have a full right to be suspicious.

What's important is user that reverted my changes said he opposes the block and he didn't know I was banned, I didn't ask him to, I just said my reasons to keep willingly gather evidence against him, but at the moment I withhold any further investigation. Gigman (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Whatever. If there's evidence, please do either provide it at SPI or stay silent about it; hinting at the existence of evidence is almost certain to sound like a threat, whether intentionally or not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure. But for now i'm good. Gigman (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The speed of this my edit being reverted after the admin stated "we'll see what happens next. If the paragraph is restored or someone complains, the block is fine" seemed to me rather suspicious

This isn't true. My edit occurred 10 minutes before this was said. (My edit was at 1:06,[5] that statement was at 1:16[6]). Unless if I have a crystal ball, there is simply no way this is related at all.

I saw that user around anywhere I go quite often... their presence around me was persistent, not unique to this page.

As far as I recall, after the RFC, we had three interactions/same areas of posting before you said I might be a sock puppet.

1) On the Incidents noticeboard, when you implicitly accused me and someone else of being a user's "friends you bring to battle for you country" (related to the three of us disagreeing with the RFC closure), to which I responded by asking you to provide evidence or strike it (you did neither). See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1209#c-Glebushko0703-20251206191200-Chrisahn-20251206185900

2) On Kaja Kallas, where we had a long discussion on the talk page about including accusations of Anti-Russian sentiment. (Which, by the way, is when I added that article to my watchlist.) See: Talk:Kaja Kallas#c-Glebushko0703-20251208083300-It's own section

3) Finally, my revert of your edit on the Anti-Russian sentiment article.

And my interest in this topic area has nothing to do with you. I was not highly active here until mid-June of this year. But before then, I pretty much only edited in the post-Soviet topic area and Indonesia-related topics. Before June, I made 17 edits in 2025, 13 of which were in the post-Soviet space.[7][8][9][10]... etc. You were not active during this time.

this user insisted not to be investigated, so I dropped the case. I still have plenty of evidence

I thought we agreed no more mention of sock puppetry?[11][12] As I said, I did not want to waste admin time, as I deeply respect the admins of Wikipedia. But since you insist on continuing to insinuate that I am a sock puppet, despite being told many times to stop (including by an admin, who called it harassment and said that you would be blocked if it continued[13][14]), and this continues to waste admin time, please start a sock puppet investigation on me. You can add in a separate investigation for me being canvassed, no doubt there is secret evidence of that too, perhaps with even more crystal balls being utilized. Otherwise, please strike these comments and stop making any accusations (insinuated or otherwise) about me. Thank you. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

1. It is true, and one user I have accused was indeed involved with sockpupets. You behaved similarly, so it's logical to also suspect you.

2. I see, but my question is - are you adding every article to your watchlist after you see my edit on it?

3. ToBeFree decided that the first user to remove my edit will justify my block. It's just so happened to be you, but because of the timing and our previous encounters, I thought that you did it specifically to keep me banned after seeing his message.

4. I did and I keep my promise, but now people want to frame me as if I have blackmailed you to confess that you opposed the block, so I must naturally explain the situation. Maybe you should've indeed just posted a message yourself instead of asking to diff our discussion. Gigman (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You behaved similarly, so it's logical to also suspect you.

Stop saying this without evidence. You have posted zero diffs showing my "similar" behavior.

I see, but my question is - are you adding every article to your watchlist after you see my edit on it?

No, I add pages to my watchlist when I am interested in them, as I just showed I was in this topic area long before we interacted.

ToBeFree decided that the first user to remove my edit will justify my block. It's just so happened to be you, but because of the ttiming and our previous encounters, I thought that you did it specifically to keep me banned after seeing his message.

Again, my edit was before he "decided" that, so it is obviously unrelated.

I did and I keep my promise

You did not. You posted that you have evidence, which is absolutely accusing me of being a potential sock. And now again you say I engaged in similar behavior. I am again requesting that you post this "evidence" or strike your comments.

but now people want to frame me as if I have blackmailed you to confess that you opposed the block

I don't know about blackmail, but it was certainly a quid pro quo for your request that I post here. In any case, defending against this does not require you to falsely claim that you have secret evidence showing I am a potential sock puppet. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Similar behaviour in this case means you being on his side and you supposedly following me. Which of course can be just coincidences but still. Perhaps "plenty of evidence" was the wrong phrasing on my side like the "topic ban". Should've said "plenty of reasons".

