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, 6, 7

@ToBeFree Hello, sorry to bother you again. Could you please take a look at Talk:Phuket Gazette?

The article may need page protection from non-extended confirmed users. A vandalism-prone user has repeatedly reverted sourced content without engaging in content-based discussion. Despite multiple attempts to discuss the sources and material, they have declined to do so.

Instead, their comments focus on personal allegations against several long-standing editors, accusing them of involvement in visa-related scams in Thailand, without providing any evidence or addressing the article’s sources or content. They should have commented on the sources or the content, but instead their only comment was that “the editors are scammers from a visa center.”

Thank you very much for your time and help. Hteiktinhein (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hteiktinhein, please request actions on central noticeboards instead of my (or any specific administrator's) talk page. It sounds as if WP:ANEW, WP:RFPP and WP:ANI may be relevant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi there - when you protect a page from a request at RFPP, it'd be appreciated if you can note on the RFPP page that it was done - I marked Gordyene as not done as only part of the article fell under WP:GS/KURD (not having noted yet the earlier Kurd-related disruption in other portions of the article, to be fair) only to notice you had already ECR'd it earlier when adding other protection notes to the GS page. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Bushranger, oh! Sorry, I had seen that request and forgot to mark it as done. I came from WP:ANEW though! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(and yes, as only parts of the article relate to the area and this was just in response to disruption, it's limited to a year. So I agree with declining to do so indefinitely.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page has a ctop warning, and the user who was blocked today was consistently adding content related to Kurds to the article. As @The Bushranger stated, while the article itself doesn't fall into this GS, the disruptive edits always focused on it. Thank you for protecting the page. Kajmer05 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that talk page notice lacked |section=yes ([5]). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]