Hi, Tamzin, this is just to mention that I think you've forgotten to notify or ping Tryptofish about your reopening of the "Nishidani 2" AE, unless Ive missed it. Anyway, I've dropped a line to them just now. They may want to comment. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 08:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC).
Hi, Tamzin, this is just to mention that I think you've forgotten to notify or ping Tryptofish about your reopening of the "Nishidani 2" AE, unless Ive missed it. Anyway, I've dropped a line to them just now. They may want to comment. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 08:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC).
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.
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
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.
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]
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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Reply
תודה רבה, Claudia! A pleasantly synchronistic treat to find immediately after submitting my first foray into your neck of the woods.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Defender of the Wiki Barnstar from Pharos, for defending the wiki from Pharos
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)[reply]
Reply
@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)[reply]
Admin's Barnstar from Bagumba
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)[reply]
Reply
Thanks, Bagumba. :) (Incredibly slow response, sorry.) At some point soon I'd like to write up a self-audit of my blocks to make sure I'm staying true to my stated principles in blocking... We'll see. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin's Barnstar from Scorpions13256 and The Night Watch
The Admin's Barnstar
Stop it. You are literally everywhere. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Vandalism warning from Nosebagbear and whoever whomeverwhoever most recently edited this page
Hello, I'm Keyhound. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 phrasewho[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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.)
Outrageous, Tamzin. I demand you resign your patrollership.-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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...
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 Hartindicated 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
toki! (Topic: Toki Pona)
mi lukin toki pona. epiku!QoopyQoopy (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
RE: Would there be interest in a bot that makes a "watchlist" just for recently-edited pages?
-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Watching my watchlist gets boring at some hours of the night. wizzito | say hello! 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
"hint, TNT"—thank you but no -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Example male and Example female
Hi Tamzin—hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you would be able to update User:Example male and User:Example female to use Special:GlobalPreferences to set their genders, instead of setting them locally? As an irrelevant aside, as I was writing this note, I realized I would ping both accounts. This made me curious: how many pings are they currently sitting at? Anyways, happy editing!HouseBlastertalk 22:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: Thanks! Credit where credit is due to coäuthors Elli and theleekycauldron. Definitely the most fun I've had writing an article. Both because it's a silly topic and because it was one of those rare times where all the fun correlations you want to draw in an article but it would be SYNTH to, the reliable sources actually do draw! -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, one of the more fun articles I've had the pleasure to collaborate on for sure! Elli (talk | contribs) 13:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am in awe of SPI folk. While I'm capable of making a report, you all have the determination to get the drains up and deciding if all of our reports have merit. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being able to make tough blocks, ecpecially for a block you did on 30 October 2022, thanks! — Huldra (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: I'm going to try to break my streak of not replying to barnstars for three months... Thank you. I genuinely never enjoy indeffing someone who's here to build an encyclopedia, which I do believe that user was. But we've still found no better way at handling long-term conduct issues than escalating blocks, and escalating blocks do, sadly, escalate. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
A random act of appreciation from a queer person to another.
The article Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Tamzin, once you have a moment to self congratulate and enjoy your success, please do consider the page rename. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm finally ready to RfA now! ;)Seriously though, thank y'all for your kind words. Six months to the day after the article was on DYK; and ten years, a week, and a day after I registered this account. Very nice symmetry. Thank you, MaxnaCarta, for being a great GA reviewer and amicus encyclopediae. I'd enumerate the ways, but res ipsa loquitor. Regarding your comment obiter dictum, ex rel. whether the article should remain sub this nomine, I'll ping you from talk, as any other option would be either in camera or ex parte. Your further thoughts are welcome in re this in rem matter, even as functus officio. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the matter of using Latin terms ad nauseum, respectfully, I dissent. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That...required Google translating. Catch you about! MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just finished your GA review. Because you have worked so hard, it was not a difficult task. Well done on a great piece of work. I came here to congratulate you and saw the above drama. It also made me recall - we have "interacted" in the sense I opposed your RFA.
I've decided to leave some love for a few reasons.
First, I was inexperienced at voting there and I do not think my vote was quite fair in hindsight. While I remain opposed to what you had said about being open to desysoping Trump supporters (or whatever it was you said, and keep in mind I do not like him either), there was no evidence I had to support a presumption you may be biased in future.
Second, if I were to vote again, I'd support this time.
Third, I liked working with you, even if only briefly. You are nice!
Fourth, you write amazing content, and if that is not a reason to let someone know they are valued on Wikipedia, I do not know what is.
Happy tenth anniversary Tamzin. You are kind, you are doing your best, and that is all anyone can ask.
“When in the evening we are alone with our most existential thoughts, it is then that we come face to face with the most precious truths that we discover in our brief existence in this world. Just before fatigue envelopes us, taking us into sleep. We think of what our lives actually mean. And then we know how lucky we are if we still enjoy consciousness, rationality and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
― Michael Kirby
@MaxnaCarta: Well, I guess this goes to show I took Liz' advice to heart in terms of forgetting who voted which way. Granted, with >450 names to remember, it was pretty easy to let those fall out of my mind.Thank you for the further compliments on my content work. I'd like to put the article up for FAC soon, I think. I'll take one more dive to see if I can dig up any post-Nieves analysis beynd Mills, and maybe add a teeny bit to §§ Prior jurisprudence and Lozman and Riviera Beach, but your comments solidify my impression that it's close to complete.That's a lovely quote. If I may get personal for a moment, as someone who is plural/multiple, if I've spent a whole day focused on the outer world, then the moment I go to sleep will often be the one moment I check in with the others I share a brain and body with. Often what I see is love, from another self within a divided self. Which makes me think which of The Four Loves that would be, if any, which makes me think of this quote from wikiquote:C. S. Lewis § Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold (1956):
Lightly men talk of saying what they mean. Often when he was teaching me to write in Greek the Fox would say, "Child, to say the very thing you really mean, the whole of it, nothing more or less or other than what you really mean; that's the whole art and joy of words." A glib saying. When the time comes to you at which you will be forced at last to utter the speech which has lain at the center of your soul for years, which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you'll not talk about joy of words. I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?
Which I think rather nicely ties together several threads here. :)Or maybe just seems confusing because Till We Have Faces is a weird book.P.S. MOS:CURLY:D-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Barnstar for you
The Civility Barnstar
For your conduct in the Inverted Zebra ANI thread. I doubt I'd be able to keep my cool nearly as well as you did when personally attacked. Your writing managed to convey being justifiably angry without being aggressive. Major props to you for your conduct there, good Mx; I hope I can be even half as civil if I ever find my own person under attack. I hope it blows over quickly now, so you can get back to editing.
Many brave Tamzins died in the Great Tammy Wars. Some find strength in looking back, but I find it easier to forget. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume it's bravery, anyway. We'll see if Stephen Harrison will have to write another article. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: And now for my thoughts on the Arab–Israeli conflict, Kennedy assassination, and Waldorf education... /j-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Waldorf education? did someone tell Statler about it? haaaa ha ha haa... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Atkinson Hyperlegible
On 22 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Atkinson Hyperlegible, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that to optimize Atkinson Hyperlegible for visually impaired people, its designers intentionally broke the rule that a typeface should be uniform? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Atkinson Hyperlegible. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Atkinson Hyperlegible), 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.
Congrats Tamzin! I have to wonder how you can make hooks get lots of views... ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 04:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf: A quirky taste in article topics, a former middle school teaching aide's sense of what keeps people engaged, and, of course, a large botnet with spoofed useragents. /j-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
This year I'm thankful for 12 new admins to add to the admin corps. Thank you for volunteering to take on more responsibilities on the project. We're lucky to have you! LizRead!Talk! 19:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
snicker
They are not currently attributing in compliance with the CC BY-SA, so, they should do that if they don't want to get DMCA'd by some Wikipedian with too much time on xyr hands. [emph mine] Valereee (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you weren't elected. You had my vote, but when I tried to give you more, they told me I would be removed from the committee as of 31 December. Happy Jewish Christmas, and I look forward to many years of continued editing! BDD (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BDD—and to those who've expressed similar sentiments privately. To be honest, I'm relieved. For a number of personal reasons I felt somewhat obliged to run—most notably because I think it's easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize, and a lot harder to do the work, and, having done the former, it seemed only fair to submit myself for consideration for the latter. But I'm pretty happy with the niche I've carved out for myself here, especially the past few months, mostly working on articles with some admin work mixed in. (Don't think I could ever be a pure "content admin" to the extent that you are, with 5 indefs ever, 4 of them self-requested, but seeking a balance more in the vein of my other RfA nom.) So, yeah, happy to keep on with what I've been doing. Looking to get Out of the Blue (book), Mi Shebeirach, and maybe Sarah Ashton-Cirillo to GA, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) to FA, and got one page I think I can bring from redirect to FA. Much more pleasant than diving deeper into administrative areas. Feel free to make me your sixth indef if I try running again anytime soon. :D-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Fucking Trans Women you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fucking Trans Women for comments about the article, and Talk:Fucking Trans Women/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Happy New Year, Tamzin! In 2022, other editors thanked you 1003 times using the thanks tool. This places you in the top 10 most thanked Wikipedians of 2022. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2023! Mz7 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Fuccboi (novel)
On 4 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fuccboi (novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fuccbois' crew won awards, while Fuccboi's prose received both praise and criticism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fuccbois. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fuccboi (novel)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Oh I saw that while you were working on it: very impressive. Aaaah you young people, scandalizing folks... Must be lovely to have such drive... ;) Drmies (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When that day comes, I’ll be ready with the popcorn! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 02:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mi Shebeirach, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Debbie Friedman and Drorah Setel's Mi Shebeirach for healing, written by the couple amidst the AIDS crisis, has become "the emotional highlight of synagogue services" for many Jews? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mi Shebeirach. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mi Shebeirach), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Hello again. I wanted to apologize again for my response to the Charlotte York article and my mistakes regarding the page move. You were incredibly kind, especially when the entire situation was my fault, and I wanted to thank you again for that. I am truly happy to see such great and kind communication on here. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Aww, you're so sweet. You know, WP:CIR gets cited in a lot of horrible and mean-spirited contexts, but there's a valuable lesson in there if one takes the time to read it, which is that no one is competent at everything. I'd like to think of myself as a fairly well-rounded editor—2 GAs, lots of projectspace work, some technical work including a bot—but there's still dozens of areas of this project that I have literally no fucking clue how to manage. And it's really only luck that I haven't in recent years had the pleasure of having some admin show up on my talk page and say "Umm, that's not at all how this thing is done. I've unbroken it for you. Please be more careful."[a] One thing I've never done in 10 years here, for instance, is get an FA. Hell, didn't have a GA till 5 months after my RfA.[b] You have... holy shit, 45 of those.[c] If I live a long life and continue focusing on content[d] maybe I'll hit that number before I die. When I do go for my first FAC, you can bet it'll be with oodles of behind-the-scenes hand-holding from friends who've done it before, to make up for my near-complete cluelessness about that venue. So.If I can summarize this wall of text, it's
🪞
at both you and CT55555 because like... holy fucking shit this site is toxic sometimes. And it's been so incredibly refreshing to see two experienced users[e] be so relentlessly civil to each other and to me over a relatively minor, totally good-faith misunderstanding, to the extent you're following up on it weeks later. I love it. If there were an inverse version of WP:STOCKS I would put you both in it, no ifs, ands, or buts.[f] Thank you for this barnstar, but really it's y'all who deserve it for this truly exemplary conduct. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
^Well, that's the better-case scenario. The worse-case scenario is "Umm, that's not all how this thing is done, and there's no easy way to reverse the damage you did. Have a fun 6 hours unbreaking it manually unless you want a trip to ArbCom!"
^In fact I recently learned on WP:DISCORD that "How many GAs did the most-supported RfA candidate ever have?" is a decent stumper in Wikipedia trivia.
^And I emphasize "experienced" because we're often the worst offenders.
^And what does it say that there isn't an inverse version? But I digress.
Thanks for adding more rays of much-needed sunshine on this site. Peace. CT55555(talk) 21:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response and the kind words. I will read through WP:CIR in the near future. I enjoy reading through these kinds of essays, and I agree that no one is great or even competent at every single aspect of Wikipedia because this site is so vast and dense. I think it is good to have a healthy dose of perspective and humility, and I have learned from this experience. I has been a while since I did anything with page moves and the like that I genuinely forgot how to do any of it.
Congrats on the two GAs, and I think it is awesome that you've done technical work as well. I have absolutely zero ideas how to even remotely do anything with bots so I am impressed by that. I am proud of my work in the FAC process and very thankful for all the editors and reviewers who have helped along the way. If I ever do it make it to 47, I will let you know if something special happens, and if you ever decide to pursue a FAC, I would be more than happy to answer any questions or provide any pointers. It can be a very intimidating space, but there are also a lot of wonderful editors over there.
You are right that this site can be toxic at times, particularly from experienced users, and I've definitely reacted poorly in the past. The best I can do is to try and learn from each experience and hopefully be better for the future. I'd be curious on what the reverse of WP:STOCKS would be. I am glad that this experience ended up in a positive place in the end and hopefully, this will not sound super sappy, but it was wonderful to meet and interact with you and CT55555. I hope you are having a wonderful 2023 (knock on wood though as I do not want to jinx anything). Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article Sarah Ashton-Cirillo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sarah Ashton-Cirillo for comments about the article, and Talk:Sarah Ashton-Cirillo/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It does seem kind of weird to have that sort of thing in Template-space, but Tamzin is a pretty good editor who I think does deserve the recognition KinehoreDefinitely adding some of your (Matt)'s templates to my userspace. But maybe think about putting them in userspace instead of templatespace?casualdejekyll 05:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I put it as a userbox, so I think it still belongs in template space as there are a lot of userboxes like the ones that I made. Here are some examples.