If you want me to find your exact diffs, it will automatically mean i'm investigating you, and you asked me not to (and i'm not in the mood myself tbh). Gigman (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

So your "similar behavior" is voting a way you disagree with on an RFC and "supposedly" following you. Supposedly according to who? As far as I can tell, we've had three interactions since then, one of which you initiated by accusing me of being canvassed, which you also posted no evidence for.

If you want me to find your exact diffs, it will automatically mean i'm investigating you, and you asked me not to

My request was not to waste admin time. As I said hours ago, given that you are incapable of following what we agreed on, I am now requesting that you make an investigation. So, yes, post the diffs.

i'm not in the mood myself tbh How convenient. You do seem to be in the mood for continually insinuating that I might be a sock though. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Supposedly according to me. I see you in discussions I partipitate in, I see your comments under topics I start, I see you reverting my edits on some of the pages. You should agree this looks rather weird.

You sure seem to be in the mood to insinuate how I'm still insinuating you being a sock, after the investigation system principle was explained to you by a different admin. Total vibe change from yesterday.

I can launch an investigation into you if you want, but certainly not in the nearest future. Gigman (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please launch the investigation. And until you do, stop saying anything about me and sock puppetry. Not "plenty of evidence", not "suspicion list", not "logical reasons to suspect", all of which you posted after you were warned this was harassment. I do not want to hear anything at all until this is posted. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I've literally just explained to you what I meant by "evidence" and you still hold your line...

Harassment is publically accusing users to be socks, and I don't do that anymore. It's not a harrasment to suspect users of being "odd". Gigman (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The 20:00 message was a pretty fine end to this conversation; I'm also fine with Glebushko0703 having a final word after that but it should be done now. The 20:00 request is reasonable and matches what I had written at 07:56, so we've reached a point where the discussion really ends in a circle. In the hope of not upsetting people with this decision, I'll delete further replies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Been reading this discussion 'here' & at LordCollaboration's talkpage. In future, please use WP:outdents'. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

How could I forget that some people use Wikipedia with a fixed-width design and/or on anything else than a wide 4k screen. But the solution for that is obviously changing the setting and getting a larger screen! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

About rollback

I would like to renew rollback rights since today is December 29. Manualbadeditfix (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Manualbadeditfix, nice to meet you again! How was the trial, did you encounter any difficult situations, was anyone unhappy about a rollback, how did you deal with it? Mind sharing one or two examples of situations where having rollback was useful and/or how you would like to use it in the future? Or perhaps of a situation where you intentionally didn't rollback with a default summary because it wouldn't have been okay to do so (WP:ROLLBACKUSE). Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

1. My rollback trial helped me with reverting a lot.
2. I had a difficult situation when an IP continued vandalizing a draft and their own talk page. Despite AIV reports, no administrator blocked the IP for a long time. I had to follow the three-revert rule, which was challenging. I was also caught in a content dispute.
3. The same IP was unhappy about a rollback and reverted what rollbacks I made.
4. I used rollback as a useful option to quickly revert blatant vandalism without having to go through the confirmation seen when using the undo option. I also used rollback as a way to revert multiple vandalism edits while no rollbackers used it to revert each edit one by one.
5. I would like to use rollback to continue quickly reverting vandalism and to handle incidents such as personal information and threats of physical harm.
6. I used other edit summaries when using rollback during cases of good faith edits and unsourced content in BLPs.

Manualbadeditfix (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

Oh, I found the draft. Draft:SPRUNKI (2025 film), right? That's one of the rare cases where WP:3RRNO #4 applied, so while there was little point in not waiting for an administrator to deal with the situation, ChildrenWillListen didn't violate the three-revert rule there either. That's okay.

Theoretically, neither personal information nor threats of physical harm are listed as exceptions at WP:3RRNO, nor explicitly as reasons for rollbacking at WP:ROLLBACKUSE. However, as the "reason for reverting is absolutely clear" in these cases, and as drawing attention to the publication of personal information with an edit summary needs to be avoided, these are fine examples.

Regarding other edit summaries when dealing with good faith edits and unsourced content: Perfect.

 Done! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)