User talk:Tamzin

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 5 as User talk:Tamzin/Archive/4 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

{{ds/aware}}

I don't like the idea of getting pings over someone putting a box on my page that says I did nothing wrong while vaguely insinuating that I did, so I'm just parking these here instead. {{ds/aware|ap|gg|a-i|blp|mos|tt|ipa}} Update 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC): You know what, screw it. Keeping track of which to list is more trouble than it's worth, and I don't need any one-hit immunity. I'm aware of all of them. Even the weird ones like the Shakespeare authorship question or Waldorf education. If anything, I'm more likely to think something is a DS topic when it isn't, than vice versa.

NOTE TO MOBILE EDITORS

Due to some annoying design decisions by the Wikimedia Foundation, you cannot see the notice at the top of this page, which also is supposed to show up when you edit this page. Its contents are:

Please be civil. That's a policy here, but I reserve the right to enforce it more strictly on my talkpage than others may elsewhere. Please indent posts in an accessible manner. I am not a "sir". While I don't take offense to others calling me that honorific, we are all equals here on Wikipedia, and I would much prefer you just call me my name: Tamzin. Please do not post anything containing auto-playing media, including animated gifs. If writing in a language other than English, please provide an English translation if you are able to. Please do not invite the wrath of the evil eye. Apply {{User:Tamzin/kinehore}} liberally.

WikiLove

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar from Joshua Jonathan

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Absolutely deserved for uncovering the Swaminarayan-sockfarm. A lot of work is waiting, but you did great! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you so much, Joshua Jonathan. It's funny, it started just as this weird feeling based on the RfD !votes... We get weird !vote patterns at RfD all the time, usually when a number of non-regulars wander in and don't understand how the forum actually works. The weird thing, though, was that they did seem to get the basic premise of RfD, but were still !voting for a conclusion that made no sense. But still I didn't have that high an index of suspicion, and also I was rather busy, and was this closed to dropping it. But instead, kind of on a whim, I asked Blablubbs to take a look. I was only suspicious about the four who'd !voted consecutively, and I was frankly surprised when Blablubbs turned up evidence tying not just all four of them, but Apollo too. I had no previous exposure to this topic area, and didn't know any of the players, so I really though I'd just be dealing with a few SPAs, not someone with 2,000 edits and PCR. I think it was also Blablubbs who first suggested Moksha as part of it, as we looked at other players in the topic area. Then I found the comment from the Swami sock accusing them, and there went the next few hours of my life, digging through a history that grew more and more horrifying as the behavioral similarities mounted. I've really never seen something that elaborate fly under the radar, except reading early (pre-2010) ArbCom cases. It's a shame we'll likely never know exactly how many people were behind these six accounts. My personal hypothesis is that it was six people who knew each other off-wiki, with one, perhaps Moksha, ghost-writing some talk-page comments for the others. (If true, that would mean they were done in by that one person's micromanagement, which is a funny thought.) But that's just my guess. So thanks again for the barnstar. :) I kind of hope I never get this particular barnstar again, though, at least not for the same kind of thing. Mass gaslighting is a demoralizing thing to work against. I'm happy to go back to just dealing with vandals and spammers. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat from EpicPupper

Thanks for giving me that SPI idea, and for the guidance that came with it!

🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Replies

TIL I can win a goat just by being too lazy to write an SPI myself. ;) Guess I should have been careful what I wished for in the above section when I said I only wanted to deal with normal socks. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC) @EpicPupper: Oh, and, I forgot to say: You did great! -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Again, thanks so much :) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 03:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence from L235

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi Tamzin, I'm Kevin. Thank you for your diligence on the Moksha88 SPI; had it been a less thorough report, it may have been overlooked or neglected, especially after the negative CU results. We're lucky to have had you looking into this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply

@L235: Thank you—for this barnstar and for your own diligence. I was worried that someone would look at this and see it as too complicated, and as involving blocks that were too likely to cause drama, and just punt on it and leave the whole topic area still in disarray. As someone who's always favored making lots of small improvements over a small number of big ones, it's rare that I get the chance to look at something and say, "Here's a way that I really, noticeably, made the encyclopedia better through one single effort." Which I hope I'll be able to say here, depending on how the POV cleanup goes. As I said to JJ above, I just hope that I don't run into another case like this for a while—both because I (perhaps naïvely) hope to never see anything so egregious, but also for the sake of my sanity, and the sake of whichever CU is crazy enough to take on that case. :) So again, thanks for all you've done here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Civility Barnstar from Sdkb & Writ Keeper

	The Civility Barnstar
	Without getting into the messy question of whether or not the other editor's professed ignorance is plausible, I think it's clear your calm, non-judgmental efforts to explain why their comments were offensive have been helpful and appreciated by all. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I definitely second this. Your essay is excellent, as well. You're doing the (proverbial) Lord's work, and with much more patience than I. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Further kind words

​​Thank you both. <3 While I don't think of myself as an incivil person, I'm not sure this is one I ever expected to get. As someone who both likes to assume good faith and has a low tolerance for bigotry, I always see this kind of thing as a win-win: If the assumption of good faith was correct, then we avert more hurt feelings; and if it doesn't, then people can't plead ignorance the next time. I'm glad that this appears to have been the former. "Lord's work" is a compliment I'll happily (flatteredly) accept, be it meant proverbially or literally. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC) I see great minds think alike. I wasn't aware of the incident that led to the creation of your essay prior to today, and had only created mine in response to seeing "he/she" a lot around here. I must say you articulate it a lot better than I do, though! Patient Zerotalk 04:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC) I'd just like to thank you as well for your well written essay. I hope this essay helps inform future editors and, in doing so, reduce the instances of misgendering. Isabelle 🔔 02:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence from Marvelcanon1

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you Tamzin for your diligence in dealing with my issue Marvelcanon1 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"SPU" from Writ Keeper, who forgot that the word "SPY" exists

		..D
		Writ Keeper has given you a potato! Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew!

Context: Previous two threads had been titled "SPA" and "SPI"

A cup of Tea!

	A cup of Noon Chai
	TheAafi invites you to have a cup of Pink Tea with him as he feels you are one of the hardworking Wikipedians; and Pink tea would help you relieve yourself. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If this was possibble! I admire your works on the platform, and mostly those at the RMT. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

@TheAafi: Well pink has always been my color, and I woke up at 2 PM yesterday and am trying to power through till like 6 PM today, so yes, I'll gladly accept. I hope it's strongly caffeinated. :) I enjoy seeing you around as well. sips. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC) @TheAafi: Update: I have drunk a medium Dunkin' "chai" in honor of this gift. I am guessing tastes nothing like the drink in the image, as Dunkin' beverages have a weird ability to all taste the same by the time you're done drinking them, no matter what you ordered. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) I feel honoured imho. The chai (tea) I offered is salty in nature. 😌 ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Ah. This definitely was not salty. More sickly-sweet. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Swiftly cleaning up information in ongoing events and making sure that everything stays factual and also just being a great person -- 𝒥𝒶𝒹𝑒 (Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂] 00:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

mishloach manot for you!

Happy purim, Tamzin! I thought I'd try and throw together a mishloach manot basket to give out :) feel free to pass it around or make your own basket, if that's your thing—if not, cheers and chag Purim sameach! in jewish enby siblinghood, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

תודה רבה, Claudia! A pleasantly synchronistic treat to find immediately after submitting my first foray into your neck of the woods.

Reply
Despite my well-known affinity for Queen Esther (Esther 8:6 tattoo pic forthcoming on Commons once I've got the enby and agender colors touched up), I've never done much for Purim. Don't really know why that is, just how it's sorted out. But I'll never say no to something tasty! Chag sameach to you too, friend. i/j/nb/s -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

An assortment of barnstars from Floquenbeam, zzuuzz, Vami_IV, I dream of horses, and others

Further information: User talk:Tamzin/Archive/3 (RfA special edition)

WikiHate

Vandalism warning from Nosebagbear and whoever whomever whoever most recently edited this page

Hello, I'm Golden. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nosebagbear (talk)

​Block me if you must, but you'll never catch my socks!

(They're very cozy slipper-socks with like a stylized dog face on the top and then little fake ears on the side. Very cozy socks. AND YOU'LL NEVER CATCH THEM!) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, people from the future. Confused why your name shows up here? See here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Meta-WikiHate against my mother of all people

Re above: by itself, from whomever is correct, if that's the end of the expression, placing 'whomever' in the objective case, due to its function as the object of the preposition from. But, in the longer expression From who[m]ever edited this page, who[m]ever is not the object of the preposition from; rather, the entire noun phrase who[m]ever edited this page is the object, and that is an independent clause, containing a subject (who[m]ever), a transitive verb (edited ), and an object (the noun phrase, this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in the subjective case (a.k.a., nominative case), thus it must be whoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, like they/them, then it would be whoever edited them). Upshot for this expression: it must be from whoever edited this page. See the first example here, for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I prefer "whomsoever." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you dug into the page history to find that I did originally have it right. My lovely mother, whom I will stress is a published author and editor and taught me everything I know about writing, concedes defeat on the matter, Mathglot. However, for questioning the woman whom brought me into the world, you've still earned a place in the WikiHate section, congratulations or not. (Also thank you. :) ) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Outrageous abuse of power by Tamzin

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Tamzin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Opposition to human rights, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Outrageous, Tamzin. I demand you resign your patrollership. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinned discussions

Some of these discussions are collapsed because no one's commented in a while. They're still open discussions, though! If you want to reply to something, just remove the {{cot}}/{{cob}} tags around the discussion.

Editing principles (Topic: Neurodivergence)

Initially ran 4 May 2021 to 7 May 2021. Featuring Vaticidalprophet and Elli. Collapsed but still open to new comments.