MasterMatt12, I have to say, while I entirely appreciate the sentiment behind these userboxes, I think they are a bad idea. They've pretty much all been vandalised already, as they're such a nice target. firefly ( t · c ) 16:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, and noticed it as well earlier. Because of the concern for vandals since these Wikipedians are probably disliked by many users, I put in a request to RPP for indefinite semi-protection for most of the userboxes, as you can see in the archives. However, they all got denied except for one of them which got semi-protection for one week. If these continue to get vandalised perhaps you could add whatever protection is most optimal to it. I do hope they can be kept, since it has made a lot of users very happy. MasterMatt12💬 ● Contributions 17:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MasterMatt12: Hi, catching up on old talkpage messages. Thanks for creating this. :) This and its kin definitely belong in userspace, though. See WP:UBXNS and WP:UBM. But I do really appreciate the sentiment. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cookie!
Thanks for finding a reference for "Ana Ljubičić" before I pulled my hair out! GabberFlasted (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Kinehore[reply]
DYK for Ash Street shootout
On 28 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ash Street shootout, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that of up to 300 bullets fired in the Ash Street shootout between U.S. Army Rangers and alleged drug dealers, none were reported to have hit anyone? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ash Street shootout. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ash Street shootout), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Hi, it has been over 6 months since you unblocked me and logged my account at WP:ER/UC. I follow what you said on both rules. Do I pass my restrictions? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: I've looked through your last 200 edits and am satisfied that you've been complying with the restrictions; all anti-vandalism reverts appear to have come up in the course of your regular content work. Could you please give some examples of work you would like to do if the restrictions are lifted? For the purposes of answering this question, you are allowed to discuss SPI or possible sockpuppetry cases, if you wish. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will do the same thing as you said when you logged my account at WP:ER/UC, but If I want to report or discuss on WP:SPI, I will add "proper evidence" if the sock is connected to the original block account like providing links of edits of the user. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: How about this: I will suspend the restrictions for two months. During this time, any uninvolved administrator may reïmpose them if they see renewed disruption of that nature. If there are no issues after two months, the restrictions will expire completely. Does that work for you? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: I have marked the sanction as suspended. Please be very careful in any future work with recent-change patrolling or SPI, and to remember things that I, Bbb23, Cabayi, and others have said to you on the topic. Just because I'm saying you may engage with these areas of the project, that does not mean that I'm saying you should. You seem to be doing good work on articles in the Philippine TV topic area, and I encourage you to keep that up. :)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 2 months has been passed since you suspend my restrictions. You suspend my restrictions until yesterday April 2, 2023 and I still follow what you said. Do I pass again on what you said? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: Yes, the sanction has now fully expired; I have removed it from the log. Please keep in mind the same advice I gave above. Happy editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, since my restrictions are lifted, can I be granted rollback rights? I know and understand how to use this tool and If I be granted, I will still follow what you said by not reverting Special:RecentChanges. This is formerly SeanJ 2007 BTW. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThisIsSeanJ: I have no opinion on whether granting rollback would be appropriate; you can ask at WP:PERM if you think you are ready for that responsibility. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
Hey Tamzin. I noticed you had a message talking about harassment on your User Page, and that you've had people vandalising your page. So just wanted to send some love in your direction.
Your user page referred me to User:PleaseStand/userinfo. It is such a useful script, I find myself taking advantage of its features nearly daily. Thanks for the tip! —Compassionate727(T·C) 16:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Driving in Madagascar
On 16 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Driving in Madagascar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, due to bandits, convoys of ten or more vehicles are required on some roads when driving in Madagascar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Driving in Madagascar. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Driving in Madagascar), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
now i don't have to enter and reënter those keys, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some baklava for you!
Thanks for unblocking my IP Bjtplett (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
The Special Barnstar
For empathy Ppt91talk 17:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Capri-Sun
On 26 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Capri-Sun, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that tobacco conglomerate Philip Morris Cos. marketed Capri Sun to children based on experience selling tobacco to young people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Capri Sun. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Capri-Sun), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
On 18 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mike Tyson's tattoos, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a lawsuit over Mike Tyson's face tattoo, a judge found it "just silly" to say that tattoos cannot be copyrighted, but refused to delay The Hangover Part II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Tyson's tattoos. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mike Tyson's tattoos), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Hi, Tamzin, after your recent edits to Zoroastrianism, there were earnest contributions by Abduhrman Ahmad and slightly odd contributions from GoutComplex, who referenced someone called Silk Road Seattle. I bet "Silk Road Seattle" is a whimsical invention, but don't know about the rest of what Goutcomplex said, so I don't want to erase it based on my limited knowledge. Best wishes, Rich (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard L. Peterson: Sorry for the late response here. I'm afraid I have no particular expertise on Zoroastrianism; just spotted an implausible statistic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I wonder if you would like to collaborate on improving This Arab Is Queer article to a GA status. FuzzyMagma (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to fix my problem with the menus running down the side of the screen. I finally found the answer: reduce the zoom to less than 150%. More details are on my talk page, but THANKS for trying to fix a non-issue. :-) WesT (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Special:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the [[:|article's talk page]], and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please note that such behaviour is distinctly unacceptable on Wikipedia. However, I realise you are still new to Wikipedia and learning the rules - please feel free to ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you are unsure about making an edit. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
f u delete this or im gonna tell the mods on u. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, @Tamzin, that that statement is in breach of rule 1 of this talkpage listed at the top. If you do not retract the comment, I may need to tell this user about the poor behaviour by yourself. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tsk, really should have discuss[ed] the matter with the editor at [...] the [[:|article's talk page]] — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. It's Midterms time here, and I am wading through many illegible student essays. I promise I haven't forgotten you. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all, Lingzhi. As anticipated, looks like your limited availability and mine are more-or-less syncing up. Yesterday was Big Move Day #1. Big Move Day #2 starts tonight (Hebrew calendar–style), and then I'll be freer, with the caveat of being at the mercy of T-Mobile and Amtrak WiFi access. For now, I haven't even finished getting through your first round of comments, so really no rush. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser?
Given your work in SPIs/sock catching I think you'd make a great CheckUser. -- Shadowof theStarlit Sky 22:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve also had that thought for a while. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article Mi Shebeirach you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mi Shebeirach for comments about the article, and Talk:Mi Shebeirach/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning my report of Ethiopique
Hey Tamzin! Early this morning, I filed a report concerning unsourced edits at Clerks III and how all of the edits were made via mobile IP's that were in a range connected to LTA Ethiopique. Before the claim was closed, you commented, "If it's not about politics, it's probably not Ethiopique." Fair enough but I thought you'd be interested in this detail. Since my claim was closed, the mobile IP editor continued to make the same edit, before moving to my talk page accusing me of vandalism and arguing their point. Once I'd had enough, I deleted all of it from my talk page. Suddenly, a new IP address, 50.208.24.165, not a mobile one, reverted my deletion and made another additional comment that made it clear that this was the same person I'd been dealing with on the Clerks III article. Clicking the link to that IP address shows that the user has been temporarily blocked from editing Talk:2000 Mules. I then remembered that the entire range I had reported previously reported was also temporarily blocked from editing that same talk page and you had even commented on it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethiopique/Archive, stating, "Yup. Talk:2000 Mules, as expected. This is Ethiopique, my friends." I did file an SPI and Bbbb23 has addressed it. They then switched to another IP and continued editing until being blocked by Widr on a different range. 50.208.24.165 remains only blocked from editing Talk:2000 Mules. Every IP address involved originates from the same general geographic area using a simple IP search as well. The editor I'm dealing with made it publicly known that they work at a theatre in Colorado that has computers open to the public. Very odd though that both mobile and computer IP addresses are both blocked from the same talk page. Totally understandable as to why it may have not seemed connected earlier but wanted to give you a heads up that there absolutely is a connection and to give a heads up as something to watch. Thanks! NJZombie (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Mira Bellwether
On 28 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mira Bellwether, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mira Bellwether's husband had already read her zine, Fucking Trans Women, years before he met her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mira Bellwether. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mira Bellwether), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Please revert your edits. "New York City" is a place where most readers will be at least somewhat familiar per MOS:OVERLINK, and therefore there is no justification for linking it in infoboxes of biographical articles. See also {{Infobox person#birth_place}}, where NYC is not linked in the recommended example given. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 23:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert: I've already explained why that is not applicable. A person's place of death is inherently of particular relevance to their article, thus will always be acceptable to link in an infobox. Now if you could please go revert the edits where you restored your idiosyncratic interpretation of OVERLINK at Stephen Sondheim and Nancy Reagan, that would be appreciated. I repeat, you are welcome to start a discuttion at the relevant MOS talk page if you wish to make OVERLINK apply in the context of infobox birth/deathplace fields, but currently it does not apply. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how it works. Per MOS:OVERLINK, Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, they should not be linked. That is not the same thing as A person's place of death is inherently of particular relevance to their article. It's absolutely absurd to link such a ubiquitous place as NYC in an article which can easily be understood without such a link. It's no different to linking dates, it's obviously absurd and I'm astonished by how you fail to understand that. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 23:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the corrected quote—"the context in their article"—even more clearly excludes such links. Obviously, when saying "X died in New York City", there is particular relevance in linking New York City. You're welcome to disagree. Many links are stylistic choices, and I wouldn't have touched the Reagan and Sondheim links if they didn't originate from you imposing a stylistic preference by fiat. If you were to write an article and not wikilink NYC in the infobox, I wouldn't touch that, because that'd be overriding your stylistic preferences with mine, which violates MoS. But in all this you haven't explained how the article is any worse with the link. If it is in some way worse, it certainly isn't for violating OVERLINK, which is about contain[ing] an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding—obviously not applicable for a line of an infobox. Anyways, if my stance is so obviously absurd, I'm sure you'll be able to clear this up very quickly on MoS talk and make a fool of me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those cities compares in ubiquity to NYC, obviously one of the largest and most ubiquitous cities in the world. Linking to NYC in such articles is every bit as ridiculous as linking to dates in articles. It's complete overkill and doesn't help the reader at all. There is no relevance whatsoever in linking to it in articles where the subject just happened to have died there. People die almost every hour in the biggest city in the world, it's not unique and certainly does not meet the criteria of particular relevance. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have it backward. Bellwether's death doesn't need to be particularly relevant to NYC. NYC needs to be particularly relevant to her death, which it of course is, as it's the place where it happened. And if your concern is that none of those cities I gave compares to NYC, okay...FAs in subcategories of Category:People from New York City, manually excluding those who were born or died elsewhere:
So, prior to your intervention, it was a slight majority of FAs in favor of linking (14 to 12). Which is about what I expected, because like I said, this is stylistic preference. Some editors, like me, hew toward the upper end of what MOS:OVERLINK allows. Some stay closer to the other side. But what I hope you can see is that there is not in fact any project-wide consensus that New York City must not be linked (nor, for that matter, that it must not be) when it appears as a place of birth or death in infoboxes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have it backwards at all. It's not "particularly relevant to her death", it's a city in which people die hourly. There is absolutely nothing particularly relevant about anyone dying in NYC. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 00:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have anything to say to that. That's not how relevance works. Anyways, the more important part of the above comment is that >50% of relevant FAs do or did the thing you're saying is "obviously absurd". I understand you feel passionately about this, but this may be a good time to step back and consider the possibility that you've misunderstood the guideline. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't misunderstood anything. Even you just pointed out articles without my involvement that do not involve such link overkill. You might as well link Christmas Day on Mira Bellwether since that's no less relevant. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 01:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some articles choose to link NYC in that context, and some do not. I think we're on the same page there. The question is why you feel it's appropriate to go to articles that do it one way and unilaterally switch them to the other, when both styles are widely used without issue, even in featured articles. What you're doing is no different than switching a whole article over to using the Oxford comma. One may well feel that that is the preferable style, but, again, the default is to retain the existing style when multiple styles are permitted, as is the case with wikilinks to major cities in infoboxes. One of the most important principles underlying the MoS is that editors should not change things simply because they would have done differently. This is particularly incumbent on editors who make serial minor edits, lest they promulgate their own preferences as a fait accompli. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, thanks for reporting! Well, this has to be one of the stranger blocks I've ever made, but I've blocked the whole university /16 from just Fine-structure constant and its talk, for a year (hardblocked, account creation allowed). Maybe that'll get the point across. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on getting another five GA's since your first! How awesome MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta: Thanks! It's been really fun and fulfilling to focus on them. Capri-Sun in particular was a real challenge... both so much written about it, and not nearly enogh. If you're looking for another law article to review, my one pending GAN, Mike Tyson's tattoos, while categorized under art, is about 50% law, and even has a connection to your part of the world. (Australia, New Zealand, same thing, right?) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tamzin. I can take a look in the next few days. Would you be open to a QPQ? I have one open as well. Me taking yours is not dependant on you taking mine. I like reviewing so will take it up soon if no one else does before me. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another Awolf58 sock?
