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.

My WP:RFP/EC

Hey ToBeFree,

I hope you don't mind if I continue the discussion on your talk page. I feel it has ventured a little bit away from the clerical and into the personal, plus I feel there's a bit more space to expand on certain things here.

The purpose of my continuing this on your talk page isn't so much to change the decision as it is to address some of the concerns on my end with your replies. To provide clarification, seek clarification and to see if we can at least have some mutual understanding, regardless of if we end up agreeing on certain points. Nevertheless, here and there, I'll make some points of a clerical nature.

It's a bit long, so I've made sections for ease of reading. On a similar note: while I'll, of course, try to avoid any misunderstandings, due to it being a rather long comment I might not be able to achieve this, so I hope I can count on a generous intepretation from your side.

You made some good points in your reply, but I feel that I failed to get across what I was trying to say. I'll quote the relevant parts as I reply to them.

The Main Motiviation of the Request

My request made no secret of my main motivation for submitting the request. I put it front and center in no uncertain terms at the beginning of my request:

Mainly asking to be able to continue to reply on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Cahill after it received a much needed ECP[…]
— User:ConcurrentState 02:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The context here, which I perhaps should've included in the request itself (although it remains questionable if it would've mattered at all, with the way RFP/ECs are currently handled, but that's perhaps a topic more suitable in a policy discussion), is that this is an AfD pertaining to an article that has been overrun with sockpuppetry and other shenanigans.

I was part of the initial efforts to deal with those shenanigans, I initiated efforts to get the involvement of the rest of the community, I participated in the SPI that followed, and in the AfD in question. I was even subject to, whatever this was on my talk page, which I believe you supressed.

All of that is to say that I don't think it is unreasonable for me to participate in the AfD in question. Especially considering the fact that people made comments that directly relate to my contributions to the discussion.

Because the shenanigans continued even on the AfD, @Vanamonde93 put ECP on the AfD. To be clear: I don't fault them for that. In fact, I welcome it because I also think it was much needed to curb the disruptiveness of the person/people involved, to maintain the integrity of the discussion, and I can't think of a lesser way in which to achieve all that considering WP:SEMI and WP:PCPP didn't do much to curb the disruptions on the article of topic in that AfD.

This did put me in a little of a bind, though, because I don't have 30/500 so I am not able to reply to comments addressed at me or my comments in the AfD, and it causes a bit of the privilege issues the ECP guidelines talk about:

nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes
— WP:ECP

Initially I didn't think that it was that big of a deal, because we have WP:ER for that, so I created one. But it turns out that people don't dare to touch it and as a result, it's been collecting dust, which isn't exactly desirable in a rather dynamic and short-lived process such as AfD.

I can only presume @Some1 (and perhaps others) noticed this, because they soon after suggested I should request EC, and while I didn't have high hopes, I nevertheless put in my request, as you know, under the adage that it can't hurt to ask.

While all of this context wasn't provided in the request itself, the main motivation was provided. Nevertheless, at no point in your replies did you acknowledge this main motivation, nor did you address it.

The Matter of the Vanishing and the Return

Your initial reply starts off focusing on the vanishing, suggesting that this is the most important motivation for your decision.

Hello ConcurrentState, if you really mean "vanished" as described at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, I'm afraid that should ideally be undone as you have returned to editing.
— User:ToBeFree 18:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The real problem, however, is that the matter of "to undo, or to not undo" seems to be an entirely separate matter that, to my knowledge anyways, has no bearing on granting EC, nor am I sure if that matter merits discussion in public on WP:RFP/EC.

The consequence of doing so and in the manner which you did, while I'm sure is unintended, makes it seem to the rest of the community that I'm doing something inappropriate, if only because of your standing within the community as a member of ArbCom.

This seems an especially harsh consequence, considering I went out of my way to disclose my return to ArbCom via WP:EMAIL with ample context specifically to avoid situations like this. This is also, in part, why I mentioned my disclosure in the request to begin with, and I think a reply to my email would've been the most opportune way of addressing the matter of undoing the vanishing if that matter was of paramount import to you.

Still, I can't help but wonder how important it really is to you and the rest of ArbCom when, as of this writing, I haven't even received so much as an acknowledgment of my disclosure via email, much less an attempt to broach the subject.