Just noticed the new one. It's an interesting one, and a matter I've thought about how to phrase. I suspect myself a lot of neurotypes odd in the general population are the default baseline on Wikipedia, but there's only so many ways you can say it without sounding like you're insulting someone (and I freely admit I can be less careful and more flippant with my word choice than you often are, certainly when I'm in the ANI peanut gallery). I've noticed there's an unfortunate correlation between editors who freely disclose neurodivergence and editors with significant competence issues, and I've wondered what consequences it has for the project as a whole in terms of interacting with people who are more clearly not working on neurotypical principles than our already high average -- though, of course, many disclosed neurodivergent editors are substantial and obvious assets. Vaticidalprophet 04:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Yeah, something I'd been thinking about for a while, and felt spurred to put into words after seeing an exchange on your talk page actually. As to correlations, there's a bias there, right? In terms of who wants/needs to disclose. If an editor quietly chugs along writing articles, doing gnomish work, etc., without ever getting into any conflict, then why would they want to disclose something that could subject them to ridicule or at least passive discrimination? (And there's editors who rack up 100k+ edits while barely touching anything metapedian.) Whereas some editors realistically have no choice: If they don't disclose, they may be treated as intentionally disruptive; whereas, if they do, they might at least "downgrade" that perception to CIR. Just like a person who is mild-to-moderately hard of hearing may be able to not disclose this fact in a workplace if they don't want, whereas a deaf person really has no choice in most contexts. I'm active in a number of spaces online that are majority-neurodivergent. (I'll claim the label "neurodivergent" without comment on the label "autistic".) They all have to deal with the issue that, in such spaces, people are more likely to be sensitive, and also more likely to offend by accident. In the context of a collaborative project one can broaden this to a greater likelihood of people stepping on one another's toes. What strikes me is that these spaces' main advantage in contrast to Wikipedia is that they're honest with themselves about what's going on. Conduct decisions are made with the presumption that the participants' motives may not have been what you'd infer of a neurotypical person. Hence my new personal rule. That said, it's not like there's easy answers here. Several years ago an openly autistic admin was desysopped for discussing violence against another editor in a way that was intended, by all accounts, to come off as mean but not as a true threat. It was an unambiguously desysoppable offense (although I'll admit I didn't take that view at the time). And yet, I think a lot of neurodivergent people can relate to making a joke that made perfect sense in their own head but came off very differently to their audience. (To be clear, I don't think that they raised autism as a defense, and I don't want to imply that their misconduct was "because autism", but at least the general circumstance is one that neurodivergent people tend to find ourselves in.) What's the solution there? I don't know. There's an overlap between statements that are reasonably insta-indeffable or desysoppable, and ones that a neurodivergent person can make without intending it to read that way. And if that's where we're starting from, how do we handle all the more minor cases? So that's why I added this personal rule. Feel free to make any wording changes that preserve the meaning, if you think they'll make it less prone to misinterpretation, since it's just such a difficult thing to discuss, walking a tightrope between what could be perceived as being anti-accountability and what could be perceived as ableism. But regarding what you said about ANI: I think the best thing we can do about these topics is discuss them when there's no immediate reason to discuss them. If everyone's thinking about a specific editor when they discuss the topic, that will color their opinions. P.S., not to come across as talking down to someone only a few years my junior, but a lesson I learned in my first wiki-life, reflected in the second paragraph in my userpage: The best thing you can do for your wiki-mental-health is avoid any page where the word "indef" gets thrown around. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 05:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC) To open in response to your last comment: well, a lot of people are scared of ANI, but I'm scared of political articles, and I'm sure I've seen you edit those. 😛 We all see different hotspots. I'm definitely familiar with what you say about knowing it, or how different it is to be in an environment where people openly discuss that moderation and norms are shaped by neurodivergence, as opposed to the weirdly "everyone knows but no one knows" Wikipedia environment. I'm unsure if it's possible at all on Wikipedia to change the latter to the former, simply because we (in the societal sense) currently conceptualise neurodivergence as a product of diagnosis. Even for things like autism (and I concur, with hangups and caveats that are all frankly well outside the scope of what I aspire to discuss onwiki, with the "will claim neurodivergent, will pass without comment on autistic" identification here) where there's a relatively robust self-advocacy community, it's still in some ways reasonably and in some ways not treated as offensive to tag someone as autistic who hasn't been tagged as such in a medical context, and plenty of things I'd very much like to have robust self-advocacy communities outside of medicalization do not. There's an age factor here, in that a lot of the core editor (and especially content-writer) base is from age cohorts where a lot of what's diagnosed now wasn't, for better or worse. As for Ironholds, well. I'm familiar from the "read about it after the fact" perspective with that case, for whatever that counts as familiarity. I don't think the behaviour I read was at all appropriate, and I think it's reasonable to expect an admin of any neurotype to know that. Simultaneously, the thing that really interests me about that case (using 'case' here in the broader sense rather than the ArbCom term of art) is the "seven RfAs" bit, and seven RfAs is characteristically autistic to me, for both good and ill. It shines through as both the way one can ascend past a lot of the mental limitations allistic people self-ascribe, and work tirelessly towards the pursuit of a goal, and simultaneously the way one can just not know when to quit. To circle back around to ANI, I've been thinking about it because it actually did come up there lately, and in part due to a thread I'd created; the subject of that thread was...outed? as autistic by linking to a diff he'd written at a much smaller venue by a well-meaning party partway through, and he clearly wasn't happy at all about it. At the same time, in a different thread, another disclosed autistic editor suggested the reason a third party might have been acting in the problematic way that got him brought there was that he could be autistic, and the readers of that thread interpreted it as a personal attack on the subject. The discussion is worthwhile reading (and my comments in it reference a third, related case where an editor was clearly in severe distress over being a thread subject in a way that nearly went very poorly indeed, and where some of the reopening comments trying to address it were imo atrociously worded). Vaticidalprophet 05:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Yeah, it's actually those ANI threads—including a remark you made about how many/most editors at least have subclinical "symptoms" of autism (scare quotes mine)—that first got me thinking about this topic. Just because I never comment there doesn't mean I don't stay up to date on the latest drama. I agree that there's a cultural/generational issue here, and such things will always be a challenge for an international, intergenerational project. A norm like tone-tagging (beyond the common "/s") could do a world of good, but I think it'll be at least a decade till you could get a majority of editors on board with something like that. (Not like, making it mandatory by any means; just instilling it as a norm.) The other day, in the course of saying something about Wikipedia, I explained to my partner what deletionism and inclusionism are, and she'd said something like, "I hate to tell you, but I think I'm an inclusionist." Today, shortly after sending my last message here, something suddenly hit me, and I said to her, "Wait, what makes you think I'm a deletionist?" To which she said, "Because you need everything to be just a certain way." I'm guessing you know the kind of "certain way" she meant. And it occurred to me that you can pretty easily predict how drama-heavy a particular area of the wiki is going to be by just how strongly people need it to be a certain way. There's a reason I refuse to touch any edit that has anything to do with categories. There's a reason that the major topic area with the worst-written articles is, by far, math. And you can call the tendencies that beget this "neurodivergent", or just... "particular"... And those particularities carry over to administration too. Ironically, I would argue that the very resistance to change things in a more overtly neurodivergent-embracing direction is itself of tendencies that, in many cases, fall into what I'll again call "either neurodivergent or just very particular." ANI being a mess of massive walls of text is the way that Makes Sense, so that must never change, no matter how flawed it is. For Wikipedia to stop being hostile to newcomers, we'd have to restructure some things that are The Way They Should Be, so I guess it'll keep being hostile. And so on and so forth. As to Ironholds, to be clear, I didn't mean to make it seem like a "wink wink nudge nudge" thing which case I was referring to; rather, I was trying to use it as a general example since, as I said, once you get into any one specific case that complicates the analysis. (Mx. Ironholds is, incidentally, a researcher and commentator on autism issues these days, though they're no longer active here. And yes, that's an off-wiki identity still linked on their userpage, before anyone says anything.) Back to your point about the ANI threads: It'd be nice to have an essay as a companion to WP:CIR (maybe WP:Idiosyncratic editors) that discussed how best to handle competency issues in ENDOJVP editors but stopped short of saying "All of these editors are probably autistic." I know you followed the somewhat tragic tale of the now-3X'd SoyokoAnis (talk · contribs). I'm certainly not going to try to diagnose her with anything, but in the threads about her there was clearly a lot of dog-whistling and subtext, as there is basically anytime CIR comes up with an adult native English speaker, because, yeah, CIR is usually about language/culture, age, or neurodivergence. Perhaps it would be nice in such contexts to have a diplomatically-worded essay to point to that nutshells to: "Some editors interact with the world in very different ways than others. Maybe this is for neurological reasons, or maybe it's just how they are." and then... And then what? Then a conclusion drawn from that, but I'm not yet sure what that conclusion should be. (And not that in her particular case there would have been a different outcome necessarily; just that it allows for more honest discussion.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Ah, Soyoko. I admit to less sympathy to her than you or Elli (who was my main point of contact with her saga), but that's not to say a lack of it. She didn't scan to me as adult (and, as someone who first edited as a young child, I suspect some of our current policies about not disclosing the ages of young editors might actually be counterproductive -- but that's another issue...), with the consequence I was mostly viewing her CIR issues through the lens of youth rather than neurodivergence, but I can't exactly say the latter was never a consideration. It did stand out to me that the RfA candidate she insisted on nominating was a disclosed autistic editor. I know of two essays currently about specific neurodivergences. I can't pretend to like either of them. I'd happily MfD WP:AUTIST, where its every word strikes me as Making Things Worse, if I thought that proposal had a chance in hell (I've already spent my nominating-bad-essays-and-failing points for the month). There might be something useful in its bones, though; it apparently hit someone's sense of "this is me" enough for WP:OCD to be based on it. Vaticidalprophet 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Ah yes, thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion (hope I'm not barging in too much). Wikipedia is... an interesting environment, I guess, for neurodivergent people. Given, well, the way the site works, I think it's likely to attract them (what normal person spends their free time writing an encyclopedia for free?) Most people find the whole concept entirely foreign. As for Soyoko, yeah, I think it's likely a combination of some type of neurodivergence and youth - neither of which are incompatible with Wikipedia, but if someone with them makes wrong assumptions about how the site works... it's not gonna be fun. Hell, looking at my first edits, I'm surprised I didn't get many warnings, given how terrible they were. I dunno. This is kinda a ramble because I'm not sure exactly what I should say here? I guess, "be kind" has mostly worked for me - and is what, I think, worked for getting me on the right track. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC) @Elli: I do think that Wikipedia's generally moving in the right direction on all of this. As I said to SoyokoAnis, I really doubt she would have been extended as much AGF back when I made this account (2012), which is one thing that made her situation extra frustrating. Then again, one still sees cases where if CIR issues aren't resolved after the first or second attempt at intervention, someone just hits the block button. I recently saw one of my least favorite things, a "Sock of someone or other" block. They're used as an excuse to say "We can label this intentional disruption rather than CIR because they're probably socking." Somewhere between begging the question and a thought-terminating cliché. But still, overall, progress, yeah. (Also thanks for dropping in to this chat. ) @Vaticidalprophet (but also still @Elli): I don't know if I'd agree with deleting WP:AUTIST, but I do think it misses the point. Partly because it's hard to describe the "honeypot" effect without resorting to stereotype. Partly because it's hard to describe autism itself without resorting to stereotype. But the essay manages to cut too much slack to neurodivergent editors while still not giving neurotypical editors particularly good advice about how to deal with us; and the advice it does give isn't very helpful when most neurodivergent editors are not open about it (if they even know themselves), and applying the label speculatively is, as you've said, a thorny issue. So, seriously, if you (either of you) would be interested in working on an essay with me, I think there's room for improvement in the neurodivergence essay category. I'm interested in the idea of something that isn't explicitly about autism, but rather, without outright saying so, says "We're all at least kinda autistic here". I'm thinking of a title like WP:Needing things to be a certain way. In my mind, the essay would start out with something like, If you edit Wikipedia, that means you see a need for things to be a certain way. Quite likely, your first edit was noticing that something was incomplete or incorrect and fixing it. But why does it matter that the world know that the Third Amendment has been incorporated against the states in the Second Circuit but nowhere else? Why does it matter whether "Ljubljana" is spelled correctly in an article about baseball? Because things need to be right. All of us, to some extent, see things this way. And then go on to discuss how this applies to things like WP:CIR, WP:CIV, WP:TE, WP:POINT, and WP:RGW. And then give actual useful tips that can be applied to all editors, not just ones with autism userboxen. Stuff like: Accept that Wikipedians are more likely than most people to have strong opinions on "little things" like punctuation or reference style. To you, they might be small, but if those things are important to the way things need to be for someone, they can become very personal. Someone's view of how a conversation should work may not be the same as your view, or indeed, as the view of society at large. In particular, certain editors may value straightforwardness as a virtue significantly more than others, often based on a feeling that conversations are simply meant to work that way. This should not excuse incivility, but understanding this may help to reach constructive solutions in conflicts. It can be very hard for Wikipedians to let go of something they are passionate about, even when consensus is against them. If this leads to someone becoming disruptive on a topic, then even as you nudge their focus elsewhere you should be respectful of their passion. And whoever comes up with a way to gently keep editors from returning to these passion topics will have averted the indefblocks of countless mostly-constructive contributors. Wouldn't be the whole list, just the first three things that come to mind. In neurodivergent terms these are "sameness"/general particularities, communication issues, and special interests, but framed generally it's just a lot of the stuff we see all the time on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 06:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Awful joke (Topic: Adminship)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You're not funny, but here's something that's definitely not a laughing matter - why aren't you an admin yet? Once you're back, I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd nominate you ~TNT ^(talk) 19:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I agree entirely with TNT. Definitely something you should be considering :) firefly ( t · c ) 19:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No doubt about that. When I've seen your talk page comments I have always been really impressed and feel like someone with those skills would fit perfectly in the role of an admin. --Trialpears (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