Hey Tamzin, trust you're well. Do you think the user with the username Civil Rights Movement is another Awolf58sock? Some things don't add up but some do ... there were so many ducks quacking around that account that I indefblocked it quickly after I found it. Their editing style just seems eerily similar to these edits by an Awolf58 sock and both accounts are obsessed with James Bevel. I din't really want to make this a full SPI but you've dealt with this user in the past ... Graham87 13:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Yeah, that's our guy, or someone doing a very good impression of him. Good block. Thanks for asking! -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with that - I was just pondering whether to take them to ANI, or to start an arbitration request. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, can you explain why you ban me. I was adding what was mentioned in the articles that love jihad is where muslim men target non-muslim women both Hindu and Christian. There are multiple sources mention it in articles. Also Popular Front of India was banned in 2022 for links with other terrorist organisation and accused of alleged love jihad by converting hindu women into muslim and marrying them with muslim men which was not mentioned in the "Love jihad" article. I just added the facts. I have cited reliable sources such as India Today, ThePrint and The Diplomat, which was reputable news outlets. So your claim about poor sources not hold ground. Can you explain what wrong I have done. Just I have edited words unbaisedly which ommited mention of Christian women and only mention hindu women. I accept I was edit warring which need discussion in talk page, but other party also involved. I think some editor are pushing one sided agenda in the articles by cherry picking articles and facts. Dev0745 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dev0745. I just want to confirm that I've seen this. I should be able to respond later tonight, although there's a chance I'll be busy till tomorrow or the next day. But I'll be able to explain my decisionmaking process at length as soon as I have the chance. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, just like that, my appointment's running late. Alright, so, Dev0745, we'll start with the background:
In December 2022, Seraphimblade closed an AE thread as Dev0745 is given a formal logged warning for poor editing practices including synthesis and use of poor quality sources, and that if these issues continue sanctions are likely to be placed. Note that SYNTH is a form of misrepresentation of sources.
In your edit war today at Love jihad conspiracy theory, we can see the same issues that Seraphimblade warned you about, all as part of the same patterns that El_C described:
Poor quality sources: This is a lesser concern, but still relevant. While India Today is, I gather, a reasonably reliable publication, it's facially clear from the article that it is a biased source. While biased sources can still be used in articles, one must take great care to not inherit their POV. It is also in significant part a primary news source, as much of it is based on an undercover investigation they conducted.
Synthesis/misrepresentation: The India Today source does not say that the investigation is an instance of "love jihad". Rather, it refers to what has come to be known as Kerala's own love-jihad case—in other words, saying that some people have called a thing "love jihad"—and later quotes a figure in that case as denying that it is love jihad. The ThePrintsource likewise only says that people called that particular case "love jihad", in scare quotes.
Misrepresentation by omission: Immediately after referencing the alleged "love jihad" case, ThePrint says: However, the agency concluded its probe in October 2018 after it found no 'evidence of coercion' that could result in prosecution. That is an incredibly important detail to have omitted, and was the main factor in my decision to impose a TBAN. You re-added this passage with the edit summary PFI was accused of carrying religious conversion and marrying non-muslim women to muslim men which is dictionary definition of love jihad. It was accused incase of love jihad, in other words clearly intending to use a source saying there was no evidence of coerced conversion to support an implication that there was.
More synthesis: The statement that PFI was banned carries the clear implication that it in some way pertained to "love jihad", especially since, I will reiterate, you omitted any mention of the police finding of no coercion. The Diplomatsource does not mention love jihad or conversions once.
That you edit-warred to maintain this misuse of sources gets back to what El_C said in 2020: POV, tendentious, and disruptive. Even now you are arguing for a conspiracy theory—one that even your own cited sources refuse to characterize as a real thing. Given your history of disruption in the IPA topic area, I stand by my impression that the best thing for you and the project is to separate you from that topic area. There are millions of other articles to edit, and perhaps on them your judgment will not be as clouded by strong personal feelings. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote what article say. PFI was accused of love Jihad and banned for alleged links with other terrorist organisation. I never wrote that PFI is involved in love jihad or banned for love jihad. PFI is the forefront Organisation in Kerala for religious conversion and accused of love jihad but banned for links with terrorist organisation. I have written factual things what source mention. You implications are incorrect and I never wrote your implication that PFI is banned for involved in love jihad. I think, It is your implications. I never written what you are implying. Your decision should be based on facts and evidence rather than implications. Thanks.. Dev0745 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained my reasoning for the topic ban, and your response does not persuade me that me that I was wrong; if anything, it confirms my impression that you do not understand our policies on verifiability and synthesis. If you would like to appeal the topic ban, you may follow the remaining steps at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding verifiability and synthesis, my written sentence are based on verifiable sources and I have written what sources said in different sentences i.e PFI was accused of love Jihad. It is banned for alleged links with other terrorist organisation. It is straight fact stated in sources. There is no synth in it. Syth is combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. But I have written straight what sources say in different sentences. How can it be not verifiable soures with reputable news outlets like India Today, The print and The Diplomat. How can be it a Synth when it is two different sentences based on simple fact what state straight in source. I think you have different definition of Synth. I checked in synthesis and my written sentence don't fall in the category of syth since both sentences are based on verifiable soures and are straight facts. Dev0745 (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined to reconsider my decision. You may appeal the TBAN to uninvolved admins at WP:AE or uninvolved community members at WP:AN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that's fine actually, my admin break is mostly over. Thanks for letting me know though. :)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh sorry, don't know how I managed to do that. Please feel free to put yourself back in! It Is Me Here (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
I just wanted to drop by and say thank you for letting me know about this. Although I don't know if I should send a kitten to the creator after like 4 months lmao. Rejoy2003(talk) 11:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, think that was just an erroneous ping on archival. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Topic Ban Scope Inquiry
Hi, Tamzin. I was wondering whether editing articles about the 18th-century Khanates of the Caucasus, specifically the Karabakh Khanate, would fall within the scope of my topic ban on conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed. Neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan existed during that time. While I am fairly certain that it does not fall within the scope, I wanted your confirmation before proceeding. Thank you. — Goldencall me maybe? 14:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Golden: Have you ever heard of Ludger Sylbaris? In 1902 he was put in solitary confinement for a violent crime. Shortly thereafter, the entire city of Saint-Pierre was destroyed in a volcanic eruption, but he survived thanks to the very cell that had confined him.Maybe you see the similarity here, to someone spared a full TBAN in AA3 because they had complied with an existing narrower TBAN, when almost everyone else was swept away in the pyroclastic flows of broad ArbCom-level sanctions?Bearing in mind that you did still get a sanction that puts you one strike away from a "TBAN, go directly to ArbCom, do not pass AE, do not collect $200", I would counsel you to be very careful straying anywhere in the vicinity of your existing TBAN. So, to answer your question, the existing TBAN should be read to include conflicts of predecessor states to modern Azerbaijan and Armenia. It does not prevent you from editing about other aspects of those countries, just as it does not prevent you from editing about other aspects of Armenia or Azerbaijan, but, just... remember Ludger Sylbaris. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice and for clarifying the scope of my topic ban. I understand the seriousness of the situation and will continue to be cautious in my editing. The parallel you drew with the story of Ludger Sylbaris is powerful and I will keep it in mind as I edit. I appreciate your help and will take your words to heart. — Goldencall me maybe? 19:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mike Tyson's tattoos you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for helping me with my review. I also really enjoyed working with you. You have a great eye for detail, which I missed in my work, and you point out tricky issues that are genuinely helpful and improve the article. Please ping me when Novak v. City of Parma is nominated, there is a standing offer from me to review. If you would like to collaborate on retaliatory arrest, I'd be happy to! My GA's so far are all legal cases, which have sort of a "cookie cutter" skeleton to them; hitting all the right notes makes writing a decent article quite achievable with those. Retaliatory arrest is a much broader and more challenging topic to produce, I'm guessing! If you have any specific areas or sub-sections you want work on I'd be happy to help. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I was just about to mention Novak! I'm looking forward to getting it to GA because we don't have many GAs about lower-court decisions in the U.S. (Sidenote, I wonder if Whitmill is the least-developed case that gets any legal analysis on this wiki, seeing as it never even made it to trial!) But I want to finish my overhaul of the Bluebook citation templates before I wrap that up. No reason for that to be a blocker but I'm treating it as one to keep myself on-track.
By the way, you passed Tyson's tattoos before I could answer your question on "source says" versus "source said". Honestly... I'm not sure. Like the convention in scholarship is to use present-tense when describing what a source says. But then if the source's existence is more part of the narrative, past tense seems to make more sense, and that's what you see with like movie reviews. So my usual approach is, if the source's existence is part of the story (e.g. there's a back-and-forth of commentary), past tense, but otherwise present... But there's always times where it feels wrong whichever way I do it. If any talkpage watcher knows of some relevant bit of MoS, please let me know.
I just googled retaliatory arrest in Australia and got nothing except American references. I have never heard of this before. Open to learning! — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaah. The Riviera Beach case, which I reviewed with you, is an example. Hmmm. Can't really think of any examples that come to mind here. Happy to have a look around... — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like examples such as this...sort of are on the same track...but sorta not. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article Mike Tyson's tattoos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mike Tyson's tattoos for comments about the article, and Talk:Mike Tyson's tattoos/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to know it doesn't have a page still after 2 years. Lately I knew that there has been a page in the draft space with many disputes after I made one in my sandbox. I moved it to Draft with other name later: Draft:Meesho (Draft).
WP:RFP brings me here. I would like to have some actions done by you regards this or an advice if I should make changes in the Draft for AfC since the the discussion has gone silent after the protection.
@MrAnmol: As noted in the protection summary, the page will be unprotected if Draft:Meesho is ever approved. (I'm not sure why you've created a duplicate draft.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I mistakenly I moved the page to something else. Moving there seemed easier than copying texts to my sandbox. I did not know there had been an article. I usually draft pages in sandbox before moving to mainspace.
I was admiring your photo and the description of the tattoo when I happened to notice there was room for bisexual representation in all the flags, but no representation for heterosexuals. Is there some reason why these groups are exclusionary to this particular group of people? No rainbow of celebration or pride for men who like women or vice versa? I've never really gotton into these discussions that much before, but my impression has always been that the LGBQT community has always had complaints about being marginalized, but what I'm seeing here is that they appear to actually be doing the marginalizing to themselves in a manner of speaking, or at the very least contributing to it themselves and perhaps not helping any more than anyone else might be if that makes any sense. It's really kinda twisted actually. Segregating yourself to the automatic exclusion of another group, and then pointing at the other group to say, "you marginalize us!". Huggums537 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Huggums537 I'm not sure if this is supposed to be parody of some sort, but it isn't very funny. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you can see the irony in it, but yeah I have to agree I wouldn't call it funny either... Huggums537 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Huggums537, if you're really not getting it: The point of pride flags is for LGBTQ people to show pride in what we are. They are not there to show unity with other groups. Most LGBTQ people do want unity with non-LGBTQ groups, of course, but that's not what the flags are for, just like you can wave a U.S. flag but still want world peace. Just like I can have a Star of David in that same tattoo but still want religions to coexist. For centuries LGBTQ communities have been told that we have to hide who we are, so there is an audacity in saying "No, instead we're going to hang flags showing it". That is the resistance to marginalization.Anyways, this is off-topic for Wikipedia. You're welcome to email me if you have further questions, although if you continue to take the tone you took in your first message, I'm unlikely to reply. (Friendly word of advice: If you want a sincere answer to a question about something you don't know much about, it's best not to then spend several sentences preaching about the topic you've just said you don't know much about. One might wind up saying something stupid.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I guess I really just don't get it, or the point of any flag for that matter. I don't get any patriots waving their own flag proudly exclaiming we are number one and everybody else sucks while complaining about not having world peace, but you are right as far as being off topic so I'll drop the stick because I'm just one of those weirdos who never will get it I guess... Huggums537 (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tamzin, I said I was going to drop this, but I've been doing some thinking about it, and your example about the U.S. flag has me thinking maybe I kinda do get it now because I was also thinking about what you said about "unity", "audacity", and "resistance". Well, that got me to thinking about how the first flag (and even the current one) was really made to represent the "unity" of the colonies and states with a kind of "audacity" and "resistance" to the British or anyone who might oppress us. The only problem I have with it is that we became friends with the Brits a long time ago so to me it seems like the justification for waving that banner isn't really warranted any more. It's kinda how a lot of people feel about the confederate flag, but I think most flags represent something outdated if you ask me. Except the copyright piracy banner. That one is still relevant! Lol. :) Huggums537 (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I may offer another data point (all IMO, though I think I'm in agreement with Tamzin and the mainstream on this): the point of pride flags is to show solidarity with marginalized groups. "Heterosexual", unlike any of the groups within the LGBT flag, is not a marginalized group--quite the opposite--and so is not relevant to a pride flag. Pride flags are not about demonstrating superiority, they're about visibility and solidarity. Being straight requires no help with either, as it's been the socially dominant group for hundreds/thousands of years. This is the same reason there's no "white history month".
Speaking of which, people don't have such strong reactions to the Confederate flag because it's outdated. People have strong reactions to it because what *it* represents is an explicitly white supremacist system that was founded and waged war specifically to preserve the chattel slavery and general social subjugation of black people, and anyone who flies it is implicitly yearning to go back to that system. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 12:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've always had a way of explaining things... Huggums537 (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like the pride flags in Tamzin's tattoo are representative of her own LGBT identities. I don't see a bi flag in the tattoo. I only see the rainbow flag, trans flag, non-binary flag, and agender flag. I'm not sure where you got "bi representation" from.