In your follow-up reply, you bring up a pretty good point about me mentioning the vanishing in my request:

Hello ConcurrentState, I've since had a look at the disclosure, but I can only address what is publicly written here on this page. In response to the public description of a vanishing that should probably be undone, I stated that the vanishing should probably be undone. It was you who brought up the topic as an argument for receiving a permission, and it seems legitimate to respond with at least a short clarification that vanishing is not really meant for this purpose
— User:ToBeFree 0:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, part of the reason for me mentioning it in the first place was to avoid issues such as those described above. However, another reason for me mentioning it is because the the WP:RFP/EC process pretty much solicits information like that, because it is made clear that EC requests are almost always guaranteed to be a WP:SNOW unless a different account is part of the equation:

Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied.
— WP:RFP/EC

And a lesser reason was to refer to a history of good behavior.

Keep in mind, that this was a relatively minor part of the request itself, I didn't make it part of the main argument nor link it to the lesser translation argument. It was a separate clause, detached from the main arguments, at the end of the request, to convey a piece of information of lesser importance as you can see (emphasis mine):

Mainly asking to be able to continue to reply on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Cahill after it received a much needed ECP and to use the Content Translation tool to translate articles from nlwiki. It goes without saying that I wouldn't abuse it if I were to be granted the right. Alternatively, a temporary right would also be useful. I'm a reborn Wikipedian and have disclosed my prior vanished account to ArbCom. The old account was in good standing on both enwiki(11 edits) and nlwiki(~800 edits).
— User:ConcurrentState 02:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Still, while yes, I brought it up for the three reasons mentioned above, I don't think it merits going over the vanishing policy. Even setting aside the way it looks and my motivations for mentioning it in the first place, as I touched upon above, given the minor role it played in the request and the lack of follow-through on your end (I will touch upon further a bit later), I don't see what it adds to the RFP/EC conversation.

In your follow-up reply, you continue with:

I personally am not granting the permission because of the concerns I described above – and I (think I) have to explain this instead of simply saying "Not done". I understand that the explanation is easily perceived as biting, and that a small amount of not assuming good faith is part of it.
— User:ToBeFree 0:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the part about having to explain decisions was meant to relate back to the matter of the vanishing, but if it was, I don't see how the two are related. Your comments don't seem to indicate that the vanishing policy motivated your decision other than starting off your decision with an emphasis on the policy. Rather your motivation seems to focus on the matter of me mentioning the translation tool.

Nevertheless, the whole matter of the vanishing is left in a weird place. You bring up the policy with the optical consequences I described above, and you further reiterate your interpretation of the policy in the follow-up reply, but there is no follow-through, even after explicitly inviting you to follow through:

Still, since you brought it up, I'm not opposed to undoing it and merging the two accounts, since it would eliminate some of the issues I've so far encountered. Perhaps we could even roll my name change request into it as well and get it all done in one fell swoop.
— User:ConcurrentState 19:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You said you could only address what was publicly written on the page. Why not address it in a reply to my disclosure email, or address the disclosure itself via email, for that matter?

Respectfully, you a rather big deal out of needing to undo the vanishing, but then you leave me hanging. I haven't heard from ArbCom in general about my disclosure, and I haven't heard from you directly about what needs to be done and how to get it done. As it stands now, you essentially publicly gave me the Mark of Cain and then went on with your merry way.

Again, I don't think this was necessarily intended, or there is bad faith at play here, but I'm a bit puzzled by this all because it's hard to gauge your motivation behind it all.

Apparently it's important enough to draw attention to it in public, but not important enough to actually resolve the matter?

Lastly, before moving onto the matter of the language tool and me using it as an argument, I think it might be important to express my views on the policy and clarify my wishes.

I genuinely don't have a good grasp on the policy of undoing a vanishing. Both enwiki and metawiki only make very vague, non-committed, minor reference to undoing vanishings.

enwiki states:

If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. […] If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked.
— WP:RTV

Words like "likely" and "may" don't clearly indicate a certain outcome. Also, does the second clause quoted above only apply when an editor is discovered? What if they, like I did, disclose it? Honestly, the overall tone in WP:RTV seems to be talking about people who essentially "fake vanish" only to immediately return with a different account, because some of the language sounds weird when applied to situations in which editors have left years prior with the intent of not returning, like I have.

metawiki isn't much clearer on this:

Even if vanish is intended to be permanent, it may still be reversed.
— meta:RTV

It's the same vague "may."

None of this explains when it will be reversed. Clearly it's not in all cases otherwise stronger language would've been used, no?