​I already am an admin, on the very prestigious testwiki and testwikidatawiki, thank you very much! No, but in seriousness, thanks for the kind words, y'all. I had this conversation with Tavix and Ritchie333 a few years ago, and think I was right to not take either up on his offer then; I don't think I was quite ready. Despite having been around a while, I feel like I only came to really understand Wikipedia in the past year. And, to paraphrase John Wick, people keep asking if I'm ready to be an admin, and yeah, I'm starting to think I'm ready.

As I've said before, I consider my account's rename last October to be a soft clean start (redlinking to remind myself to write that wrote it!), not because I necessarily had anything to be ashamed of, but just because I didn't really like the person I'd been. My philosophy with this has been that I wouldn't speak much of past accomplishments, and in return would ask people not hold past failings against me. (The failings may well be more numerous in my mind than in reality, but either way.) I couldn't really ask the latter of RfA voters, so I'd be willing to run at least partly on my pre-User:Tamzin record, but primarily I'd want to run on my work in this incarnation. Work I'm very proud of, but which I feel is a bit incomplete, and a bit short-lived.

Excluding this mental health leave, which is thankfully coming to a close (which is good because I've been itching to fire up AWB and fix the 170ish articles that mislabel a Swedish source (ISO 639:sv) as being in Northern Sami (ISO 639:se)), I've been continuously active since January, so I think I'd want till at least this coming January to build up a bit more of a recent track record, as well as show my commitment to maintaining a reasonable activity level, especially given that I was almost completely inactive from March of 2018 through September of 2020. I'd also want to wait till I've done a bit more quality content work and gotten 'zinbot approved at least for the task I've already coded for it and hopefully for a few others. But I'm reasonably confident that I can get all that done by January.

On that note:

1. In general, yes. I'd like to run, shooting for January.
2. To the person who recently emailed me offering a nomination, if you're reading this: I'll get back to you presently about what that might look like (a.k.a. try to talk you out of it ;) ).
3. @Firefly: We all know you're overdue for adminship yourself, and you've been active again about as long as I have. Wanna flight it up? Can flip a coin on who goes first, or run at the same time.
4. I'm always very worried about echo chambers and groupthink, so if anyone's reading this and thinks they'd be landing on the oppose side of things or would be on the fence, please feel free to let me know your concerns, here or by email, so I can either adjust my parameters of what I should do before running, or at least draft a good response to a potential tough question.
5. @TheresNoTime: I'm the funniest person you've ever met, and you know it. :P

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m immensely flattered that you think I’m qualified to run! I would definitely be up for an ‘RfA flight’ as and when the time came - assuming I could find anyone silly enough to nominate me and they thought I was ready around the same time. :) I absolutely echo point 4 of your post and invite anyone with concerns about my eventual suitability to let me know. Mostly though I’m just glad you’re up for running! firefly ( t · c ) 18:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You already know you could get a nom today =) --Trialpears (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears, I do, and for that I am greatly appreciative :) firefly ( t · c ) 20:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a buzzkill but I'm still bearing the scars of my own RfA and that was six years ago this week. It was brutal. My advice is

• a) make sure that those people who believe in you are aware that you are having an RfA...some people don't look at their Watchlists and may not even know that an RfA is happening;
• b) start an RfA at a time when you feel strong and can be present 100%. You shouldn't respond to every criticism but you'd be surprised how often an editor starts an RfA and suddenly becomes busy and disappears from Wikipedia for a few days. Those are never successful. You have to be present;
• c) Stick with it through the entire week. There is generally a burst of support at the beginning and then the opposers show up after a few days. I think there are some editors who would be admins right now but they withdrew their nomination after the critics began speaking up. But unless it's an unexpected tidalwave of "No"s, the close votes can go back and forth and it could turn in your favor if you hang in there and don't throw in the towel.

Just a few ideas for anyone considering an RfA. Right now, it looks like you have a lot of support! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I can see that that sweet-talking hasn't done any good, so let me try a different approach. I'm getting tired of having to do stuff for you. If I nominated you, would you actually refuse the nomination? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

* ears perk up at RoySmith's idea * Vanamonde (Talk) 00:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a fairly non-trivial COI here, but can you please hurry the heck up and run before the end of 2021 Tamzin? This has been a slow year, Eostrix notwithstanding, and we could do with another Blablubbs-esque RfA.... ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 01:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

EFM

Template:Known issue Thanks for your work at EFFP. You might want to consider making a request for EFM access at WP:EFN so you can edit the filters directly to implement fixes yourself (if you're comfortable implementing them). Or just run for adminship, which would include EFM access. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

+1 Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader—EFM is not included in adminship, but administrators can self-assign this right. (WP:EFM) — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not really related, so taking it to your talk page (Topic: Gendered pronouns)

Initially ran 26 October 2021 to 30 October 2021. Featuring Hijiri88, Ezlev, Aerin17, and BDD. Collapsed but still open to new comments.