Is Tamzin bi? If she is, then she's not straight (unless she is bi-straight, but that's a different orientation from being just straight), so of course she's not going to have a straight flag in her tattoo. MinerGlitch25 (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rainbow flag represents bisexuals (among others). That is where I got it from. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 13:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I picked bisexual as a comparative to heterosexual is because they both use the word "sexual". Just a random way to do a comparative. I could have chosen gay or lesbian, or even tried to assume what Tamzins preference is, but I just decided to go with the two words that sound most alike if that makes any sense at all. Huggums537 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gays and lesbians are homosexual, and that's typically considered the "opposite" of heterosexual. But this conversation should probably end. Feel free to not reply. ––FormalDude(talk) 14:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Right you are. Thanks for pointing that technically accurate fact out. You can tell it is obvious I'm not used to being on this topic at all... Huggums537 (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos on your work. Terrific writing. Funny. Current. So sweet. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asleep
Guess I've been asleep for a month or more. Didn't know about the various recent discussions surrounding editor DePiep and frankly, I'm sorry it's come to this. As someone who has known this editor for many years and who has had several fairly negative discussions with them, I would still have to agree with those who were concerned about their "net" contribution to the project. As well as having had several negative talks with this editor, there have also been several good ones. DePiep is actually an awesome template editor and not too shabby with modules, as well. I've seen him give inexperienced editors the "shirt off his back" to help them along. I wish I had known about the ANI talks; don't know if I would have made a difference. If I had known, this is what I would have written, so I thought I'd come to your talk page as the blocking admin and let you know. Honestly don't know if editor DePiep deserves another chance, but if they ever apply for one, I would wholeheartedly support an end to their being blocked!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 01:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is to "[e]dit about something else, anything else." And I don't mean a single edit at a non-r(o)uble-related page; I hope for some significant editing in other areas. I admit that "significant" is subjective, but I think a few articles would be an informal but appropriate benchmark.
Just because this request only covers Talk:Ruble does not preclude me from "walk[ing] away from the spelling of" r(o)uble elsewhere.
Please consider noting the self-requested nature of this block.
Also, if you do (graciously) decide to grant my request, please leave my TPA intact so that I can discuss non-r(o)uble-related issues with other editors. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, NotReallySoroka. I'd never before considered whether my self-requested block policy could include partial blocks. Having thought about it a bit, my feeling is that it does not, for the same reason I do not make self-requested tempblocks. I am willing to impose self-requested indefinite-but-not-infinite blocks if an editor feels that it is in the best interest of their mental health, but that is premised on the idea that they need to fully detach from Wikipedia for a period of time. If that's what you'd like, then I am open to that, but if you feel that you are in a position where you can continue editing, then a partial block should not be necessary, as you should be able to stay away from that page yourself. I hope that makes sense. If you are still interested in a self-requested partial blocks, there may be other admins in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks who are open to it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare: I referred to OS, and the conclusion (paraphrasing; OSes can correct me if this is an inaccurate summary) was that Special:Diff/1073443678 and the trivial ease of connecting the accounts makes it not outing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking.
I am not active on Reditt but it seems that much of the on-wiki dispute in this topic-area is imported from, or at least reflected, there. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare: Yeah, I think this is mostly a war between two subreddits (r/PitBulls and r/BanPitBulls), which are always frustrating because they fall in a gray area with respect to WP:MEAT. The former subreddit's POV is significantly closer to the mainstream academic POV (at least, that's what BiomatrixBackup explained to me over dinner last night, based on her veterinary medicine classes), but both groups are being disruptive. I halfway wonder if this is one of those niche culture-war topic areas that would benefit from community general sanctions. Or maybe we should just consider this to fall under WP:FRINGE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's my (lay) impression too. What this area really needs is more attention from disinterested editors, i.e. ones who don't have strong pre-formed pro or anti- views. But that is easier wished than done. I don't typically edit/admin in this area but if you ever start a discussion about community sanctions etc, feel free to ping me and I'll be happy to add my observations. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
Thank you for all you do to make Wikipedia a more inclusive, welcoming, and safe community. – bradv 21:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pitbulls and SPI
First, thank you for your interest in the ongoing AN/I thread. I've been reading through the Normal OP SPI threads here [1] and here [2]. Were any of these socks blocked on technical evidence? In many cases it looks like the main behavioral evidence was that they didn't like pitbulls. Does this mean people shouldn't be editing in that topic area for fear of being declared a sock? It seems like it'd be hard to maintain NPOV in the topic area, when editors with one POV in particular are blocked, largely for having that POV. Geogene (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Geogene: The initial tempblock of NO and indef of Cohere, plus the finding of meatpuppetry with Tangurena, were based on CU evidence. (N.B.: I am not a CU, so can't speak for the merits of any CUblock.) As you can see, in September 2021, after inconclusive CU results, I (then a trainee non-admin clerk) found that Platonk was likely NO based on behavioral evidence, but not likely enough to block on. In February 2022, Psychologist Guy started a new SPI, presenting much more extensive evidence than had been seen in the first. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Normal Op/Archive § Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments 3, I distilled the 4 key pieces of new evidence and presented a fifth piece. CU results were "possilikely", and in combination with the behavioral evidence led a CU to block. Now, in the most recent filing, a CU concluded the accounts were unrelated, and the account's subsequent block was for tendentious editing, not socking. So in summation, both blocks of NO sox have been based on CU evidence, and to the extent that behavioral evidence was needed to get the 2nd one to the necessary confidence level, it was very thorough behavioral evidence, not simply "They both hate pitbulls." So no, I don't think there's any reason to think that, by expressing anti–pit bull opinions, one will be mistakenly blocked as an NO sock. Although, depending on the strength of the views and how they're expressed, one might be blocked for tendentious editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By the way, I think the super extended confirmed rule, that requires 500 edits and 30 days, that might be on the table with community sanctions would help to disincentivize socking in the topic area going forward. And help well-intentioned newcomers from possibly having a bad experience in the topic area. Geogene (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the PartyParrot42 account, it was a disruptive account but not Normal Op. I strongly suspect that I have been following Normal Op/Platonk for over a year on a new account but I am not publishing my findings. He only makes the occasional edit on articles related to dogs and horses, he now focuses on scientology but he slipped up a few times in the past making mass removals on animal welfare articles like he did on Normal Op and Platonk. On his previous sock Platonk he focused on editing Ethiopia. Basically he will only make occasional edits on animal articles to avoid detection. The last SPI I filed took about 4 or 5 days to write. Before I filed that SPI I had about 2 weeks worth of emails with other users collecting evidence. I am not in the position to file an SPI again for this person it will take me days to write and collect evidence, it would be a drain on my health and time. He's almost given up editing on pitbulls and is not disrupting the website anymore (I couldn't care less if he edits scientology) so I am not going to waste time filing as it would be an extremely long behavioural SPI. This is the most intelligent sock-puppet I have ever come across and he wouldn't give the game away as easy as PartyParrot42 did. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Impersonation
Hi Tamzin,
I’m contacting you in regards to this user User:Snazzy the Optimist, that must be a fan who created the page with the artists name which is misleading according to Wikipedia:Username policy, please we want the user to be deleted to avoid further impersonation of the artist, i will really appreciate if you could please take out few minutes of your time and look into it and get the user page deleted, thanks. Sn123456789 (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user has already been blocked indefinitely for being a suspected sockpuppet account. MinerGlitch25 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sn123456789: Hi. If you feel that you or an associate are being impersonated on Wikipedia, please contact legalwikimedia.org, where a team of lawyers and paralegals will look into the matter. Such matters are above my paygrade as a site administrator. In the meantime, do know that the userpage in question is already excluded from search engine results. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: Regretfully, that falls into a category of appeal that I do not handle. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive essay you state what SPIs are not for but, in saying that "SPI is for sockpuppet investigations", it doesn't indicate a purpose for that investigation. Could you clarify, please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...in other words, if SPIs are for SPIs, what are they for? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mutt Lunker: SPIs are for determining whether the sockpuppetry policy has been violated. Since a finding in the affirmative will often give rise to a block, protocols are built in for issuing blocks (although they weren't always); but an SPI is not necessary for a sockblock, and a sockblock is not an automatic outcome of an adverse SPI finding. Does that make sense? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm trying to establish the practical implications in my mind. In WP:DUCK cases, where it is plainly evident that edits are being carried out by a WP:BE sock, thus disruptive, though individual edits may not be cut-and-dried vandalism, would WP:ANI be the preferred course of action to SPI, in your view? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection against apparent socks
Some accounts which seem to be socks of the same person are adding OR stuff to the infobox of Siege of Pelium. I made a semi-protection request at the protection requests page and opened an SPI. However nobody has responded yet to the semi-protection request. Since you are both an admin and SPI clerk, can you protect the page and take a look at the SPI whether it really needs a CU or not? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'll be doing any admin work tonight (not much brainpower right now, mostly doing a JWB run on mental autopilot), but if I do I'll take a look. :)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the page is now semi-protected. Some of the sock accounts have been blocked, though the SPI itself is waiting for a clerk or admin to look at. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tamzin: Could you please revdel the last edits on this talk page: Talk:Bashir-ud-din Farooqi. An IP has weirdly publicized someone's personal information. Regards, ─ The Aafī(talk) 04:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained at ANI, I have been rollbacked/reverted 7 times. I consider all but one of those reverts/rollbacks to have been motivated not by editorial concern, but as an automatism (4 out of 7 have a summary along the lines of "reverting removal" without any justification, one has no summary). I would like for those undoings to be undone, that the page go back to the way I had put them.
What should I do? Should I ask the admin at their talk page to justify themselves editorially? Discuss on all 7 article talk pages? Revert the admin's reversions/rollbacks without discussing, since their actions was simply based on the false premise of me being disruptive ("I saw that guy had received blocks, so anyway I started reverting")? Veverve (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: I would suggest letting the AN thread play itself out before reverting again. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iffy user page, and HERE considerations
Hi Tamzin, I have some HERE considerations about brand-new user Knitesmire (talk · contribs)[noping] (3 career edits). It's premature to do anything now, but can you keep an eye out? First ran into them at Talk:Cotton ceiling, and checking their user page, I can't tell if we're being trolled by their last paragraph, or if it's a clear RGW statement implying NOTHERE, or maybe it's merely carefree and ill-advised. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: First, wow that's a horrible article. I wonder if it would be better as an {{r with possibilities}} than... this. (I've been speaking Toki Pona all weekend and having trouble switching back to English, and the word that comes to mind is nasa, sort of meaning "foolish", or the non-literal sense of "crazy".) As to the conduct issue, I'm about to step out for the day, but perhaps a talkpage watcher has thoughts. If not, I'll be around tonight/tomorrow. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They may never return, so effort on the poss. HERE issue at this point may be premature, but bears watching.
As to the article itself: it was Afd'd and deleted upon first nom in 2019, and then recreated in Dec. 2022, and survived second nom. (My original arguments in favor of non-notability/deletion from the now-deleted original talk page were partially preserved in quotation by User:-sche in Afd-1.) I missed the 2nd nom and would've voted delete; for example, the vast majority of book refs are about commodity prices, and the few remaining ones imply the existence of a vogue word that made an appearance, and then was rarely used post-2017 or so. Not every cute blog expression that was once trendy rates an article here, and imho, it very clearly fails WP:PAGEDECIDE as it will never be expanded to a full article. It also fails WP:NOTDICT, although conceivably it could live on as a one-line entry in some jargon list somewhere, perhaps at LGBT slang. Mathglot (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin, not sure where else to go with this but saw this convo pop up on my watchlist so it seems an appropriate location. There seems to be a similar but even more transparently NOTHERE account, Bincturd, who joined yesterday. They thanked me for removing the wikibreak template from my userpage and then < 5 minutes later populated their userpage with very transparent trolling of nonbinary editors. When I'd checked last night I'd only seen their teahouse question (which I thought was a nuanced question about neo-pronouns but on further examination appears to be trolling), but I was wondering why a day old account would be watching my userpage so checked again this morning and voila, trolling. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And I'll say sigh about the situtation as someone who took a bit of time to give them an answer at the tea house. Skynxnex (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Socking or Meatpuppetry
Hi Tamzin, I've got a few users, either socks, or more likely, meatpuppets. They are User:Dhan643044, User:Ogresbaku and User:Shashwat185. On IRC a few days ago I believe one of them said Shashwat was their little brother, so either it's socking, or probably meatpuppetry. But behaviorally they are all the same. Yours, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Zippybonzo:, if you have what you consider to be valid evidence (i.e, diffs, common targets, patterns of behavior; ie., more than just a hunch) then please file a sockpuppet investigation. Others will take it from there. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AlisonW and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
I know you meant well taking this to ANI, but I can't help feeling this has backfired a bit, and I just wished you'd had a word with Alison about WP:INVOLVED out of the way on their talk page. You'd have probably have reached an understanding and I dare say educated them on appropriate admin conduct during disputes.