Also who is the final arbiter of this. Is it enwiki because I'm here now with a new account with enwiki as my home wiki? Is it metawiki because they do global renames and everything tied to global accounts or is nlwiki, which is the home wiki of the old vanished account?

In my disclosure to ArbCom, prior to the RFP/EC, I expressed the wish to essentially do a clean start because the old vanished account was made when I was underage and I'm fairly sure I've inadvertently outed myself back in the day, plus I'm a different person now that lives entirely elsewhere in the world. So, all in all, at the time, I preferred the prospect of starting clean and with privacy.

Since then, however, I've noticed the downsides of starting new, down to other editors being, rightfully, confused about my experience and knowledge of wiki policies. Which is why in the RFP/EC I indicated that I'm also open to reversing the vanish and merging stuff.

It seems that I have no clear preference either way, and I need to defer to you and others at ArbCom on what needs to happen and how the policies regarding this work. That said, I would appreciate it if could be actively involved in whatever needs to be done, so that I end up in a situation that I can work with and can ask help with setting everything up in the right way if needed.

The Matter of the Content Translation Tool Argument

As stated above, in my initial request and my follow-up reply, my main motivation for the request wasn't the Content Translation tool. I've never made that a secret and I've in fact admitted to not knowing of its existence prior to seeing the other request while I was submitting my request.

Your follow-up reply suggests that I was unable to convey my main concern regarding your remarks.

Specifically, you said:

As I have expected and you have confirmed, the idea of integrating the Content Translation tool into the permission request came from LuCKY's request and wasn't the reason why you opened this page. Even if this resulted in actual interest in also using the Content Translation tool, it clearly wasn't the reason for your request, so I decided not to take it into account too much.
— User:ToBeFree 0:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Which seems to serve as a form of "gotcha" while entirely ignoring the context.

While you're right in that it wasn't the initial reason for opening the request, you never acknowledged the actual main reason I stated in my request, much less addressed it, not even in the follow-up reply. The result of this is that it feels like you're making it look like I'm doing something inappropriate, despite having clearly stated my main motivation. A similar effect to that of the whole part about vanishing.

Furthermore, I don't think it's unreasonable to realize during my request that EC comes with additional rights I can put to good use and to add that to my request. Especially considering the fact that it is a lesser known right tied to a lesser known tool.

Brushing that aside by "not tak[ing] it into account too much," as you stated, seems especially unwarranted considering that how I learn about a tool is less important than how I intend to use it and end up using it.

I've learned nearly 98% of what I know on Wikipedia by seeing others do it, even as I write this to you, I've looked up certain templates and policies and how they've been applied. That doesn't change the legitimacy of the use of those tools.

To insist that the only thing that matters is what my intention was before I opened the page is to insist I submit multiple requests simultaneously, one for each motivation up until the moment I opened the page.

What doesn't help either is questioning my commitment to using the tool to then completely ignore the parts in my follow-up that explain my commitment.

While I appreciate the advice on translating without the tool, it should go without saying that comparing the source with the translation side-by-side is invaluable because it allows you to keep an eye on the context of different paragraphs to make sure the translation makes sense. I'm currently doing this off-wiki by juggling windows side by side, so it's not the end of the world, but it's yet another hurdle on a long list of hurdles I've encountered since my return that grinds away at my motivation.

Some Final Thoughts

It wasn't lost on me that the whole vanishing matter is kind of like Schrödinger's vanishing. If one were to insist the vanishing needs to be reversed, then it would make sense to take into account the global edits of that account, if however one were to insist that only the edits on enwiki are relevant, then it doesn't make sense to insist the treatment of my current account and the vanished account as one and the same.

I know you only focused on the enwiki contributions in your replies, but it wasn't entirely clear to me why you disregarded the (old) nlwiki edits, especially when seemingly feeling rather strongly about reversing the vanishing. Both for the purpose of translation as well as for the purposes of the RFP/EC (adding up to 500), considering you did take into account global edits when deciding on other editors' requests.

I appreciate you clarifying what you are and aren't able to see as part of ArbCom, sadly it was my hope that you could, to further assess my commitment of using the translation tool for good purposes.

As alluded to elsewhere, since my return to Wikipedia, I've encountered a long list of hurdles that are grinding away at my motivation because they hinder my ability to contribute and participate as an editor.