Arrgh... it's been a while since I thought about gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources (ref) in relation to contemporary Japanese popular media personalities. English-language "reliable sources" focusing on Japanese popular culture tend to be sub-par (one of the sources initially cited in relation to Utada's gender identity proactively used singular they without any request from Utada to do as much, and also seemed to be conflating non-binary gender identity with same-sex sexual orientation...), and Japanese-language sources are extremely unlikely to make as big a deal out of it as English ones because of how the Japanese language works. Japanese doesn't use pronouns anywhere nearly as much English, because content that is implied from context (as the referents of pronouns almost always are) is usually omitted: the Japanese for "I ate it" isn't "Watashi-wa sore-o tabeta" (literally "I it ate") but rather "Tabeta yo" ("Ate sentence-terminal-particle") and "I met her" isn't "Watashi-wa kanojo-ni atta" but rather "Atta yo"; "I ate it" or "She ate it" in Japanese would only specify the subject if it were in response to the question "Who ate it?", and even then "she" would necessitate a separate indication of who the girl/woman in question is, such as pointing, which is rude. (Needless to say, the Japanese version of Utada's website doesn't use any pronouns where the English version uses "she" and "her".) I actually recently found out that both the "Japanese words for he and she" that I learned in my beginner Japanese class were recent coinages based on English/French, the "word for he" being a redefined word classical Japanese pronoun that originally referred a person or thing that is far away from both the speaker and the listener, and the "word for she" being the same word, in the classical Japanese equivalent of the genitive case, with the noun "woman" attached after it. This kind of development would not be possible, needless to say, if personal pronouns were as entrenched in the actual Japanese language that people spoke every day as they are in English or French. I suspect this is why "pronouns" aren't really a thing on Japanese Twitter (etc.) like they are in America and Europe: it's my impression that a not-insignificant percentage of American pop-stars have their pronouns listed in their Twitter profile, and this percentage probably skyrockets when one only counts those pop-stars who have stated a gender identity other than cisgender male or female, but with Japanese pop-stars (even those who also hold American citizenship and live in Europe, and "occasionally tweet in English"), the former percentage is probably close to zero and the latter may be higher, but as far as I'm aware Utada is the most prominent case at the moment, and... So yeah, it looks like the Utada case is going to be solved by a consensus of editors based on the fact that sources affiliated with the subject use a particular pronoun pattern, but if more Japanese (etc.) pop stars, voice actors/actresses, live action actors/actresses, video game producers, etc. with anglophone fan-bases and extensive coverage in English-language blogs and "reliable sources" that are little more reliable than blogs, start coming out as non-binary, gender-fluid, etc., a discussion might need to be had about how the MOS passage you quoted applies to such cases. A huge hullabaloo was made about a decade back about whether personal websites (or websites maintained by publicists) should take precedence over academic publications with regard to MOS:JAPAN#Modern names (with reference to whether long vowels should be marked), which I think kinda missed the point there (if we take URLs or copyright information on Japanese-language websites into account, we get people named "Sakaguchi Jun'ichirō" being identified as "Sakaguti Junitiro" just because the webmaster created the URL based primarily on how Japanese text is input on a keyboard). But I suspect that, when it comes to gender identity, personal/official websites should definitely take precedence over third-party sources that often pass for "reliable" in pop culture articles, no matter how many such sources there are or how recent they are compared to what we assume to be the latest update on the personal/official website. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC) BTW, I should thank you for your positive input on the Utada page! :D Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC) @Hijiri88: I think we often run into a problem of overly generalizing Anglosphere gender norms to other cultures. What you're saying about Japanese language and culture is very interesting; I don't speak any Japanese, but I speak French, and even in that language relatively close to English, many English-centric assumptions prove false. The whole relationship between social gender and grammatical gender is different when applying any noun to yourself contains an implicit statement of your gender. (It's also, incidentally, the most frustrating part of transitioning when you don't speak the language often enough to form new habits. I've gotten weird looks once or twice for calling myself américain rather than américaine.) One can see a bit of that disconnect going on at Talk:Claude Cahun, where people are struggling with how to apply the subject's gender expression in French in the 1950s to an English-language article in 2021. I'm not sure there's an easy solution to it, though, because this problem runs deeper than just Wikipedia. For instance, without taking a side on the issue of the term Latinx, I'll observe that a lot of the debate in the U.S. about it seems to come from people who are not familiar without how gender works in Spanish. A lot of English-speakers tend to expect our concept of "my pronouns are ______" to extend to languages where gender is more complex than just third-person pronouns and the occasional "son"/"daughter" situation. And that includes RS—many of which, as you allude to, barely even understand the concept of non-binary gender to begin with. So we get screwed over by the RS, and then by people who read them and then make good-faith changes based on their bad takes. The complicated pronoun situation I've been most involved in has been that of James Barry (surgeon). There's no language angle there, but nonetheless his article's been done a great disservice by the surfeit of articles in somewhat reliable sources saying "You'll never believe what this empowering lesbian, forced to crossdress, accomplished" or "You'll never believe what this pioneering trans man accomplished". Which gets us to the awkward sourcing question: Generally, someone's gender identity is the sort of thing we'd want very high-quality sources for. At the same time, we don't want to misgender someone just because major RS have been slow to pick up on something. Ellar Coltrane started taking they/them pronouns long after leaving the spotlight, and for over a month our article on them sourced their pronouns to their Instagram bio, till they got a brief write-up in a newspaper we could use instead. Given how many long-dormant BLP stubs we have (another rant for another time), there are plausible scenarios where a self-published source or suboptimal-quality source could be our only reference on someone's pronouns for decades. Not to mention people who are only mentioned in passing in articles. I've been in the news a few times in my life, mostly when I was very young. In the past I've been mentioned in mainspace, although I currently am not; but if someone were to re-add a mention of me, to get my name and pronouns right they'd have to cite like... a blog post I wrote when I came out, I guess? That's not exactly ideal, and would be weird to see alongside a cite to a major RS, but it's preferable to just getting people's pronouns wrong. At some point we're probably due for an RfC on when, if at all, it's acceptable to use they/them pronouns in cases of ambiguous gender. I don't really want to be the one to start that, though. :D Anyways, this is turning into a ramble, but thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts. (I designate this a talkpage-watcher-friendly thread, by the way; interested to know what others think.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Arrgh. Your James Barry example made me think of George Eliot and even more contemporary women writers who used male or "ambiguous" pseudonyms (or variations on their real names), such as D. C. Fontana. By the standards of some modern popular media, we should be calling them all transgender men or at least gender-fluid, except that we're lucky enough to have good documentation of the actual reasons for their hiding the fact that they were women. Ironically, the same is essentially true of a certain living author (who I won't name, but I think you can probably guess who she is), whose views on non-cisgender rights have turned out to be somewhat questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC) @Hijiri88: This is as much me thinking aloud as anything else, but I'm going to ping you so I don't feel like I'm talking to myself. :) (Not to say a response is unwelcome, by any means, just that this may not really be written like a response to your own points, and you could be forgiven for not having much to say in response.) Oh I'll also ping BDD—with the same caveat—since he expressed some interest in this topic at Talk:Claude Cahun. The way I see it, we have four categories of cases where pronouns aren't as simple as "just say what they want": Unknown identity, where the person's story does not involve participating in any gender-segregated activities. It was surprisingly hard to find a good example of this (since for most historical figures we can infer gender based on segregation), but after looking around in Category:Unidentified people I did find Italian Unabomber as an example—someone we have no interviews with, no profile of, etc. Known identity but unknown gender identity. For many articles we don't explicitly know someone's gender identity, but there's a general precedent that we take fem-presenting AFAB as presumptive evidence for she/her and masc-presenting AMAB as presumptive evidence for he/him. This is imperfect, but it's probably the least bad approach. Issues arise in three cases: Subject has indicated no gender presentation at all. E.g., picking another at random from that category, Neuroskeptic. Subject has presented in a way too inconsistent to draw any non-SYNTH inference from. E.g. my favorite example, Thomas(ine) Hall... I swear not just my favorite because Thomasine and Tamzin are variants of the same name. Subject's gender presentation differs from that associated with their gender assigned at birth, but they have made no statement regarding gender identity. There's tons of living people like this, but BLP forbids us from documenting it in most cases. It thus comes up more often with long-dead figures like James Barry. Known identity, but ambiguous or inconsistent gender identity. Ruby Rose, Sophie Xeon, Vi Hart, and Alexis Arquette all come to mind, as does Utada Hikaru—in each case a different kind of ambiguity or inconsistency. (Often, as in the cases of Rose and Arquette, this may be someone who is genderfluid, and it may well be that they see no ambiguity or inconsistency but the sources reporting on them did.) Known identity and gender identity, but it is unclear what pronouns should follow from that. Especially common in non-binary Westerners from before Stonewall who went on the record about their gender, like Claude Cahun or the Public Universal Friend. In #1, #2.1, and #2.2, I think it's really author's preference (à l'EngVar) whether to do they/them or avoid pronouns. I think readers understand the concept of the gender-ambiguous they, given that it predates the singular-personal-pronoun they by several centuries. The important thing is not defaulting to he/him or she/her based on stereotypes. On #2.3, I've made clear my view at the Barry RfC that MOS:GENDERID should apply there the same as anywhere else: Binary presentation should be met with the corresponding binary pronouns unless there's clear evidence that the person did not identify with that gender (or, for more modern subjects, that they did not want those pronouns). On #3, I think we should default to not changing pronouns unless the subject requests it, because anything else would be presumptive, and shouldn't "compromise" on they/them. Avoiding pronouns sometimes might be the least bad option; sometimes we also just have to figure, if this person really cared that much, they'd probably reach out and ask us to change it. For deceased subjects like Xeon and Arquette, all there really is to do is follow the final statement, at least as best we can manage (bit complicated in both cases). And on #4, I dunno, I'm not opposed to they/them pronouns for someone who explicitly eschewed gendered pronouns in their lifetime like the Public Universal Friend. But they're almost the exception that defines the rule. The vast majority of people covered under #4 did refer to themselves with gendered pronouns, and I think we need to follow people's final wishes even when we suspect they might have preferred some modern option. K, that was a lot. Respect to anyone who's read to the end of this. Responses welcome, but, as noted before, this was as much thinking aloud as anything else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Wow, Tamzin, if this is what comes out when you think aloud then you should think aloud as often as you feel the urge to. (When I do it, it doesn't end up nearly as... coherent.) I think the categories you've laid out here and your explanations of how you think they should be handled make a lot of sense – this is definitely something I want to come back to and read more closely when I have more time. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) I see your 2. and I immediately think of ancients of whom we know some details but nothing that makes their gender (or at least biological sex) clear. Hieda no Are and Junia (both long assumed male but now widely considered by specialists to be women who were misidentified as a result of linguistic ambiguity) are interesting cases, but there are others who don't even have names, such as "the X poet", where X is the name of some work of literature written, or likely written, anonymously. A number of authors of Japanese literary works are assumed, based on their content or style, to have been written by male authors (court nobles proficient in literary Chinese, Buddhist monks, etc.) or women (members of the literary salons serving this or that empress, or more often than not just Takasue's daughter), so I guess in English they can be referred to as "he" or "she" once these authorship theories have been elaborated upon. (Needless to say, this is quite unrelated to the distinction between biological sex and gender identity, which I believe was not widely recognized until recently. I'm pretty sure throughout most of human history biological sex was of interest for the purpose of carrying on family lineages and gender identity -- or, indeed, sexual orientation -- didn't enter into the equation.) As for 2.3, it'll be interesting to see, if Wikipedia lasts as long, how our little encyclopedia will deal with such cases once such subjects have passed on and BLP no longer applies. Probably have to have an RFC in each article. 😅 As for 3., I think that, as a general rule, the "traditional" pronouns/determiners may be best, unless and until they specifically state that they don't like it, since it can probably be safely assumed that in such cases no one will find this usage either awkward or hurtful. (There do seem to be people who, for their own reasons, think anyone with any of these gender identities "should" use specific pronouns, but I don't think they can be assumed to find it personally hurtful, I'm pretty sure such people are a negligible minority even within the LGBTQ+ rights community, and I suppose they will probably eventually be outright rejected by said community for advocating a position that runs completely counter to said community's goals, similar to those who believe anyone with a particular sexual orientation should disclose said orientation publicly to "create awareness", as though public awareness were anywhere near as important as the feelings of the individual[s] in question.) 4. strikes me as particularly ... well, outside my area of interest and expertise. Japanese poets before c.1880 referred to people as kore if they were "near" and kare if they were "far away", so the idea of pronoun preferences based on sex or gender would have been completely alien to them. Modern Japanese is a bit iffier since late 19th-century literati, in translating European literature (into what essentially amounted to a new, artificial literary language) took that word kore and used it to translate "this" (or "it"), kare to mean "he", "him", or "his" (Japanese uses postpositions to mark the subject, object, and possessive/genitive), and kano-onna (the genitive form of kare and the word for "woman", literally meaning "that woman") to mean "she", "her" or "hers". Since Japanese doesn't actually use pronouns very often, especially when speaking of people (it's quite rude... I think the same is true of English, at least because it implies you have not taken the effort to learn a person's name), this new Europeanized style was comfortably adopted into the standard Japanese written language, and consequently the spoken language, and now scarcely a century later Japanese gender-minorities are being told by non-Japanese-speaking netizens that they "should" use gender-neutral pronouns in English... "Ironic" might not be the word for it, but... Anyway, kochira-koso sorry for the long rant! ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Hello! You probably don't know me, but I watch your talk page and saw this interesting discussion, so I thought I might share my thoughts if you don't mind :) It seems to me that the hardest cases are the ones where the subjects are long deceased, and the issue is trying to translate their gender expression at the time they lived to how we might classify them today. The discussion goes something like, if this person were alive today, they might be considered a [something, e.g. trans man], so one the one hand that means we should refer to them with [e.g. he/him pronouns], but on the other hand, we shouldn't press terms upon them that they didn't use to refer to themself. Of the ones mentioned above, the ones that stand out to me are James Barry, Thomas(ine) Hall, and Claude Cahun. (The same problem applies to historical people whose sexual/romantic orientation was unclear, but it's easier to avoid making a statement one way or the other when you don't have to deal with pronouns.) Modern people, on the other hand, tend to declare what their preferences are for pronouns, and the question is just how to interpret that. For example, Vi Hart indicated that they have no preference and do not care which pronouns they are called by, and Rebecca Sugar stated clearly that she uses both she/her and they/them. It seems like these kinds of cases ought to be more straightforward, though evidently nothing is straightforward. Aerin17 (t • c) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Shoot, I forgot one! (This is an addendum to my own rant, not a reply to Aerin17, whose post I appreciated but don't think requires a reply; indentation is to visually distinguish my own comments from Aerin's.) Sometimes an author will self-identify as "a man", or "a woman", or "the mother/daughter/wife of Such-and-such". (I won't pretend there isn't a gender disparity in the examples selected here; there is, but that's just because unfortunately most of the relevant examples are women whose identities are only known in connection to their male relatives.) So we know their gender (insofar as, with the ancients, we usually have no choice but to assume gender aligned with biological sex) but practically nothing else. Given that, as far as I am aware, none of the languages Japanese between around 800 CE and around 1400 CE could have been familiar with had gender-based third-person pronouns (Chinese, like Japanese, nowadays has a fairly arbitrary distinction in the written language between "he", "she" and "it", but this seems to be recent, and Sanskrit -- which some of the Japanese Buddhist clergy may have had some limited awareness of... -- ... might distinguish the three?), I don't know if any of them would care if they knew that centuries after their death people were talking about them in a language distantly related to Sanskrit and using strange pronouns that classified them by their gender, but I think such questions, regardless of how interesting they might be for some folks with unusual hobbies might be, are probably not all that important as far as we are concerned, since all of them are also very much dead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the ping. I started writing a few comments, but ended up like a writer in a cartoon, constantly tossing drafts into the trash. I largely endorse your four-part division above. Surprisingly, I am more inclined to accept they/them for #4. It is possible, but unlikely IMO, that such people would reject they/them pronouns today. And ultimately, we have to make some assumptions about such people—the use of he/him and she/her very much included. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