I'm usually a strong supporter of kicking out admins that passed RfA before I created my account when they do egregiously bad actions, and I'm also unhappy about people who don't assume as much good faith as I do on disruptive cases, and I'm wondering why I'm just not feeling the same about this with AlisonW. I think part of it is unlike just about every other "out of touch admin" case I've seen at Arbcom in the past few years, they're trying to listen, explain their thoughts, and understand what the disconnect is. So I still think with a bit of education, their tools are salvageable and not a complete lost cause. Anyway, it looks like the case is probably going to be accepted, so we'll just have to sit back and see what happens. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Part of me thinks, oh, I should have waited and talked with her after unblocking, but 1) I wasn't the wronged party here, and I thought better my calmer AN post than somebody else taking it to AN/I immediately gunning for her bit, and 2) I do think fundamentally the community has a right to know when something like this occurs, especially when the admin persists in the policy violation after being called on it by one uninvolved user (Pbritti). I did everything I could to soften the blow: I unblocked before posting, because "should we unblock?" threads tend to see hotter tempers than "I just unblocked" threads; I picked AN rather than the fierier AN/I; I didn't submit a definitive conclusion as to whether she was involved; I didn't ask for any remedy.I get what you mean though, about wanting a way out of this for AlisonW. Something does feel different than the standard "My way or the highway" out-of-touch admin cases. She seems to get that she's out of touch, but just not how important that is—seems to think that an involved block, without warning, for actions within editorial discretion is something that reasonable minds can differ on. If she could come around on that, maybe there'd be room for something here. I'll think on whether there's anything useful I can say at the A/R/C in that vein. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and reviewed Alison's comments, and I think the discussion at AN was at cross purposes. Essentially, she mistook Veverve's edits for vandalism and applied revert, block, ignore, and her comments explained what she thought was the correct thing to do, based on that faulty assumption. It's correct that WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply for vandals, and she was explaining policy as it applied to vandalism. By the time the AN thread opened, everyone knew the edits were in good faith, and were arguing from the correct assumption - ie: reverting an editor, dismissing their comments and blocking them without warning is an absolute no-no, which is why so many people were cross at AN. And that's why I think the hostility increased, because people thought - reasonably - that Alison was explaining she'd still take the same actions.
As far as "differing minds" go, my take on it is Alison doesn't like people walking up to articles and deleting content without discussion, which I sort of get, though I don't agree with entirely - indeed, I agree with Veverve's view that "In popular culture" sections are a cruft magnet that don't really give much benefit to the reader. But I'm not completely convinced she'd defend that viewpoint to the extent of abusing the administrator toolset. And she thinks the appropriate action to an admin making a bad block mistakely is not being dragged off to Arbcom for a desysop. Which I sort of get.
I'm not sure I can say much more at the Arbcom case. I think Alison has said enough for now; no fresh views are coming forward, and at least one Arb has already said "I wish you'd just said that in the first place, we wouldn't be here". If the case is accepted and starts up, I can probably try and come up with some supporting evidence. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collective responsibility article
Hi,
I actually agree with your deletion of the article. It was a bloody mess from WP:NPOV and I did not feel up to the task of fixing it all especially with sanctions over it. But your comment raises a question: I've been inactive for quite some time and... did I lose my extended confirmed status while I was away??? Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: No, all is well! I've always interpreted "no substantial edits" under WP:CSD G5 to not include as "substantial" those edits that remove content for being inappropriate. Otherwise, there's a perverse incentive where removing part of a problematic article then makes it harder to delete. But perhaps I should have written "all content", not "all substantive edits", since your removals were substantive, just not new content; apologies for the confusion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, LOL, a lot has changed interface wise since I was last here so I wondered if there had also been account changes. All good. And thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User Reports
I'm not filling reports on users anymore. In fact, I'm done doing everything on Wikipedia. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page move
Hello, Tamzin,
I don't quite understand what you did with Zubair Ahmed. You moved the main page to a Talk page and didn't move Talk:Zubair Ahmed at all. Did you miss this? Thanks and have a good weekend! LizRead!Talk! 21:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Ah, I always forget that if you move a content page to a talkpage, the talkpage gets stranded. There's no real rules for archiving mainspace content in talkspace, so I've just copy-pasted to Talk:Kakrail Mosque/attribution/Zubair Ahmed and G6'd Talk:Zubair Ahmed. Thanks for flagging this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invasive Spices
Hello Tamzin,
You probably noticed that I've been sorting through some of the redirects created by Invasive Spices. I was reading this discussion [3] and wondered how so many awful redirects had been created without anyone noticing.
It turns out they're on the redirect autopatrol list Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. On the basis that they've had a redirect G10'd as an attack page, a multitude of redirects R3'd as completely implausible and you've just snow deleted a load of their creations at RFD I think this pseudo-right should be revoked - their creations could clearly do with manual review.
Thanks for the heads-up, Oxford. I've removed redirect AP. Courtesy ping Rosguill. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Topic-ban question
Hello Tamzin,
I have a question about the topic ban you placed on Golden for "conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed". Aren't the following edits a violation of the topic ban?
Blue Mosque, Yerevan, a mosque in Armenia's capital that Azerbaijanis claim, although few agree with them, as detailed in the Controversy section.
Svante Cornell, who is an infamous lobbyist for Azerbaijan, who's evidently extremely Armenophobic (as detailed here and here).
Golden editing these articles is especially concerning, given that you had previously advised the user to be very careful about the articles they edit; these seem like they should've known not to go near these articles. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, Golden, I wish you wouldn't get so close to the bounds of the TBAN. On the other hand, Kevo327, I don't see that any of these pertains to conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaian, nor that any is on an article so inextricably tied to those that unrelated parts of it can't be edited. Especially given that the first two are reverts of unexplained IP edits (arguably exempt under WP:GS/AA, actually, although no one seems to enforce that regime) and the third is a BLP issue. I'd maybe feel differently if the Cornell article mentioned the Armenophobia you reference, but it currently does not.So I do not personally see a violation here. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WP:AE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
apologies for taking your time, but I wanted to clarify; Kalbajar District article contains territory that is de facto controlled by the Republic of Artsakh, and was fuly controlled by the later before 2020 (when it changed hands). Wouldn't that make it inextricably tied to conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan? And while not mentioned on the Cornell article currently, the Blankspot source for the text that Golden edited does detail Cornell being a paid lobbyist for Azerbaijan against Armenia as the criticism. Golden also edited the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic article, which contains entire sections dedicated to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Could this also be inextricably tied?
finally thank you for your feedback. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't really make sense to ban someone from the topic of conflicts between two countries, as opposed to the broader topic of the countries themselves, if we're going to say that that ban covers any article about those two countries that has anything to do with conflict. I chose to give Golden a limited TBAN so that he could continue to edit other parts of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic area, and I still don't see anything in the diffs you've presented that shows him straying into conflicts involving Armenia and Azerbaijan. Like I said before, the Cornell case might be different if the article established a connection to conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, but it doesn't. We can't really judge an editor based on facts that weren't in the article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom ban template
Hi Tamzin. In our recent discussions at the ban policy talk page, you talked about how ArbCom had stopped using visible templates for banned users because of the drama. You can see from what I just posted at the ban policy talk page, that I asked ArbCom about it, and one of the Arbs told me something different. If you're aware of something that contradicts what he told me, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, someone else just posted that it may in fact be as you said, because of the template setting. I'll admit that this is getting very confusing for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, so it is. I was just shown exactly that, at the ArbCom talk page. Thanks!--Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IPs can close RMs
Don't revert my closure please. 90.254.6.237 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACD (part of WP:Deletion process, which covers RMs) says otherwise. Regardless, your close made absolutely no sense. There have been barely any don't move !votes in the RM, and none since the debris was found. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it was 5 days premature, without explanation of why a speedy close was merited. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay, which is silent on IP closures as far as I can see. WP:Deletion process is a guideline and includes RM as a deletion venue. If you wish to ask clarification at some appropriate venue, feel free. In either case, it wouldn't change the fact that your close was procedurally and substantively invalid for other reasons. If you think the page should not be moved, go ahead and !vote that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're actually right that RM is covered by the deletion process policy (or at least it's ambiguous in that page), the text of that section describes there being six deletion venues, the table lists 7 places, including requested moves.
That being said the closure by the IP was really bad, and it should have been reverted purely on that basis. The article is highly visible, on the topic of a breaking news story, on the main page and is admin level move protected [4], so this is not a good candidate for a non admin closure by an IP. The closure rationale is a supervote, not an attempt to establish consensus. Most of the previous votes were to the effect of "wait, we need more information", so closing the discussion on the basis that the information became available makes no sense. There was no good reason for an early closure here. The discussion was active, including a section dedicated to comments after the news broke. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdewman6 Yes, that is the exact section I mention in my comment. The text says Deletion venues (or deletion forums) are the six places to propose a page not eligible for speedy deletion be deleted, but the table contains seven entries, so it's ambiguous whether requested moves is covered by the deletion process policy. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I am not sure why RMs are included there, since any pages deleted as part of a RM are speedy deletions (i.e., you can't propose a deletion there), maybe Tamzin has some insight. But regardless, consensus is that IPs should not be closing any discussions, including RMs, as there is no way to ensure the closer can be reached for discussion about their close. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdewman6 If you really want to get into technicalities, the current consensus is that an essay on discussion closures should contain wording disallowing IP closures, "IP's can't close discussions" isn't actually a part of policy AFAIK (though the distinction between policy, guideline and widely accepted essay is fairly meaningless in my view).
I do find it slightly odd that we don't have a central policy on "closing discussions", given the amount of basic principles that apply everywhere (don't close discussions in which you have expressed an opinion, don't close discussions in which you are involved, you should be willing to answer queries about the close at your talk page...) instead we have the same content repeated multiple times in slightly different wordings across a range of policies and information pages. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone should try to create one of those and/or propose it at WP:VPP? I'd be willing to contribute. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 04:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Late arriving general comment. Unregistered closing of discussions is a tricky area. I've closed a number over the years. As a matter of actual practice, closing discussions that could as easily be closed by a bot is fine. Stuff like helping someone withdraw a nomination when WP:SK#1 applies, cleaning up after a page is speedied, or terminating obvious sock disruption though that can often be handled through reversion or G3/G5 deletion of the discussion page is all fine. If your IP is reasonably static, clearing away the extremely obvious keeps (excepting AFD) once you're a few hundred edits in is fine, there's one unregistered user I recognize who periodically does exactly that to keep RFD flowing, or used to anyway. However, if it's at all controversial, and early closes usually are, it's best to leave it to someone else. As always there are exceptions, and there are some historical cases where IP closes of tense AN/ANI discussions have stuck, but that is far from usual.Given the particulars of the case that started this, I'll add that closing discussions (or sometimes even commenting on them) within your first few edits on a new IP is rude. If someone does revert you it's usually best to just let the matter drop unless they come to your talk page. Perhaps one day I'll write an essay on IP discussion etiquette, but as is so often the case, the biggest thing is using common sense. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update
My confidence and energy to report possible vandalism has returned. I don't plan on doing more username reports. I honestly didn't know it was four violations because no one pinged me. I understand that won't have me unblocked from username reports, but it does not matter anyway. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yaniv
Is there any way to expedite the process for the obvious sock is obvious Yaniv socks? Eg Elvaquerosr and Jaster Mareel. nableezy - 16:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: I think here's a pretty good place to ask, between me and some clerks/CUs who watch this page—such as Blablubbs, who's indeffed both of these. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you, that makes life easier. nableezy - 01:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BangaloreNorth: I've merged the cases. Don't have time to look at the merits right now; sadly there's a pretty long backlog at SPI. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: No good deed goes unpunished, eh? But actually, wow, yeah, that was pretty easy. Should be all sorted now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed. A note: you accidentally wrote that you blocked .106 (the unrelated IP) rather than .191 (the related IP with only one edit). You also wrote 2 weeks but the block log seems to indicate 1 week? TompaDompa (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good eye! Comment adjusted. Think I meant to go for 2 weeks, but tbh it's kind of arbitrary what to go for on an IP that's only edited once, so I'll leave it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will (very slightly) AGF this isn't deliberate impersonation of the real bot, but either way, unapproved bots get blocked. Any admin is free to unblock if it turns out to be a misunderstanding. Perhaps some watching CU wants to take a look here, though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the name in new users. I know there is a legit bot with a similar name. Seemed suspicious that it showed up in new users. Plus the editor it says is running it, hasn't edited in a while. Knitsey (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol not a bot. They replied to the block. Knitsey (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cetaceans
Just got home from Alaska. Many orcas were viewed. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article End Poem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Julian Gough wrote in Minecraft'sEnd Poem that "you are love" (quotation pictured), and then released the poem into the public domain after a psilocybin trip prompted him to heed that message? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/End Poem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, End Poem), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
I had, essentially, given my story as a gift to a couple of hundred million people all around the world [...]; but I had refused to allow any of them to give me anything in return. And that was a kind of arrogance, too. A blockage in the flow of love.
Indeed, I had actively hidden away from love. [...] I frequently got Twitter DMs, and emails, and messages through my website, that told me how much the End Poem had meant to people. [...] All kinds of beautiful, generous, vulnerable messages. But, often, too overwhelmed by emotion [...], I wouldn't even reply.
[... T]he universe told me that it wasn’t acceptable for me to give love, but then refuse to receive it. That was just fake humility; another form of arrogance, of ego. I had to allow people to say thank you; I had to accept whatever gifts people might wish to offer in return, because too much charge was building up along that blocked circuit.
I had to complete the circuit. Let it flow.
