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.}

Page protection

Can I kindly ask for another intervention on Caucasus for page protection or maybe some other approach? After your previous protection expired, the same user is now reinstating controversial content even while discussion is not close to being settled and specific concerns (WP:SANDWICH, WP:OR, WP:EPAI)) are not being taken seriously. Seems like single purpose disruptive account and I'm not sure how else to deal with it. Sorry to trouble you. LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hm. Hello LeontinaVarlamonva, done. Thanks for the notification and for stopping to revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello @ToBeFree, I would like to get your clarification / advice regarding your verdict in this report: User:BreadAndHumus_reported_by_User:Piccco_(Result:_Warned_user(s)). During the ongoing report Accusations_of_neo-Nazism, BreadAndHummus, made some claims that, I believe, misrepresent your answer. Obviously, twisting an admin's verdict is a clear WP:BADFAITH tactic, however, I would prefer to hear from you directly, rather than (mis?)interpret your answer myself.

In the edit-war report, BreadAndHumus asked: And what exactly is the purpose of "Times user has been reverted until today:" and "Total edits in article" stated above? Is there any rule that forbids an editor from being reverted 7 times in 7 days or any rule that limits the total number of edits an editor can make?

To which I replied: The number of daily reverts, combined with the total engagement, in a certain high-visibility article is relevant as it verifies the daily disruption caused...

And then you closed saying: To answer BreadAndHumus's question about which rules forbid their behavior, WP:OWN comes to mind and edit warring is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule.

In my view (diff), your answer refers to BreadAndHumus's behaviour confirming that their edits were, indeed, disruptive (and they would still be, even if they hadn't violated the 3RR). Still, BreadAndHumus implies that you took their side and that your comment was directed to us (diff), meaning that we (the editors who reinstated the article's stable version) were disruptive, which in my opinion is an illogical deduction and fundamentally misrepserents your view.

Generally, i believe that, throughout the current report, the user spews baseless conspiratorial WP:ASPERSIONS (see diff and diff) and unreadable walls of text, in order to create confusion to any admin would try to review it. They did not adress the reason behind the report, and continue to subtly make the same implications. How should one even deal with aspersions like this? Responding again makes the case even more unreadable.

I apologize for the long text, but your clarification would be highly valuable. Best Piccco (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Piccco, thank you very much for the notification! You are right, that was a singular they directed at BreadAndHumus to explain to BreadAndHumus why BreadAndHumus's behavior was disruptive. I might have a closer look at the rest of the issues later, but I have sent that clarification to the ANI thread directly so there is no further arguing based on incorrect interpretations by BreadAndHumus about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I felt like I was losing my mind in this discussion. Piccco (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Clarification

Thank you for your clarification but what exactly "WP:OWN comes to mind" in the phrase: "To answer BreadAndHumus's question about which rules forbid their behavior, WP:OWN comes to mind". Are you saying that WP:OWN applies to me? That I exhibit WP:OWN behavior? BreadAndHumus (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello BreadAndHumus, you did, yes. The number of reverts indicates a form of gatekeeping with you personally deciding what gets into the article and what doesn't. This can sometimes be okay but is often a sign of someone (to avoid ambiguity, such as you) treating an article a bit too strongly as a personal garden where other people are only welcome as long as these other people don't attempt to join the gardening process other than exactly the way you like it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question, but Piccco listed his reverts on me, not my reverts. What kind of logic is this? Piccco does the reverts and WP:OWN applies to me? I’m just asking you to understand my sanity. If you made a mistake and thought that the reverts were done by me, that’s fine. No hard feelings. I’m grateful that I was not sanctioned. Just clarify it please, and all is good. BreadAndHumus (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The report format wasn't ideal; clear examples of you reverting others' reverts of your additions are , , and .

You decide what is in the article; others disagreeing get reverted. That's prohibited ownership-asserting behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. It will help me improve. Thank you for clarifying. BreadAndHumus (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)