toki! (Topic: Toki Pona)

mi lukin toki pona. epiku! QoopyQoopy (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@QoopyQoopy: pona a! sina sona ala sona e ma pona pi toki pona lon lipu Siko?

kin o sona e ni: tan lawa WP:ENGLISHPLEASE mi pana e sama toki Inli lon toki sina kepeken kipisi {{tooltip}}. sina ken ante a sama toki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant that I saw toki pona on your old signature and I thought it was cool :)

I am, by the way! Nice to see another toki pona speaker on Wikipedia. QoopyQoopy (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@QoopyQoopy: Ah. You dropped an "e", then. ;) Well cool, say hi on the server sometime. I'm wan Tansin—ken tonsi li ken jan there. Also, if you aren't aware of https://wikipesija.org, check that out! I'm not too active there atm, but it's a fun project, with a long-term goal of getting WMF backing. Which is a long shot, but would be really cool. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

RE: Would there be interest in a bot that makes a "watchlist" just for recently-edited pages?

OMG YES! El_C 14:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Watching my watchlist gets boring at some hours of the night. wizzito | say hello! 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@El C, TheresNoTime, and Wizzito: Well, currently item 1 on my big-project wiki to-do list is some content work (gasp! I know), and item 2 is the second round of 'zinbot automatic patrol circumstances, which I got consensus for months ago but still haven't run with, but this is item 3. If anyone else would like to take a stab at it (hint, TNT), what I'm thinking of is something like:

{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = <!-- Watch all pages linked from these pages, emulating Special:RecentChangesLinked for them. Separate by newline. --->
|source_user = <!-- Watch all pages edited by these users in provided timeframe. Separate by newline. -->
|user_days_back = <!-- How many days back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 7. -->
|user_edits_back = <!-- How many edits back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 200. -->
<!-- Either of `user_days_back` and `user_edits_back` can be set to None, as long as the other has a value -->
|namespace = <!-- Name or number of namespace(s) to watch. Use 0 for mainspace. Separate by commas. Default: All. Prefix with - to mean "everything but" -->
<!-- Days back, edits back, and namespace can be overridden per source page or source user, by appending a # and then `days=`, `edits=`, or `namespace=` to the entry. You can also use a `prefix=` parameter. -->
|always_watch = <!-- Will be watched even if not covered by the above parameters. E.g. Your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|never_watch = <!-- Will be ignored even if covered by the above parameters. E.g. your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|update_frequency = <!-- A number in minutes, or "auto". At "auto", the bot will update as frequently as possible, with the understanding that after each update you are moved to the back of the queue for updates, and the bot only edits once every 10 seconds. -->
}}

Thus mine might look like

{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log
               User:Tamzin/XfD log
               User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable <!-- Open TPERs -->
               Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/ <!-- Only watch active RfD subpages. -->
               User:Mz7/SPI case list <!-- Active SPIs -->
|source_user = Tamzin
               'zin is short for Tamzin
|user_days_back = 2
|user_edits_back = None
|namespace = -Category, File <!-- I don't really edit these namespaces -->
|always_watch = User:Tamzin
|never_watch = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
|update_frequency = auto
}}

That would render as {{Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the {{{update_frequency}}} value.

Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"hint, TNT"—thank you but no -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what do I do? You're not my mom/s! El_C 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Subtropical Highland Climate

I just wanted to thank you for your review on the Subtropical Highland Climate section of the Oceanic Climate page. It's certainly appreciated! G. Capo (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@G. Capo: This has been sitting on my talkpage for almost 6 months because I keep forgetting to reply to it. Just to clarify, I didn't review the target section, just the redirect pointing to it, which you created in 2009 and which got re-flagged for new page review after it was blanked by a vandal and then restored. The reason I'd left this up is, when you left this message, I'd noticed the current target was actually suboptimal... But I see that, in my long procrastination, an IP fixed that, and then just yesterday someone fixed it further. Well, just goes to show, on a project with no deadline, if you put something off long enough, someone else will do it for you. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for moving several of the surname articles that I started from xxxxxx (surname) to xxxxxx, thus making them the primary article. Much appreciated. Edwardx (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Edwardx: Thank you! This is going to be one of my go-to gnomish tasks for a while—not surname articles specifically, but more generally pages in Quarry 63493, "Possible non-CONCISE titles on enwiki", which looks for cases where the primary landing page for a term is a redirect to something other than a DAB page or list containing the page title as a substring. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, many such pages are valid, and with name articles I'm skipping past any that redirect to a specific person (even if—between you, me, and 132 talkpage watchers—I think that some editors are a bit overzealous in declaring people the primary topic for a mononymous forename or surname). You're welcome to help out with the query if you'd like, as is anyone else; maybe work from the back, or skip a few thousand rows, to avoid collisions. (N.B.: I may revise and re-run the query later if I run into a streak where I'm getting a lot of false positives for a specific scenario, like I did with DAB pages and lists.) Either way, again, thanks for the acknowledgment. Been doing other stuff the past few weeks, but when I get back to this query you'll probably see me lighting up your watchlist again. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

may memories be for a blessing

Thank you for articles such as List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, for your bot and SPI work, for "find me removing things more often than adding them", for paying tribute on your user page in channeled anger, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2728 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda. This means a lot to me, especially given the circumstances and given the date (see userpage footnote 2). After years of, as you allude to, mostly working on improving articles by trimming them down, it's been a very eye-opening experience to build a full-length article from the ground up. I'm glad I got to have this experience with a list that's meaningful to me, although the downside of that is being very aware of how quickly this list grows. A small fraction of those killed overall, but as Masaq' Hub says in Look to Windward, "It's always one hundred percent for the individual concerned". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this means a lot to me, - see my talk today and 23 March. We have one name in common even, and named victims stand for all the unnamed. - "Stand and sing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Oksana Shvets was on my mind when I suggested at Talk:List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War that perhaps a List of artists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War is in order—also to list Artem Datsyshyn, Brent Renaud, Mantas Kvedaravičius, and perhaps Maks Levin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

yes - just working on Maks Levin --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