The biggest one that affects every single move I make is the hard block policy on iCloud Private Relay, which prevents me from editing anything, including my own talk page, and it makes using scripts cumbersome. I'm not eligible for an IPBE, and wiki doesn't always properly detect when I've turned it off, so it's actively hindering me at every step along the way. But I'm working up proposals on both enwiki and metawiki to see if we might be able to mitigate some of that for me and other editors.

Other hurdles are, of course, the special protections and the lack of access to the Content Translation tool, but I'm not too concerned about those. At my pace, even while hampered by the hard block, 30/500 isn't too far away.

Your comments made me feel like I was being put on the spot and as if you're making it look like I'm doing something inappropriate, so it added to those hurdles.

I hope I was able to convey my respect towards you regardless of everything else, and I respectfully ask, in light of all of the above, that you strike out or reword some of your comments.

With kind regards, ConcurrentState (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello ConcurrentState, a novel with subsections is a bit too much in response to not granting extended confirmation to a user with about 100 enwiki edits. I believe a significant part of your concerns must be due to me granting it to someone else before and thus feeling treated inequally. Does this appropriately summarize the actual issue? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Point taken on the size of the comment.

But no, the actual issue has nothing to do with not being granted the EC nor is it about a feeling of being treated unequally/about others being granted EC.

Still, if it's a summary you seek I can give you the main bullet points:

• You failed to address my main motivation
• In doing so, you made it look like I'm doing something inappropriate
• You've brought up matters that weren't appropriate to bring up there, and in a way that wasn't appropriate
• You disregarded my motivation to use the Content Translation tool with shaky logic
• There's incongruence between your concerns for the vanished account and the lack of follow-through, as well as between the concerns for the vanished account and your decision making
• I'm trying to provide and seek clarification
• I'm trying to share how it affects me as an editor and how it fits in my general experience as an editor
• I'm trying to seek redress
• I'm trying to open a communication channel

For nuance and further information I refer you to the novel. ConcurrentState (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

ConcurrentState, I understand your concerns, but when declining a permission, I need to provide a proper explanation of why I'm not granting the permission, and I believe I have done so. I could alternatively just have said "Not done" and we would now be arguing about why I didn't provide an explanation. I will not reword or strikethrough my explanations at WP:PERM/EC.

I didn't "bring up" any "matters"; I addressed exactly what you wrote in your request. If you don't want the things in your request to be addressed, don't mention them in the public request.

I'd point to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill, but you have already found this page. There is no need to grant the extended-confirmed permission for continuing to participate in this specific deletion discussion. I believe requiring 500 contributions before granting extended confirmation is generally a good idea and the current case is not an exception. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I came across your conversations and felt the need to comment. Regarding my own application; As I stated in my application, I am an experienced user with around 16,000 contributions globally. For this reason, I find it natural that my application has been concluded positively. Before my application, I translated a page manually instead of using a content translator. Although it took a little effort to adjust the viki links, it didn't make much of a difference. If my application was unsuccessful, I would still continue to translate manually, this is not the end of the world. 500 edits is not a difficult number to reach. LuCKY ^talk 14:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hemşerım, you truly don't have to explain yourself.

My qualms with @ToBeFree have nothing to do with you or your request, and I'm very sorry you were made to feel that you had to comment or explain yourself.

Your request should've been granted 100% and I'm glad it did, and you're right in that 500 edits isn't a big deal. Like I said in my big comment above, at my pace 30/500 isn't that far away.

Again, sorry you got dragged into this. ConcurrentState (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my concerns, but there's very little I can add without repeating myself.

I've tried to convey my issue in the follow-up reply in a casual manner, in the novel in an elaborate manner, and in the bullet points in a summarized manner. Still, despite those efforts, it seems I've not only failed to convey my concerns in an adequate way, but I've not even been able to set up a constructive communication channel with you.

Since I tried bringing up the issue at hand, my goals and expectations have shifted from initially seeking agreement to just seeking understanding, to just wanting to be heard. It's clear to me now that I'm not going to be able to achieve any goal, no matter where they shift.

It's tempting to blame the recipient, but perhaps I'm just extraordinarily bad at conveying the message. Whatever the case, whether unintended or not, this is starting to venture into WP:IDHT territories.

Worse still, it's starting to affect other editors, which crosses a hard line for me.

As such, I'm going to respectfully disengage.

If something needs to be done about the vanished account, then I suggest you and the rest of ArbCom figure out what it is that needs to be done and for someone from ArbCom, preferably someone uninvolved, to reach out to me in a reply to my disclosure email so that we can get it done.