If I have one overriding challenge on this site, it's having a clinically fucked-up memory. The upshot of my dissociative condition is that I tend to index things by topic, not by time, such that I can drop something for months and then pick up right where I left off. Here, in an environment where that would at times not be acceptable, I force myself to respond promptly to admin accountability inquiries and time-sensitive editorial concerns... but otherwise I often let things linger. And I'd told myself that that wasn't hurting anyone, and I guess I was right in the direct sense, because I've never been slow to respond to something where someone was owed a speedy response. But the quote from Gough got me to see it a bit differently. I've gotten a lot of WikiLove and often I've just never gotten around to responding to it, and that does have a harm in its own way, because it fails to create the circuit someone tried to initiate. And as much as I'd like to blame that all on a shitty memory, maybe some of it is a feeling that I don't deserve that gratitude. But that's unfair to the people who've felt I do deserve it.So, going back to November... @EducatedRedneck: Thank you. That means a lot. It was a tough situation. @Liz: Thanks, trying my best not to blow anything up. @Drmies:mu. @Unexpectedlydian: Glad to help. @ReneeWrites: Thanks! Got the article to GA right after that! One of my proudest. @GabberFlasted: Glad to help! @PaulHammond: Thanks. :)@Ppt91::)@WeaponizingArchitecture: Unfairly good sources, really. Still looking for another tattoo with scholarly coverage. @Der-Wir-Ing: I'll take my pizza New Jersey–style or Provençal-style, thanks. @Bradv: Thank you, that means a lot. @Valereee: 🐋. @LilianaUwU, Sj, Compassionate727, Bjtplett, and Westley Turner: You're welcome! @Mz7, on behalf of 1,003 thankers: It really meant a lot to see I'd helped that many people. Hopefully I'm being as helpful or more this year.Sorry-not-sorry for all the pings. Hope this completes a few circuits. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin I felt the urge to reply, on top of the "thanks", because this kind of honesty and vulnerability is in my (limited) experience quite rare on en-wiki. You deserve all the gratitude.1
This is now the second time I've found myself agreeing with a complex and nuanced group of arguments you've made on an issue enough to wish I could just give you my proxy. If not for that darn RfA Q14, I'd be urging you to stand for Arbcom. --GRuban (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: Thanks. :) You know, I have my share of regrets as a Wikipedian, but answering that question honestly isn't one, nor is giving the community the chance to decide whether that kind of disposition made me more or less qualified to be an arb. The answer seems to have been "less", and I'm quite content with that. Just means I'm too cool. ;) I've already been to the land of burnout and back—drafted and deleted resignation statements twice—and found new priorities both off- and on-wiki. I'm happy in my current niche, wandering back and forth between content-creation periods and projectspace periods. Maybe someday I'll be stupid enough to run again, and maybe that time the community will punish me for that folly by electing me.
P.S. I always feel like it's tacky to thank someone for !voting "per" oneself, but in this case I did less for the agreement and more because it's been ages since anyone picked the third pronoun option. I've been working today on a piece of fiction where a lot of the characters take Spivak pronouns, and was thinking about how neglected my poor neopronouns are. Thanks for looking after them... Maybe someday they'll fix the Echo bug that forced me to randomize the order in my signature. Or... hey, Sammy, would some sysadmin yell at me if I wrote a script to change my signature every minute? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would yell at you 😌 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting and blocking that perbeing on Anthony's talk page. BilCat (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article suggestion for talkpage watchers!
Hello, talkpage watchers! If anyone's looking for an article to write, here's one that I think is really interesting, easily notable, and maybe has GA potential, but with which I have a minor COI: Edgar Labat, a Black man wrongfully convicted of rape in Louisiana in 1953. At the time he was freed (1966), he was the longest-serving death row inmate in U.S. history. He was the subject of protracted litigation throughout that time and became a cause célèbre, with lots of coverage. This Time article gives an overview. Newspapers.comTWL has lots more. And there's scholarly coverage. My COI is relatively small (my grandparents advocated for him and he lived with them briefly), enough so that I'd be fine assisting once written, but I shouldn't be the main author on this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
bcc
I didn't know {{bcc}} existed. I wish there was a list of semi-obscure and occasionally helpful Wikipedia features. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Thanks. Blocked. Perhaps one of my talkpage watchers knows which long-term or short-term abuse case this is. "Meerkat" reminded me of "Merkle" (Atac2), but the main party behind that account has kept to their word about retirement, and so far no one else has taken up the mantle, so probably someone else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 10:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see last weeks sockpuppets [5][6] or the week before [7]. By the way I've noticed a pattern: In the past weeks the LTA has always appeared on Wednesdays [8][9][10][11]. --Johannnes89 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:Yae4
Hi Tamzin,
If you're available, would be willing to post a notice on Yae4's talkpage letting them know that they are CBANned (the latest post just says they're blocked)? I'd do it, but it seems like it should come from an admin. Thanks! -- RockstoneSend me a message! 18:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes closed the AN/I discussion, so I'll ping her. Probably also best to procedurally reblock, so there's no confusion for an admin reviewing the block log. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many systems[a] will have some parts who are incapable of editing and/or engaging in discussion in a competent manner. It is those systems' responsibility to make sure that they don't edit when those parts are fronting. This is no different than for singular people: Just as a singular person may have to learn to not edit while in a bad mood, or while drunk, or while exhausted, a plural person may have to learn to not edit when certain system members are fronting.
On that note, I've logged out out of my admin account for a bit. Might still do non-admin work on this alt, because the issue is only with familiarity with admin tools, not anything else. In the meantime, other admins have my blessing to modify or reverse any blocks or sanctions, including CTOP/GS ones; no need to ask me, and in fact I'd prefer not to be asked.
Wanna be clear, I've been really happy with my relationship with Wikipedia lately, and this isn't in response to any on-wiki stressor, nor is it really a bad thing at all; just something that happens occasionally when you've got more than one consciousness bouncing around in a head, and some of them know all the admin policies inside and out, and some of them have other sets of skills that do not include that. Might be back to admin work in a day, might be a month, not sure yet. Happy editing all.
I have some familiarity with what you are describing. I will attempt to pick up some of your efforts. - UtherSRG(talk) 18:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, UtherSRG! There's a few admins who are aware of any "pending business" I have (users or pages that may need admin action soon but not quite yet, or are LTA targets). If you wanna chip in in venues that might be missing me, in addition to generalist admin tasks I try to close a few RfDs a day and to chip away at the SPI backlog. Also been doing my part to keep AE from getting backlogged again. Oh, filter 1200, that's a good thing to keep an eye on too. (Public filter, anyone can help!) -- 'zin[is short for Tamzin] (she|they|xe) 19:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for your help at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated! Keep up the great work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably know, I was the blocking administrator in 2021. I noticed on the talk page that you may be reaching out to a journalist. I wanted to let you know that I am willing to comment. The Daily Beast did a poor job on this. You would think they would reach out to the blocking administrator for comment, but no. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: The Beast, to their partial credit, has sorta updated the piece, although they weirdly hedge with attributing the unblock to a PR person for Lawler, even though they're able to verify it through the pages they've already linked. They also say that "the site" unblocked, so I've been joking today that I am now Wikipedia according to a halfway-reliable source, at least until a more reliable source says otherwise. :PI did reach out to someone at a publication that ran a piece on this (not the Beast; not saying which because there's BLP implications if I name a name and then they don't update/retract), but just a quick DM on Facebook to an old friend. No word back, but if the person does reply, I'll absolutely let them know you're available. Feel free to shoot me an empty email if you want me to have your email address on file to refer them to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tamzin. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Tamzin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Défi de Monte-Cristo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram
I just saw the notification you placed on Doncram's user page. I can't believe we've lost another one of the greats. This is very very sad news indeed. Netherzone (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incivility in ARBPIA
Hi, re Tomba's indefinite Topic Ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, you mentioned sink/swim and civility. The person who opened that AE request personally and baselessly directly accused me of racism, based on absolutely nothing. Multiple times he has accused other editors of "anti-Palestinian Racism". He has received absolutely zero punishment.
Could you please explain why baselessly directly calling someone a racist receives no response, multiple times, to multiple users, but Tombah's assertions (which are also unacceptable) received an instantindefinite topic ban?
Today, SelfStudier, who posted in that AE, directly stated that "Assuming GF here is pointless."
I'm all for having strictness for civility in the IP topic on wikipedia, but there is massive incivility in this space, if it's going to be enforced, it should be to all who violate the rules. Drsmoo (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Onceinawhile received a logged warning as a result of that thread, which absolutely is—well "punishment" is a loaded word in admin contexts, but absolutely is a sanction, and is the sanction I initially proposed for Tombah. Tombah chose to double down and argue that multiple (perceived-as-)pro-Palestinian editors working together is inappropriate. At a glance, it looks like Once was significantly more conciliatory in the 2021 thread. And Tombah's topic ban was not instant. I and RegentsPark both made clear we were unhappy with his conduct, and he chose to continue in the direction he was already going. Finally, indefinite is not infinte. Tombah is welcome to appeal the TBAN at such time as he can show that it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. I hope this answers your questions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few questions
Hi there :) While I admit I was not conciliatory in the discussion, I think it is kinda odd that the verdict is almost an instant indefinite tban, for a couple of reasons I would like to have your opinion on. I feel like I've expressed a lot of my concerns, but nobody has directly addressed them. I'm really only trying to learn.
To start with, it's a luxury these days to be treated in a civil manner around ARBPIA matters. As an example, I pointed out several of Nishidani's comments that were directed at me. They weren't just rude; in my opinion they also involved making WP:personal attacks and are also in violation of WP:POV railroad. Do you agree? If not, what am I failing to see?
I have never asked for the suspension of an entire group of editors. But I do believe that the evidence I offered reveals that Wikipedia now has a serious balance issue with ARBPIA-related pages (that goes far beyond anti-Israel, but often denies the Jewish connection and heritage in the Land of Israel). It wasn't one editor's point of view that made it unbalanced; rather, nearly every element described in WP:ACTIVISM has been included in this play, provided by a significant proportion of people holding the same opinion. You said that both Zionists and Pro-Palestinians are welcome, but for some reason, the former group has a very small number of active editors while the latter predominates the discourse. What exactly are the tools Wikipedia gives me as an editor when that is the case?
I think that Onceinawhile's recent articles and DYK's patterns definitely highlight an issue of activism, but you seem to disagree. What evidence is required to prove someone is acting in an activist manner?
You state that I am free to appeal the TBAN once I am able to demonstrate that it is no longer essential to avoid disruption. What, in your opinion, is necessary to demonstrate that?
I felt that Nishidani's comments were at times mildly to moderately incivil, but were not personal attacks. The bar for sanctioning for non-PA incivility is higher than for personal attacks. In general, tense topic areas will have a certain amount of incivility, and that's not a good thing, but also not something we can easily fix with the blunt instruments of blocks and TBANs. And Nishidani's accusations that your edits push a Zionist POV is within the realm of acceptable discourse. (Note that, of the things I faulted you for, accusing others of having a pro-Palestinian POV was not one of them.)
I'll remind you that WP:BANEX does not generally extend to repeating the comments you were banned for. As to why there are more pro-Palestinian editors than Zionist editors... Well, I don't know that to be the case, but if it is, ultimately, the editorship of that topic area is determined by who shows up, sticks around, and behaves themself. (And as to the last, only a few editors a year are banned from the area, so it's not like we're banning Zionists by the dozen.)
Again, this comment does not fall under WP:BANEX. But to answer briefly, some third party could file an AE request, although "activism" is not per se a reason to sanction; rather, they would have to show significant departure from the core content policies. There is no policy or guideline against valid content edits that happen to favor an editor's political views. (If there were, most ARBPIA content wouldn't exist.)
Better understanding the dynamics in the topic area and what is necessary to avoid conflict. Harmonious editing in other topic areas is also a plus.
I want to start by saying thank you for your thorough response. It's been really interesting to see how you look into things, and I now have a better understanding of the rationale behind my tban.
I still firmly believe that Wikipedia's current treatment of matters pertaining to Israel is deeply biased. In this case, I have two worries: (1) Over time, it might damage Wikipedia's reputation, making readers turn to other sources for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (2) If we continue along that path, spreading false information using WP:Voice could encourage hate speech and other negative behaviors, with people citing Wikipedia articles to support their positions.
I fully trust the work of the admins here, and I completely believe you when you tell that you don't ban Zionist editors by the dozen as part of a policy etc. Anyway, with things looking as they are now, I don't think the standard processes are also appropriate for ARBPIA-related articles. I'm not totally sure that depending on <who shows up, sticks around, and behaves themself> is enough, as this approach always makes one side, the pro-Israeli side, the minority, and this is certainly not a good practice for those when building a reliable encyclopedia. In my opinion, administrators here should look for additional ways to the obvious 500/30 ratio to maintain balance; otherwise Wikipedia becomes yet another platform for propogating BDS material (see, for example, how the article Israel and apartheid kinda tries to convince readers that Israel is committing apartheid; it is written like an essay, which offers limited material to counter that argument. Recent attempts by Nableezy to achieve better neutrality are a welcome change, but many of them are constantly being pushed back).
By the way, I'd like to bring something else to your attention. Looking at the AE record for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also reveals an intriguing difference: the one pro-Palestinian editor who was banned this year (Dan Palraz) received a six-month ban, whereas the two "Zionist" editors banned received an indefinite one. There is apparently another Israeli editor, whose ability to revert changes was rather constrained. Although I don't believe any of this is on purpose, the issue has gotten worse as a result.
That leads me to another question: when a ban is imposed, how do you decide how long it should last? Why do some editors get a limited tban, and others get an indefinite ban? Perhaps maintaining balance should be another factor to consider before barring editors from either side.