May songs

Congratulation to being an admin now, and I'll come to bother you when I need (to not bother El C, 28bytes and Floq all the time). I didn't quite know where to place this, - too many images at the bottom, but move if you think here isn't good. I have the quirky DYK today, which is rare, and I don't quite know why music for peace was deemed quirky. Enjoy thinking of dolphins! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

serious memories today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Today, I point you at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, - perhaps add that to what you watch. I mentioned my own mistake under DYK, and nothing happens. We talk about replacing two letters by one, no more ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Happy? If I messed something up, it's your fault. :P -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

more memories today, performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK - and more May pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

today more pics, and should this woman have an article? - or only her sons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

today Melody (not by me), and more pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --

DYK for List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War

On 17 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Russian airstrike on Kyiv TV Tower (video featured) killed Yevhenii Sakun, one of at least 14 civilian journalists killed in the line of duty during the Russo-Ukrainian War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013)

On 11 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fane Lozman took Riviera Beach to the US Supreme Court once in 2013 for seizing his floating home and again in 2018 for arresting him, and won both times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018)

On 11 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fane Lozman took Riviera Beach to the US Supreme Court once in 2013 for seizing his floating home and again in 2018 for arresting him, and won both times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

for your many contributions and edits! 🐦DrWho42👻 23:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@DrWho42: Thanks! :) (Working through talkpage backlog!) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For reverting my accidental buffalo stampede. Thanks for ameliorating the utter state of confusion.Pharos (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pharos: Okay, I think that's the last of them reined in, aside from a few buffalo who had already been taken in by loving adopters like Jeremyb. One hopes these buffalo do not feel buffaloed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for being able to make tough blocks, while maintaining the humility to not do so lightly. —Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A mini-project to improve rcat templates

If you're ever looking for a new project, I think it would be very helpful for categorizing redirects if more redirect category templates could take a parameter to define the term the redirect is a modifcation from, for use with redirects that are modifications of other redirects (i.e. are avoided double redirects) and can be used along with the {{R from avoided double redirect}} template. For example, {{R from alternative name}} allows one to put the more common name after a pipe (parameter 1) in cases where it is different from the title of the redirect target, or {{R from other capitalization}} allows one to indicate the form with other capitalization after two pipes because that template is coded differently. {{R from alternative spelling}} also takes a parameter after a single pipe. Rcats that don't seem to have this functionality include {{R from plural}}, {{R from singular}}, {{R from long name}}, {{R from ASCII-only}}, {{R from initialism}}, {{R from acronym}} and likely others. Should be fairly simple to modify the templates, but you seem far more suited for template editing than me! Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: That does seem like a good project. I've got a full plate of technical projects right now, but maybe 1234qwer1234qwer4 wants to take a stab? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Rosengarten Zu [sic] Worms

Could we not restore TPA? Get more words to compare with other socks' words? They're quite indignant at UTRS appeal #59591, you know. Have a whale of a time. Best --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I blocked without TPA since their response to their last block was to threaten to kill the blocking admin. But if you think they'll behave themself, I don't object you or anyone else reënabling. Courtesy ping JBW. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Deepfriedokra, and since Tamzin says she doesn't object, I have restored talk page access. (As far as I can recall, Tamzin, that's the first time I've seen ë used in English apart from in the word noël, though I may have seen it many times and just not remembered. I supppose coöperation, preëmpt, & zoölogy would make sense too, and no doubt quite a few more.) JBW (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Tamzin actually speaks English, as apart from the current ersatz patois masquerading as English. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: As far as I know, it's just me and MastCell who keep the diaeresis in English alive on the English Wikipedia. One of these days Condé Nast will buy the WMF, the New Yorker style guide will take over, and then I shall revel in diaereses and "Jr.,'s"es. And, Deepfriedokra, while I was indeed raised in a household where English, French, and dashes of Yiddish and Hebrew were blended together erratically (not even on the Creole side of my family, although owing some spiritual inspiration thereto perhaps), I think I owe this more to being a neurodivergent language geek (or, as some would say, "pretentious fuck"). Idk MastCell's excuse.

Anyways, yeah, let's see what they do with TPA. See my comments at the SPI: I'm skeptical that they're really Ajhenson, but Alpharts Tod's reaction to that block was so incredibly far beyond the pale that it kind of moots that IMO [AmEng "moot"]. But it might be good to wait for an answer from CU-land on how that block as an Ajhenson sock came to be; if we don't hear back from Callanecc in a few days, I'll {{rae}} it and ask someone else to take a look at their CU log for that day.

P.S. @Gerda Arendt: Since this is about the user Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk · contribs) and not the article Rosengarten zu Worms, I've restored the ungrammatical heading, but sicced it for you. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Spent too many formative years reading New Yorker articles, I guess. Besides, pretension is pretty much my brand. :P Glad to see someone else is keeping the cause alive. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

June songs

Thank you for improving articles in June, and your message to Mathsci! My song collection is especially rich, look, and the hall where I first heard DFD, Pierre Boulez and Murray Perahia. Do you find the baby deer in the meadow (last row)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

today: a song about getting through the night, after plenty of music over the weekend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Every time you leave me one of these messages, I mean to ask, and then forget to: Do you think Roger Tapping is notable? See obits from January; three backlinks from mainspace currently. He was the father of a highschool classmate, and was a very nice guy, and I gather from the news coverage at least a big deal locally; but I don't know enough about classical musician notability. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

clearly yes, with The Strad and The Telegraph - did you know that my fourth article was about an English viola player, and when he was on the Main page (within 10 minutes after nomination !) I received thanks for bringing a viola player there, and later was told that his widow was happy - good 2009 memories -- enjoy wandering! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For cleaning up the Junior disambiguation page. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 11:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: That's a very fancy barnstar for a few edits, but I'll take it! :) It's interesting how easily cruft accumulates on some DABs when it's not obvious spam (or, sometimes, even when it is). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

A messenger award for you!

		Messenger award
		Thank you for trying to get the message out there at DYK! Bruxton (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A personal message

Hi Tamzin,

I recently posted to Barkeep49 and noticed the discussion involving you and your RfA in the section user talk:Barkeep49#Quoted in the press. It reminded me that I had thought about posting a message to you after the RfA, but didn't get around to it.

I have a user account with a clear block log that I have been choosing not to use out of disillusionment with WP. As I watched your RfA develop, I debated logging in to my account to !vote in support of your candidacy as I was appalled at some of the behaviour that I witnessed. I decided that I would do so a few hours before it ended only to have personal circumstances arise that kept me away until after it had gone to a 'Crat Chat. I wanted to apologise for not managing to offer my support !vote but seeing that the RfA was closed as successful, and seeing you being congratulated, I felt that my posting would be more making me feel better than it would be helpful to you, so I waited.

Reading the thread on Barkeep's page, and the suggestions that one !vote more or less could have made the difference, and then reading the Slate piece about your experience, I felt it was worthwhile to express that you had at least one more supporter who did not speak up. Though all admins have the same grant of authority, I felt your RfA spoke of your integrity and how you would bring it to the task for which you were volunteering, and I think that it earned you the respect and trust of many – though sadly also with the suspicion and doubt of some. I've been impressed, though not surprised, that you have taken some difficult decisions as an admin. I see your name and anticipate a thoughtful contribution, even if I might disagree with it, and that makes you the kind of contributor that Wikipedia needs.

My recent disillusionment was made worse by an Arbitrator who basically dismissed that I could have any contribution to make because I was choosing not to use my account. Though another Arbitrator offered a more humane view, I was then and am still now disappointed and hurt that I was not granted the dignity of a person despite being behind an IP address. The Arbitrator in question never addressed this, which has left me with a highly negative view of his character. Consequently, reading the comments in the thread on Barkeep's talk and the Slate article reminded me that you likely have lingering wounds from the RfA, and just as one person can cause pain, one person can sometimes help to alleviate it. Your RfA ordeal was distressing to watch, and no doubt vastly worst to experience, though it was warming to read how your mother travelled to support you in person – something I would dearly love to experience just once more, but which is sadly impossible. I am cisgendered and so cannot say that I truly understand the difficulties your have faced in coming to self-acceptance and then living openly as a trans individual. However, as a gay man, I do have some idea of your path and how it may have shaped you. Bringing those experiences to being an admin is not a manifestation of bias; it is a strength to be able to empathise with those subject to mistreatment. You stated that you would recuse from the Donald Trump article, demonstrating that you also bring the wisdom to know when bias might arise. In short, the view that I formed of you from your RfA is that you are a strong individual, honest, dignified, well-meaning, and someone who will act with integrity and who is motivated by the best interests of the encyclopaedia. I believe you have more supporters and admirers than the RfA showed – I regret that I did not say so during your RfA – and I wish you well.

Kind Regards, 172.195.96.244 (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you sent this just as I was traveling, and it totally slipped my mind in the chaos of a whirlwind few days. I don't think I have much left to say about my RfA, at least not at this moment, but thank you for your words of support, 172. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Archived SPI

Gooday, I don't think we've interacted before, but I saw you were active in a recent SPI, can't recall what it was. I want to add two names to a 2020 archived case; I realise this may be too stale but I should go ahead for procedure. I don't know how to re-open a case, if you could direct me? I don't use any utilities, such as TW. I am away from home and have only slow wi-fi for the next few days, and so can't load the pages to search through the wiki-process easily. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: Hi, this is one of the messages I lost track of while on the road. Seems as soon as I left my house, everyone wanted to ask me things. :D If this hasn't already been resolved: There's usually no need to add account to an archived SPI case. If you tell me what the accounts and case are, I can determine whether it makes sense to add sock tags to their userpages, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin - I don't have time to get into it now, but I have kept an eye on the 'new' sock account whose editing has, as I anticipated, fizzled out soon after the 'new' biography had been established - one person on a mission. It was initially a 2020 bio, recinded via local talk and changed to a redirect. The new SPA knew where to find the redirect and how to convert it into an article. The subsequent 2022 AfD closed as no consensus 23 June - too few participants, IMO; the new account was ranting and bullying an admin for extending the AfD and claimed to have requested mentoring from another, although there was nothing visible (to me).