I'll leave you with the suggestion that should you ever find yourself in a situation again where you end up writing "y is a bit too much in response to x," to perhaps stop for a second and consider if there might be a different x

Respectfully, ConcurrentState (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

94.114.243.248 and CryptoDiscussion

Hi, I hesitate to bring this minor issue to ANI, so I wonder if you could help. Over the past few weeks, the IP 94.114.243.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently adding to cryptography-related articles external links to programs that they say are "commented by Google AI". There is no indication of who wrote the program (AI or human) or what part of the comments are AI-written (the comments are in both English and German). All their edits have been reverted by 5 or 6 different editors, and they have multiple warnings on their talk page about these edits. Yesterday they created an account CryptoDiscussion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and have continued adding these links. I left a message on the account's talk page explaining that Wikipedia:RSPCHATGPT says such links should not be added. They have ignored that message as they have ignored all other messages left for them, and have continued re-adding these links. Could you help to get their attention? Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi CodeTalker, thanks for the notification! Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! CodeTalker (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-10

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The Special:Book page (as well as the associated "Create a book" functionality) provided by the old Collection extension has been removed from all Wikisource wikis, as it was broken. This does not affect the ability to download normal books, which is provided by the Wikisource extension. [1]
• Wikitech now uses the next-generation Parsoid wikitext parser by default to generate all pages in the Talk namespace. Report any problems on the Known Issues discussion page. You can use the ParserMigration extension to control the use of Parsoid; see the ParserMigration help documentation for more details.
• Maintenance on etherpad is completed. If you encounter any issues, please indicate in this ticket.
• Gadgets allow interface admins to create custom features with CSS and JavaScript. The Gadget and Gadget_definition namespaces and gadgets-definition-edit user right were reserved for an experiment in 2015, but were never used. These were visible on Special:Search and Special:ListGroupRights. The unused namespaces and user rights are now removed. No pages are moved, and no changes need to be made. [2]
• A usability improvement to the "Add a citation" in Wikipedia workflow has been made, the insert button was moved to the popup header. [3]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 March. It will be on all wikis from 7 March (calendar). [4][5]

Future changes

• All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 20. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [6]
• The HTML markup of headings and section edit links will be changed later this year to improve accessibility. See Heading HTML changes for details. The new markup will be the same as in the new Parsoid wikitext parser. You can test your gadget or stylesheet with the new markup if you add ?useparsoid=1 to your URL (more info) or turn on Parsoid read views in your user options (more info).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Update on a ANEW update

In reference to this report, it seems that the IPs that were involved in edit warring were actually 1 person who is evading his ban for months now. See [7]. Interestingly, the IP user himself confirmed his personal feud with Abhishek0831996 (the reported editor).[8] Perhaps this block evader's edits shall surface again on ANEW anytime soon so kindly keep this in mind. Thanks Ratnahastin (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ratnahastin, thank you very much for the notification, but could you please report this at WP:SPI? I currently can't investigate this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes I had already reported to SPI [9] as one of the link I provided above confirms. This message was mere information, not exactly a request for any action. Thanks Ratnahastin (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you very much, Ratnahastin. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Portal: Current Events

Hello @ToBeFree: - You previously issued a block to editor GWA88 for engaging in edit-warring. I recently come across GWA88 on Portal:Current Events, where it appears that they are engaging in similar disruptive behavior.

I removed an edit added by GWA88 citing WP:SENSATIONAL, which was restored without discussion, based on personal conjecture. I started a disccusion, with GWA88 responding by reiterating previous conjecture without basis in policy. When asked for a policy-based rationale, no further replies were made.

After almost a week, as no other editors had made any comments either, I removed the entry again. GWA88 replied to my notification, claiming I was "wikilawyering". GWA88 then canvassed editors through mass pinging, claiming that the talk page was obscure, despite being watched by over 6,000 other editors.

Concurrently, I removed a second entry, citing WP:ROUTINE. The entry was again restored by GWA88 without discussion. Upon being asked to follow WP:BRD and self-revert the restoration, their response seemed to miss the point of WP:BRD.

After reviewing GWA88's revert log, it becomes apparent that there is a recurring pattern of reversions without engaging in discussion. A significant portion of this activity involves contentious topics. As this conduct is clearly not in line with acceptable behavior, could you please look into this and take appropriate measures? 33ABGirl (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)