Lastly, given the majority of my editing themes include Jewish history and the history of the Land of Israel, the Tban, at least as it is now stated, sort of rules out any potential for me to exhibit a behavior that could help me challenge my ban in the future. The fact that, as it currently seems, I now have a team of editors who watch everything I do so they can report it makes things much more challenging. What actions would you advise doing in response to that? What steps should I take to file an appeal to have my ban lifted in the future, in your opinion? Tombah (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombah: So I'll start with the two in-an-admin-capacity things.First, there's no strict rule as to who gets temporarily or indefinitely banned. It's based on the impressions of the admins involved, and I will admit may depend on which admins happen to be working AE that month. Some admins categorically refuse to impose temporary TBANs; others prefer it. Personally I tend toward indefs, but sometimes support or impose tempbans either for new users who just need to learn the ropes, or for editors with overall positive track records in an area who seem to be having a bad month.Second, so like... Definitely not all of Jewish history or Israeli/Palestinian history fall under an ARBPIA topic ban. For instance, to pick some random examples, I don't think Solomon's Temple, Siege of Masada, or Siege of Jerusalem (1099) would, at least not in most cases. Same goes for contemporary Israeli figures with no connection to politics or the military. The problem that arises, though, is that, on any article with even the slightest connection to a topic, it's possible to say something that would still essentially be a "proxy war" for that topic. So, some Palestinian communities claiming folkloric roots, that's an ARBPIA issue because the origins of the Palestinian people are a key point of dispute in rhetoric over the conflict. Doesn't matter if the implications of the content you added were positive, negative, or neutral toward Palestinians, it's still an issue. Likewise if someone were to go the Solomon's Temple article I gave as an example and add content about (re)rebuilding the temple, that could be an ARBPIA TBAN violation, since proposals for a Third Temple figure into the Arab-Israeli conflict.And for me it's easy to look at a particular edit to an ARBPIA-tangential page and say whether that would or wouldn't be a violation, but the same issues that lead people to get topic-banned also, frankly, lead them to be bad judges of what would be a violation of the topic ban at the margins, which is why admins often say to act like you're topic-banned from a much larger area than you are, which I have my own version of with the "safety valves, not loopholes" line. But at the same time, I don't like telling someone they shouldn't edit something that's beyond the scope of what they're actually banned from. So one solution here is that if there's a particular thing in an ARBPIA-adjacent area you'd like to edit about, you can ask me whether that would be a violation. I know that, in the past, Nableezy has advised people similarly, although I won't voluntell him for that. I'm not saying that you need to preclear every edit you want to make by any means, but it might be a good way to get your sea legs.
The rest of this is a very long ramble about ARBPIA and neutrality. I'm speaking partly about my experience as an admin in the topic area, but not speaking in an admin capacity, if that makes sense. Feel free to not read this. I talk about your TBAN a bit, but none of this is "required reading" for compliance.
So, some context about my own perspective here. I'm Jewish, grew up in a very Zionist community, and have been to Israel twice, the second of which was a two-month sojourn living there, overlapping with the 2014 Gaza War. Traveling through France on my way to Israel, I was in The Marais and downtown Marseille for the start of that war and saw protests in both. My roommate in Israel was a translator for pro-peace Palestinian groups. The circles I run in these days skew anti-Zionist. This month marks a decade since I left home at 17, and in that decade I've discussed the Arab-Israeli conflict with people whose opinions range from "throw all the Arabs out" to "throw all the Jews out" and everything in between, on three continents. I have, of course, my own opinions on the conflict—one of the reasons that it's one of our toughest topic areas is because it's basically impossible to know anything about it and not have an opinion—but I'll keep those to myself, other than to say I don't think anyone should genocide anyone else. Because the main thing I'm trying to emphasize here is that I've been exposed to a very diverse, international set of opinions on Israel and Palestine. And I try to use that to my advantage as an admin, because many admins will only have been exposed to one particular Overton window—either the American one, which runs from radical Zionist to mildly Zionist, or the European one, which runs from radical anti-Zionist to mildly Zionist.Another thing to know about me is I believe no one should ever be disqualified from editing based on their personal views. I believe this so much that I wrote an alternate essay to resolve my disagreement with the idea that we should block people who privately hold neo-Nazi views. So when I say Zionists are welcome, pro-Palestinian editors are welcome, etc., I really do mean it, even to the extremes—at least in terms of what's in their hearts. All I care about is what comes through in people's edits.Not to be self-centered, but another thing about me, because it's a good lens to look at something through: At my RfA, where I gained a number of opposes broadly relating to political radicalism, a few people went as far as to say that my having strong political views violated WP:NPOV. This interpretation was generally rejected, because fundamentally NPOV doesn't apply to people. If it did, then I'd have to block you and basically everyone else in the ARBPIA area, except actually I wouldn't block because I'd have been blocked for being a leftist, and this whole site would be edited and adminned exclusively by people who are either centrists or politically clueless.It's very good that things don't work that way, I hope you and I can both agree, both out of self-interest and love for this project. Editors are allowed to be personally non-neutral, and they're allowed to edit in ways that overall promote a non-neutral agenda, if their edits are consistent with our content policies and guidelines. When making this point before, I have literally given the example that it's entirely permissible to only edit about bad things Israelis do, or only edit about bad things Palestinians do, so long as one doesn't give undue weight. And there's plenty of people who do just that.There's this essay, WP:INSCRUTABLE, and in trying to argue for that fallacy of "individual NPOV", it does a great job illustrating how terrible an idea that would be. It literally describes four reasonable edits and then says that this is a bad thing because the editor's motives were corrupt. It's an appeal for moral purity masquerading as an editing best practice. No, when admins look at POV in a topic area, the edits are all that matter. Either they comply with content P&Gs or they don't. And this is the core problem for ARBPIA: Fundamentally, the academic consensus skews pro-Palestinian. And Wikipedia follows the academic consensus. If someone can find 20 academic citations that something Israel did is bad, and 0 that it's good, then, it may or may not be the case that that's because of an unfair bias in academia, but that's sort of beyond our purview as encyclopedists.So, even if you're unbanned from ARBPIA, you're probably not going to be able to "fix" the "problem" of lots of articles that reflect poorly on Israel. If that's what the reliable sources say, that's what we print. And I know that's an unpleasant thing to accept. There is one particular topic in the social sciences where, in my view, scholarship is massively biased toward a particular view in a manner inconsistent with the scientific method. The reliable sources get it wrong on that topic, and so Wikipedia gets it wrong on that topic. And me? I stay far, far away from it. ~0 edits to the topic area. Because my only two choices would be to comply with sources I know to be wrong, or go on some RGW tirade and get myself topic-banned.In summation—and thanks for reading this far if you have—I don't want to give anyone the impression I'm saying "Wikipedia has an anti-Zionist bias because Zionism is bad". Different parts of the ARBPIA topic area reflect positively or negatively on different POVs to varying degrees. In some cases that's because of legitimate NPOV issues, in both directions. In others that's because the "neutral" POV, in the term-of-art way we use "neutral" on Wikipedia, is not actually neutral ideologically. (Maybe if I could magically make one change in early policy decisions, it would be naming it "consensus point of view", which is what we really mean.) And none of that necessarily has any correlation with who's actually in the right. It is what it is. We're an encyclopedia, and we're a wiki, no more no less.
@Tombah: When you say things like "I now have a team of editors who watch everything I do", it really feels like you have not got the memo about WP:battleground. There are always lots of editors watching pages for disruptive editing (of which ban/block evasion is a variant). That is a normal Tuesday, and that's just editors doing their voluntary job. When I was topic banned in this area, I believe I was temporarily blocked for editing some food articles that strayed too close to the topic area. (Although in that case, it was actually ironically pointed out by some socks, so imagine the later sense of injustice there!) But the takeaway from this should not be a siege mentality. Many editors in this topic area have been banned at some point; it's a common part of the learning curve. Taking a step back can be a healthy thing, if you let it. I would suggest that labelling other editors less, and focusing on good sourcing and strict NPOV more, will make for a smoother, less anxious journey. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombah: As an addendum to this slightly sorry saga, I'd point out that most editors only turned up at AE to call for civility and provide gently reminders AGF. Initially, only a warning was on the table, and if you had not commented at all, even that might not have been on the table. Then you sort of dug your own hole with this WP: ACTIVISM business. It is worth noting that this page is just an essay, and WP:ESSAYs have "no official status"; they are just advice or opinions. Nevertheless, you didn't actually follow the advice on WP:ACTIVISM, which says: "A cautionary note: Never accuse any specific editor of being an activist, lest they charge you with violating no personal attacks" - and that is what it comes back to, because WP:NPA is policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombah: for the record, I consider you a well-meaning and good faith editor, and have always enjoyed working with you (until this recent spate of accusations). That is why I have never raised anything against you despite your having broken 1RR many times.
I also think it is crucially important that editors with different pre-conceptions work together in this topic area, and that we don’t lose committed and good faith editors. This is why I have been actively in favor of editors that I don’t share many views with returning to the topic area (eg [12] and [13]).
At the recent AE I had expected a quick apology to the community for having gone too far, following which I was intending to advocate for no consequences, not even a formal warning. I am unhappy about the outcome because I think these things can increase levels of distrust. It was that distrust that I suspect meant you did not listen to the advice you had been given by many people around (which advice I summarize as “those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” and also just “stop throwing stones”).
As to your wider point, I set my view out recently here.[14] You might step back and look at the recent discussions on the topics you highlight, and put aside your view on “who is on what side” for a moment, and instead assess:
who is bringing and interpreting what amount of scholarly sources
for which editors do sources seem to carry more weight than pre-conceptions, and for which editors is the opposite true.
All the articles you highlight roughly represent the reliable sources that have been brought and reviewed. That leaves only two options: (1) that the articles represent a fair and balanced view; or (2) there are some missing sources that have not been brought or interpreted. It would be much better for the project for well-meaning editors to spend energy only on assessing point 2. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maxaxax possible sleeper account?
Hi, Tamzin. Hope all is well. I would like to show you some diffs from 021120x. I think they may be related to Maxaxax.
See this edit from 021120x, which matches very closely with Maxaxax's work you're already familiar with:
There is also a general similarity in their edits at Race (human categorization), where they both stress the importance of comparing modern notions of color-coded racial classifications to those from the ancient past, especially with regards to "black" people:
[19] Maxaxax wrote: In conclusion, he shifted the focus from the question whether a specimen display features of a distinct race to flawed socially constructed racial concepts, such as "Black" race:
[20] 021120x wrote: "Author Rebecca F. Kennedy argues that the Greeks and Romans would have found such concepts confusing in relation to their own systems of classification" the edit summary: "Assyrians, Egyptians, Arabs, and other Middle Eastern cultures did in fact have color labels for various groups of people. The Vikings referred to African slaves as "blue men". The cited author herself only mentions Greeks and Romans."
There are other similarities not captured by the editor interaction analyzer, but I don't have the energy to spend on that right now. What I would like to know is if you think this is actionable for a checkuser. I'm refraining from using SPI these days unless absolutely necessary, since the team is so overwhelmed over there. Thank you for your time. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hunan201p: I'm not immediately seeing evidence beyond potential ideological overlap. The editor interaction report is about what I'd expect given their edit counts, and doesn't show any tag-teaming or such. If you see 021120x (or any other user) making POV edits about race and intelligence in the future, feel free to let me know or to report to WP:AE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Dear Tamzin,
Thank you for your recent edit/help.
Academician.NYAS (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tamzin, I am sorry for any disruption and hardship. The article was created by the Deputy Director of the Institute Igor Janev,and because of widespread believe that he is User:Operahome no one treat this Institute seriously, despite the fact that it is a government institution of the Republic of Serbia. It is my understanding that Igor Janev was framed by people with different political views. Sincerely, Academician.NYAS (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was/is double diplomat, rather unique case in the history of diplomacy (Macedonian and Serbian), with two diplomatic passports and among other things he was a founder of the Intelligence Agency of North Macedonia with Macedonian politician Ljubomir Frčkoski in 1995.79.143.107.97 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the edits make the article worse and there is no consensus in favor of them, WP:BRD applies. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Omitting crucial facts
Hello. What crucial facts were omitted from the ANI report? I was unsure of whether to give a summary of the prior dispute as I didn't believe this was "crucial" (they were important, but could have clogged up the report). It wasn't my intention to hide anything. I just don't know to what level of detail I should describe things in an ANI report. I just took the advice at the top of ANI to "be brief". Willbb234 19:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Willbb234: While yes, it is very good to be brief at AN/I, you omitted the fact that Kingsif attempted to walk back some of the incivility, and that you reverted to reinstate that incivility. These are crucial details. Much as in the legal system, parties at AN/I must not withhold evidence that favors the other side. That principle flows from WP:NPA: If you accuse someone of something, without mentioning that they did something to mitigate it, that's misrepresentation and thus a personal attack. (Consider: You accidentally cross your 1RR and then immediately self-revert, and someone reports you for the 1RR violation without mentioning the self-revert. That would be wrong, right?) I hope that makes sense. Happy to elaborate in the close if you would like. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, Tamzin. I published a comment after your close, unintentionally. I started it before the close but it always takes me a few minutes to look over my comment before publishing. I only found that my initial post was published after the close when I went to thank you for your closing statement. If it would be best to remove it then I will. --ARoseWolf 20:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be fine. We've all been there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, on, the same topic Tamzin, I hope I did not step on your toes with this. I didn't see the harm insofar as Kingsif, with their response, seemed to substantially acknowledge (aside from some understandable caveats) the nature of the warning, before you could decide whether it was necessary to formally make it. So, given the potential for the concessions from both parties to be undermined if the nitty gritty ended up debated, I thought it was a good time to wrap matters up while everyone was in a relatively positive frame of mind.