I intended to search and show comparitive keyword/diffs from the previous (2020) Talk discussion and add to the 2020 SPI, to get them memorialised for posterity, as ending with no consensus means it could be re-established. I'll work on it gradually then send a new message. Apologies for the length. Muchas.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Beast

There are many suckpuppet edits in Pooja Hegde saying about Beast. Beast is a successful movie. It has collected ₹250 (US$3.10) crore against a budget of ₹150 (US$1.90) crore. In all cast of that film the movie is considered as success. But in Pooja Hegde, the heroine of that film it is considered as not successful. Please investigate against both Krimuk2.0 and NavjotSR and revert to last good revision 1094891126 by Rosyyyy. Thank you 103.166.244.251 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Asking SPI clerks to proxy edits for you continues to be a bad way to get away with sockpuppetry. Blocked 1 month. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Update on closed SPI for tejinderpsingh/dimnumero

Hello! I saw that you assigned a partial block to dimnumero in this SPI and I thought I should update that the accounts physicsenduser and IP 158.144.113.46 were also adding the same references and very similar rude messages to the talk pages of users that modify the Fine structure constant article. These edits were before the case was closed but I only just saw them, so I apologize if the information is spurious or belongs somewhere else.

links to revisions: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Lucasisaacfrye (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lucasisaacfrye: Thanks for reaching out. And it's fine taking this here; better than filing a new SPI at least. Thanks for the new information. I'm not sure if it would have changed my decision if I'd had it sooner, but as it stands, I think I'd like to live things be for now. I've told Dimnumero that they can only edit under one username, and given their past behavior across several accounts I'm not going to have much patience for shenanigans, so if Physicsenduser or the IP light back up again, I'll probably indef both accounts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Willing to compromise on the HP Dev One

I was reading more about this laptop, and one article said that the model is "based on the HP EliteBook 845 G8" (https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/06/hp-dev-one-linux-laptop-specs-price). There are still some significant software and hardware differences from a regular Elitebook, so maybe parts of the article should be merged into HP EliteBook? Yleventa2 (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Yleventa2: Yeah, that might be reasonable. Sections of articles have more room to get stats-heavy than stubs do. If you do merge it, just make sure not to include features that would be redundant with the baseline features for that line, though. @Firefly: You're the first talkpage watcher who comes to mind who's written about PCs; any thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Socking at 2000 Mules

Feel free to remove the edit request section you hatted. I have no objections, and it seems like Firefangledfeathers is the kind of editor that wouldn't mind either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I say sweep it all away. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ScottishFinnishRadish: I've archived it, and the other Makofakeoh ERs. With five IP blocks on them now, I'm hoping they'll leave the page alone, but if you do see any other IPs from Colorado pushing that same POV (which, unusually for a case like this, appears to be the majority POV, but they're finding a way to push it nonetheless!), do let me know, and I'll give the talkpage a few weeks' AE semi. I'd do that now, but if at all possible I'd like to avoid semiing an open RfC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

defund the police

Moved to Talk:Defund the police

 – -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

User violating their block

Hi Tamzin the user appears to be editing in violation of the specific block conditions you set. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, Polyamorph. Dealt with. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

76.20.110.116 again

Hey Tamzin,

76.20.110.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

At SPI a few days ago you asked me to drop you a message if this editor showed up again. Well, the month long block BBB23 put on this IP has just expired, and they've gone straight back to the same topics and edits as before - 2020, california, shopping malls and questions at the teahouse. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI I've also reported at WP:AIV. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

2 months, thanks for calling. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin! 192.76.8.85 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin They're back again as 2600:1010:B149:A097:8846:CA2E:F2D8:7069 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Also 172.81.159.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but Daniel case seems to have already got that one. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

really? Why did you found me that I’m a Sockpuppet2600:1010:B149:A097:8846:CA2E:F2D8:7069 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I never did anything wrong. 2600:1010:B149:A097:8846:CA2E:F2D8:7069 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You were on a vandalism and trolling spree literally a couple of hours ago [5] [6] [7] [8]. 20:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC) 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 for a week. Only just realized this is the "If 2020 was a person" vandal. Thanks as always, Oxford IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

IP socks of Jomontgeorge

Hey, on Rangasthalam (soundtrack), several IP socks of Jomontgeorge have been re-adding this non-free image of Pooja Hegde File:Jigelu_Rani.jpg. The image file was created by a sock of Jomontgeorge, Ancyran. Can something be done about this? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: Hmm, they're all over a somewhat busy /36 range. For now I've widened the existing pblock on 2409:4073:4000:0:0:0:0:0/36 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) to include that article, your talkpage, and the file namespace. If they start disrupting other pages from that range, let me know, and I'll look into siteblocking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ancyran

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi its Ancyrann, alternative account of Ancyran. My former account was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. It is said that "multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons." I didn't don't done any bad to Wikipedia using the former account, please see my contributions. I only have 2.5% of deleted edits, means less number of vandalism and all. I want to contribute more to Wikipedia. Can you give me permission to edit. It's my humble request. Ancyrann (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello

I don't know what the qualifications for revision deletion are, but could you please delete the revisions in my talk page history from 09:09 to 10:18 (cleanup mess) on this day? It contains vandalism and spam made by an IP user. —Princess Faye ^{(my talk)} 12:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Princess Faye. The relevant criteria here in CRD are 2 and 3. However, RD2 does not apply to "'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations", and IP49's remarks seem, sadly, "ordinary". RD3 also probably does not apply as the comments, while disruptive, are in my opinion not purely disruptive since they relate to a real content dispute (and as such might be relevant to someone trying to understand that content dispute). However, I will ask in #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect if another admin can give a second opinion on this; in the future, you're always welcome to come to that channel with a revdel request. Either way, please know that comments such as 49's are not tolerated on this wiki. The only reason I haven't blocked them is because they apologized (and thus WP:NOTPUNITIVE comes into play), but I'll still be keeping an eye on them. In the future, the best response to a comment like this is to give an only warning for personal attacks ({{subst:uw-npa4im}}), and to report to AIV or AN/I if the attacks continue. Continuing to argue with someone like that is usually feeding the trolls. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on Username Reports

I've been having a very stressful week here on Wikipedia and I couldn't think straight. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: I understand. Please do be more careful in the future, though. If you do find your stress levels getting to the point where you're sending things to the wrong noticeboard or such, that's often a sign that you might want to step away from editing for a few hours or days, or at least focus on only a single thing on-wiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felony Flats (2nd nomination)

Hello, since you were part of the original AfD for this article, and since nothing much has changed, I do hereby invite your participation in this discussion again. Thanks Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, Tamzin! I was rummaging through the NPP archives and stumbled onto this discussion. First, my belated THANK YOU!! Second, please see this redirect which showed up in the NPP queue as a result of: 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · ←Blanked the page and then reverted 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · Undid revision 1097374915 by Turtle-bienhoa (talk). Is there any way we can get the Bot to recognize that type of activity so that it doesn't remove reviewed status? Best ~ Atsme 💬 📧 14:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Judicious availing of the ability to use page protection in an IAR situation. CMD (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Khalil Ahmed Khan, possible sock

Draft:Khalil Ahmed Khan was created by Kic321 a couple of days ago. Kic321 Also popped up on my watchlist, which is suspicious. What's interesting here is that the article was previously deleted twice and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalil Ahmed Khan discussion was closed in 2018 as G5 since the previous version was created by the spam blocked Beltwrestling-786 in 2016. Problem is that I can't see the deleted versions to probe further here, and I can't find a SPI on Beltwrestling-786, so I'm left with the beginning of something to look at, but I can't really take it from here to SPI. The draft is promotional in tone, but I don't see an obvious copyvio. Can you take a look at the deleted versions of Khan and the possible connections between the three accounts (2016, 2018, now) here? Pikavoom ^Talk 13:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Pikavoom: There's some slight similarities in the ledes, but overall the draft is pretty different in content from the deleted article. Reads to me more like a case where someone's decided that if they can't do it, they'll pay someone else instead. For now, I've G11'd it (Actively building on his career, Khan has managed to pursue two diverse career fields, mastering expertise in both martial arts and the legal profession. ... Unlike many other sports organizations in Pakistan, he has also ensured the process of accountability in his organization by supervising at the performance of players and coaches personally ... Holding various roles having been involved in multiple sports projects for over 30 years, Khalil Khan’s contributions in terms of actively working towards the preservation and promotion of Traditional Sports and Games are valuable.) and left {{uw-paid1}}. Let's see where things go from here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Pikavoom and @Tamzin: Firstly I would like to clarify that I have not been engaged by any paying entity or person to join Wikipedia and edit for them as I have already clarified to @Tamzin. You have seen the differences between the previous articles on the subject and the current draft which has been G11'd by @Tamzin. As I replied to her before as well, I would once again request the both of you to overturn the speedy deletion and replace the promotional or advertising content from the article if you believe it is not supported by verifiable citations. The lines mentioned by @Tamzin can be deleted or replaced and if any other content in the article is in such tone as well. Although I have joined this platform just a few days back I am sure that with experienced editors and administrators like both of you I will be able to learn more about how to contribute to this platform. For now, before reviewing or requesting for undeletion I wanted to contact the both of you to request to overturn this speedy deletion and allowing me to replace any promotional content from the article. Please guide me regarding the possible solutions to this issue. Thank you Kic321 (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
    • As I said on your talkpage:

      The G11 was due to a pervasive promotional tone, of the sort one might see on someone's personal website or in press material. You're welcome to ask another admin to review the deletion. If they see a way to restore the draft with promotional content removed, they have my blessing to do so. Alternately, you may appeal to the community at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

      And I'll extend that here to say that if any admin among my talkpage watchers sees a way to restore, they can feel free to. Do note that G11 speedies are not eligible for WP:REFUND, however. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you @Tamzin for your clarification. As you said that G11 Speedy deletions are not eligible for Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion hence please guide me to a solution to this issue. As you were the deleting administrator, will there be a slight possibility for you to restore the draft page and immediately remove such promotional content as you highlighted above so that the page complies with all sections of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I would really appreciate your help and guidance to a solution for this issue. Kic321 (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
        • @Kic321: thank you for clarifying you are not editing for pay. Do you have some sort of a relationship with Khalil Ahmed Khan? Pikavoom ^Talk 10:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
          • @Pikavoom No I do not have any direct relationship with the subject but rather I have been following his activities since I read about him being in UNESCO few months ago and I have been following traditional sport activities and news articles. When I joined Wikipedia, I thought this area was important to highlight in a big platform such as Wikipedia hence I decided to write my first article about him. I am aware about the Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest thus had I been directly related to Khan I would never have wasted my first article and effort for it to be deleted in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. If you could also guide me to the solution for this issue I will be grateful. Thank you. Kic321 (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
      • @Tamzin and @Pikavoom: I am looking forward for your response to a solution for this issue of speedy deletion. What will be the next step for me? I requested to overturn the deletion and remove the promotional content as highlighted by you if it is possible. As G11'd deletions cannot be challenged at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion hence I am trying to contact you as the deleting administrator to guide me about the possible solution. If the restoration is not possible, is it viable for me to create another new article on the subject and submit it for review? Kic321 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
        • @Kic321: Well I just took a crack at restoring it for you, and concluded that no, the amount of rewriting I would have to do would be excessive. It is through-and-through written as a puff piece for Khan, with several instances per paragraph of either promotional language or other puffery. Your options are:
          1. As noted above, if you can find another admin to review this who disagrees with my assessment, they're welcome to restore.
          2. As noted above, failing that, you can take the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review.
          3. To answer your question, yes, you may rewrite it, but please be much more careful this time to avoid promotional language, or it may be deleted again.
          4. Or you could write about something else. This is the one I'd recommend if you want to show you're not here to promote Khan.
        • -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Adminship

@Tamzin: congrats with your adminiship Lotje (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned talk pages

Hello, Tamzin,

It looks like you deleted some pages but didn't delete the talk pages which you can see at Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages. I've gone ahead and deleted them but I wasn't sure whether you wanted to move them to a different location. Just thought I'd give you a head's up...if you use Twinkle to delete pages, it will delete the talk pages automatically but if you use other methods to delete a page, you should make sure there isn't a leftover talk page. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Ah I see what it was... I was moving the articles in question for attribution reasons, and had checked the box to move the talkpage as well, but it didn't occur to me that since I was moving the articles to talkspace, the talkpages would have nowhere to go. You think there'd be a warning for that or something, but oh well, duly noted for next time. Thanks. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Help

Help me in this investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MahimMasum71 AkbarAliKhan1 (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@AkbarAliKhan1: Believe it or not, I sorted it out about 30 seconds before you sent this. :) Thanks for the report. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: user should be blocked globally because he is also self promoting on commons wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkbarAliKhan1 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Are you available to take a look at this? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Not yet action taken. AkbarAliKhan1 (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Evasion of your block?

Seeing your block notification of Dimnumero (talk · contribs), edits by Physicsenduser (talk · contribs) look to me to be similar. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Me? I'm not evading any block. ... Oh, the block I made, you mean. /lh

Yeah, indeffed, SPI filed pro forma, latest exchange hatted. If they just didn't see the p-block notification on their last account, they can explain that in an unblock request. Thanks for reporting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Heh – I missed that ambiguity in the grammar that I used. Thank you! 172.82.46.195 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And now we have Priyanka.giri0 (talk · contribs) (sigh) 172.82.46.195 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Stop it. You are literally everywhere. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Seriously though. I am impressed by the time you dedicate to effectively warn editors violating policies (as opposed to templates), and your work in general. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I second this. Thank you for your service! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Banned user

Where can I find the previous history of the "proxy wars" banned user? --Viennese Waltz 11:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Viennese Waltz: That would be Futurist110, blocked by ArbCom and banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've come up against that editor before myself. Out of interest, how did you recognize the hand of Futurist110 here and here? I'm sure you're right, but I was wondering how you recognized them. --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Viennese Waltz: Full credit to Gadfium. I just noticed the IP come up on an IRC feed that, among other things, flags edits by accounts/IPs whose blocks recently expired. It was obvious that it was still the same user on the IP as when Gadfium blocked it, and so all that was left to do was basic due-diligence to make sure the previous block was a plausible match, which it definitely was. Same content interests, same projectspace interests, same city as a previous IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Perfect, many thanks. --Viennese Waltz 10:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sock

Hi, you blocked User:Xing Ping Fi 450 [9] a month ago but I think his sock appeared now User:GarrettDunBar on the same article Kubra Khan with the same style of editing [10]. If you can look into this. Regards. Satrar (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Satrar: Hmm, I don't see the same massive overstatement of Pakistani films' box office figures. Am I missing that somewhere? Or if it's something subtler, might be better to send to SPI with some more detailed evidence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for a quick response. Actually they have newly created their account and the way they are editing, it's quite similar to the suspected master sock. Rest I leave it to your fine judgment. Satrar (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

lmao

Good eye. I was seriously baffled there! jp×g 17:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Man, how the hell did that even happen? Doesn't SineBot do those notes automatically?! jp×g 17:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh. Much to think about. jp×g 17:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: Funny that a non-vandal sock inadvertently did a better job at vandalizing than 99% of vandal sox. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

SeanJ 2007 unblock

Thank you for unblocking me, I will do my best and follow your conditions! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, what do you mean that I may not interact with anti vandalism patrolling? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: I mean that you may not go looking for vandalism to revert. If, for example, there is a page that you have watchlisted, and you notice vandalism and revert it, that's fine. But patrolling recent changes or anything like that, that would fall under the restriction you just agreed to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, also I am about to install Twinkle or RedWarm, which among these 2 are easy to use? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: You are not allowed to patrol recent changes. Why do you want to use those scripts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Because it is automatic and it is fast to use SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: Automatic at what? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Um for example, you will report a IP or account at WP:AIV because of vandalism, and you will use Twinkle, it will directly proceed your report there based on the text on the screen aside from copy and pasting on how you will do it. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: If you want to use Twinkle or RedWarn for that, on cases where you happen to notice vandalism, I'm not going to stop you. But it really really sounds like you're looking to go recent-change patrolling, or some other kind of vandal-hunting. Please understand that if you do that, I will have to block you again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What about if I use Twinkle or RedWarn on unsourced contents, reporting on WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, nominating an article for deletion? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: For something like nominating an article for AfD, sure, that isn't about anti-vandalism, so it's not an issue. For the other things, it's the same thing as with vandalism reverts: You can't go looking for it, but if it comes up by chance, that's fine. Like, if you happen to see a page that needs protection, sure, it's fine to use Twinkle to request protection. Just don't go through RecentChanges looking for pages to request protection for. Or reverting a single edit as unsourced is fine, but looking for unsourced edits to revert is not.

Is this making sense? The alternative is to remove the exception entirely, but it seems unfair to make it so you literally can't do anything if an article is being vandalized. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What RecentChanges are you talking about? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I... Sean, let's do it this way: Why don't you tell me what you think your editing restrictions are? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit hard, because I don't want to take a hard time reverting vandalism, unsourced contents by just using undo and reporting them on WP:ANI by just copy pasting what is need to be also when you will warn a user by just copy pasting the warning template (including the shared IP advice template if you will warn a IP). I want all of those for me to use Twinkle because it is fast. Doing it without this tools is just a waste of time. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I know what I am doing on how this tools work SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sean, I really need you to answer that last question. What do you think your editing restrictions are? The conditions you agreed to less than 24 hours ago. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

For the SPI, it is okay for me, but for the anti vandalism patrolling, it is a bit hard SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You agreed to these terms, Sean. Less than 24 hours ago. If you would like a different set of terms, I can reblock you and you can file a new unblock request and wait for a different admin. Will you or won't you abide by these terms? Feel free to take some time to think it over. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay fine I will follow what you said SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think you're getting a pretty good offer and nice encouragement from a kind and forgiving admin. I would try my utmost to honor such a deal. But don't push the envelope. And don't get me wrong; we're happy you're here to help. Truly. But start by abiding by the unblock terms to which you've just agreed. Or a less gentle admin will be forced to deal with you. And Tamzin is fully capable of being less gentle. BusterD (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: Sure! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Tamzin, can I also move article space to drafts as what I did before? (Only if those are not yet ready for article space) SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  @SeanJ 2007: It would not go against your unblock conditions. However, draftifications can be controversial, and it might not be the best way to get back into things. That's just friendly advice, though; the short answer to your question is "Yes, you can". If you do draftify something, though, please be aware that WP:DRAFTIFY has been modified during your block; you should reread it before draftifying anything. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Am I allowed to revert good faith edits using Twinkle? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @SeanJ 2007: Yes, as long as it's not part of recent change patrolling. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Can you clarify to me what you mean by recent change patrolling? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Looking through Special:RecentChanges, or anything similar to it, in search of edits to revert. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Toronto Star

Hi Tamzin, I noticed you revdeld a recent edit on Toronto Star. Would you be willing to revdel a couple more please from the same ip range earlier today? [1] and [2]

Thanks Carver1889 (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Carver1889:  Done. Thanks for reporting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Extrapolaris

I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnatyrannus may be part of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Extrapolaris sock farm complex. I've a very long history with Extrapolaris dating back to some his (I think he's a he, IIRC) first edits on Wikipedia around 2014. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not. BilCat (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bil. :) Was already writing a response at the SPI when I saw this, so have replied there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Responded there also. BilCat (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

AE

Hi Tamzin. I don't have space to comment in AE (500 words), but I thought this is noteworthy. Golden just reverted this edit with no reason (removing Artsakh as a country). When I asked for an explanation on talk, they said it's a "disambiguation page". This could've easily been corrected like I did subsequently, but no, they just remove factual information based on a minor technical issue instead of improving it. Is there a pattern here based on the evidence I provided in AE too? I would also like to hear your elaboration on AE if you don't mind, seems like other admins aren't eager to comment. Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Replied at AE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not look at what I was reverting more carefully. Seeing a controversial edit by a new IP as their first edits made me believe this was yet another disruptive edit, which led me to reverting it. I was wrong because the information added was mostly fine except the fact that the link was a disambiguation page, which I probably should've fixed instead of reverting fully. The revert was a mistake and I own up to it, sorry. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)