But after doing so, and re-reading your close, I felt a little that I had interrupted your train of thought/administrative prerogative. So I hope you agree with my reasoning for doing so and don't mind. SnowRise let's rap 00:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Snow Rise, you posted this while I was overwriting that close; if I'd noticed I would have given a lengthier edit summary or replied here first. I don't at all mind the close. It preserved the deëscalatory flow I was trying to maintain. The only reason that that flow was interrupted is that I was called away for a household emergency around the same time as Kingsif's reply. (Everyone's fine, just a quick trip to urgent care.) In turn, I hope you don't mind my replacing your close with mine. What you said was quite eloquent, and true, and I hope both parties see/saw it. But I wanted a clear, balanced close at the top of the thread that would cover everything. I hope that makes sense. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you--that's very kind! And no, I don't mind whatsoever: I understand the need to complete the close with clear guidance for Kingsif, and enclosing the entire discussion at the same time, in one template, accomplishes the same goal I was attempting with the NAC below, so it's all the same to me. :) Most importantly, I'm glad to hear everyone is alright in the household, in light of the emergency! SnowRise let's rap 01:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to say this but you and Snow Rise are probably two of my favorite people in this community. I can empathize with others well, sometimes too well, and so I can "feel" the frustration of both parties in their comments. The reason why that AN/I discussion closed the way it did was because you both defused the situation, spoke plainly and though I'm sure neither side got exactly what they wanted out of it, they both were given something they could agree with. There was no sugar coating but both parties in the discussion were handled with dignity and respect and even the community members/admins involved in the discussion were open to changes in the interpretation of the events that occurred based on facts presented and observed. It did help that both parties were very accepting of what missteps they did which lead to the filing but a large portion of that was made so because both were allowed to communicate their grievances and were heard. Again, I read a lot and I see you both on this project. You are amazing and I just wanted to let you know that. --ARoseWolf 17:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ARoseWolf: Wow--what an incredibly nice thing to say! I don't blush that easily these days, but you're putting me to the test! I don't know that I did anything exceptional there, but even so, it is very nice to have one's ethos for approaching such matters recognized and to be told so expressly by another community member that it is valued--so I want to thank you for this very much!
And I'm going to take the opportunity to say that I agree with everything you said as it pertains to Tamzin. A few months ago I didn't even know her, and when we did first meet it was in a flurry of rhetorical riposte: by sheer coincidence we ended up on the opposite sides of several policy debates, one after the other, over a period of a few weeks and in different project spaces. And though we disagreed only slightly on some of those subject and quite fundamentally on others, the main thing I recall at this point is that she never got heated, or indignant, or disrespectful, keeping an even temper no matter how many rounds she went with myself or someone else on some subtle point of policy, consensus, or pragmatics. So, one of those situations where you come to appreciate someone first by virtue of their being an adversary (if only in the superficial rhetorical sense). I think I met her just after she got the mop, but if she were running today, she'd definitely have my support. :) SnowRise let's rap 01:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, @Snow Rise, I'm happy to tell you all the things I thought but didn't say... ;) But no, seriously, as much as I disagreed with you in those discussions (and, I think, philosophically disagree with you on some broad questions of Wikipedia policymaking), I've never had any doubt that you're participating in good faith and out of a desire to make Wikipedia the best it can be, which is honestly better than I can say for a lot of projectspace regulars. And that's what matters more to the project's long-term health than anything else.I do have one quibble, though. Given how often your comments tend to run, uh, into the two-to-a-hundred-paragraph range /lh, might you consider following MOS:LISTGAP / WP:*: § Multi-paragraph replies? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"And that's what matters more to the project's long-term health than anything else."
I could not agree more. I do think we have very fundamental differences in perspective on some policy questions--but then also, I've seen indications that we probably align on a lot more: we just haven't been fortunate enough to have those be the focii of our first few interactions--and of course, there's a robust human cognitive bias towards emphasizing the points of contention in our memories, as well. Because our first two interactions both involved me being the first person to make a major objection to a large-scale community proposal you had made, I honestly was feeling very self-concsious in subsequent discussions, not wanting to make a pattern of always being on opposite ends of an issue; I'm glad for the fact that we have sense been able to find common ground and particularly grateful to Asareel for creating a situation that prompted me to more expressly voice my appreciation for your dedication here.
You know what, I've had misgivings about this per comments here I'm just deleting to preserve my pride, because when I've tried to apply that policy, I think I've been consistently using {{br}} rather than {{pb}}, which seems to achieve the effect I'm after. A little embarrassing. Will do from here forward: thanks for broaching the subject! SnowRise let's rap 23:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Highest of the month so far -- congratulations! I'm experimenting with hook placements a little; I'm not sure how much the "quirky last slot" structure is borne out by user experience data (as opposed to pageviews data). Placing this one in the second slot seems to have worked out for it. That makes 7/10 top hooks this month so far ones I promoted, including 4 of the top 5, with 2/5 from that set alone. Vaticidalprophet 04:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty impressive, Vaticidalprophet, given you've only made about a quarter of the month's promotions :) ya love to see a good eye for this kind of thing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resumption by sock IP of Lil Pablo 2007
I recognised some edits by User:190.110.48.42 as being of the style and geolocation of WP:BEUser:Lil Pablo 2007. Sure enough, the log indicates you had the IP on a 6 month blog, now expired, for that very reason. Happy to reimpose? Mutt Lunker (talk)
Good eye! Got the first for a year, second for a week. I'll be responding slowly to pings till Monday, but do feel free to drop any others you see here, and I'll get to them when I can, or a TPW will. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're now at 181.199.42.238 . Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that they always do very good edits in Morocco. unfortunately we (we are a group of 6 people) tried desperately to enter the dynasties in the Wikipedia morocco under "establishment". Unfortunately it didn't work even though we have the sources for it. So we're wondering if you could kindly try to enter the Dynastyn for us. That would be super nice of you. :)))
Kindom of Mauretania-400BC
Idrisid dynasty-788
Almoravid dynasty-1050
Almohad dynasty-1121
Marinid Sultanate-1244
Saadi Sultanate-1510
Alawi dynasty (current dynasty)-c. 1668
Protectorate established
30 March 1912
Independence
7 April 1956
source for this copied from other Wikipedia. So these are sources in which other Wikipedia work with them:
Source from Wikipedia France:
@M.Bitton: Your thoughts welcome... Either as to content or if this, y'know, rings any bells. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification. This is another unmistakable sock of Bahironga, trying to circumvent their block (just like they did using Hotjewish). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, M.Bitton. Blocked and tagged. Pings @Blablubbs and RoySmith if they wish to confirm / check for sleepers. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it's hard to follow the message above this one. But I'll try. This is a redirect question because you know so much about the ins and outs of redirects. According to WP:R3, redirects that are the product of a move can't be speedy deleted using this criteria. But an editor just corrected a ton of misnamed files, like ones title File:Tamzinjpg.jpg and here's an actual example File:Valourandthehorror.jpg (1).jpg. These are page title errors so I would think that they'd be eligible for R3 but they are the result of a move so they are not eligible? Could they be deleted as CSD G6 as error pages? Let me know because I run into these things all of the time. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 22:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Flattered to be the one you ask. I don't think R3 would apply there, for the reason you cite, but I think G6 as clearly erroneous should be reasonable, as long as all backlinks have been bypassed and there's no other reason to think deleting the old title would break something. I've never worked with file redirects, but at least on first impression it seems comparable to the well-established practice of deleting redirects left over from mistakes in publishing drafts (e.g. "User:Liz/Article" getting moved to "Liz/Article" instead of "Article"). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'll defer to you, then, J. As I said, I don't work with file redirects much; guess I shouldn't have assumed mainspace norms would be mirrored in filespace. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God for talk page stalkers. I learn so much from y'all.
Would R3 prevent deletion of redirects from page move vandalism? Like if Golden State Warriors was moved to Warriors suck!!!, that redirect could be deleted as an error or I suppose just as G3 vandalism, right? LizRead!Talk! 20:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "unless the moved page was also recently created" meta-exception covers those in most cases and makes them R3-able ("the moved page" being the vandalism title). If that somehow isn't recently created (which I would think is impossible, but I've seen stranger things), then R3 doesn't apply. G3 is the better criterion to use in any case. * Pppery *it has begun... 23:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I've always thought "the moved page" was Golden State Warriors rather than Warriors suck!!!. That's the only way it seems to make sense – there's already a provision that the redirect must be recently-created. Stranger things, sure, but I doubt that sort of edge-case would be carved out in CSD. J947 † edits 05:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's my understanding as well. "Warriors suck!!!" would be covered under G3 but not R3. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's another example. An editor created an article and on the way to the right page title, Business collaboration with Nazi Hermany was created. Obviously an error, a misspelling but because a page move was involved, it can't be tagged CSD R3? I run across pages like this all of the time. Thanks, I hope you are having a pleasant weekend. LizRead!Talk! 02:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz That one, yes, that's definitely a db-error G6 in my book, just making sure to resolve any backlinks (on mobile, haven't checked). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the confirmation. Typically, redirects like this are the first move out of User space (I run into frequent bad namespace article moves) and the only link is back to an editor's sandbox. But if enough time has passed (24 hours?), then the bots have already corrected the double redirect and the User space page is redirected to the correct article title page. LizRead!Talk! 19:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'zinbot question
Hey Tamzin. I was curious, would it be much effort to modify task 1 of 'zinbot to also mark pages sent to AfD as reviewed? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I promise I'm only here because you were top of the recently active admins
Not merely out of a desire to give you more work :P
By all means feel free not to act, I'm just posting (rather than doing) because I'm about to jump off for either a brief period or a day, and didn't want to escalate straight to ANI. If it's not been handled when I;m back I'll try to do it then Nosebagbear (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so, @Aramis23875: I appreciate that your edits to Breaking Laces are in good faith, but there's a reason we strongly discourage people from editing about topics they're affiliated with. It's one thing if it's a small uncontroversial detail (say, if your band updated its website, or your recent reverts of the hoax edits by JoeTolle1987), but many of the edits you've made to the Breaking Laces have been unsupported by the existing sources, without adding any new sources. For instance, this article says that the band has done 500 shows, and you changed that to 2,000 without giving a new source. The number may well be true, but you need to show that it's true. If you're going to make any changes to the article, they need to be clearly established by cited sources, but again, really it's better to not edit it directly at all. Continued edits in contravention of our conflict-of-interest and verifiability guidelines may lead to administrative action.As to the matter at hand, please retract your legal threat against JoeTolle1987. Simply removing the relevant text from your comment on their talk page should suffice. We can't stop you from pursuing legal action on your own time, but if you again use Wikipedia to threaten to do so (or fail to retract this threat), I or another administrator will have to block your account. Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood and my sincere apologies. I thanked you in a separate message. I'm trying to find the legal threat, but believe it may have already been retracted. I appreciate your help and the help of all who banned the hoaxer and fixed the page. Aramis23875 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, I have been trying to do everything as instructed, including removing a perceived legal threat, but my account has been banned. Aramis23875 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking Laces
Greetings Tamzin, I received your message and appreciate your help. Please know I'm just a humble band member without much editing experience trying to save the page from being hoaxed. It looks it was hoaxed again and then someone fixed it. I now understand about needing to cite sources. We had an amazing internet publicist who handled all of this.
Everything written is true and accurate, including the 2000 shows. I apologize about any threats of legal action or outing of the hoaxer re a message on talk. I simply meant we were referring this to our entertainment lawyers as they are more adept at handling this and can have someone who wouldn't be seen as a conflicting interest post and update sources and articles.
I believe the hoaxer has been banned at this point. I'm working on the talk message that seemed to threaten legal action. Kindly understand how frustrating it to have someone with malicious intent insert themselves into page. Thank you so much for your time. Aramis23875 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jack
Tamzin, I am profoundly disappointed with Jack. Frankly I believe he is well beyond deserving of further admin or editor time. He is the epitome of IDONTHEARTHAT and Wikilawyering. We can forgive someone who accidentally deletes the main page. We can coach someone not to copyvio. We cannot teach people how to listen or work as a team. Therefore it’s probably best that sooner rather than later a discussion is raised at ANI to see if community consensus for an indef block can be made. I for one am totally done. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this diff. He took it as I expected (by dismissing it and calling me patronising) and then blanked his TP except for the block. In my view, proving my point entirely. He is incapable of taking any advice or criticism. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just came across Jack now. I saw he had requested to undelete an article Francoforte that was "soft deleted" at AfD. It caught my eye because he didn't edit it afterwards, just seemed happy to get it undeleted. I noticed he had done this previously too with Yugen (restaurant) - requested to restore a "soft deleted" article and then didn't edit it after. I think this conduct is also disruptive and goes against the spirit and purpose of a "restore" request after a soft delete decision. Also just seems to be a strategy to prevent his articles from being deleted. HighKing++ 16:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lurking... I agree with the assessment. I've taken to draftifying when a soft del restore is requested as a low impact approach to handling the situation. - UtherSRG(talk) 16:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good block, Tamzin. Perhaps too generous. BusterD (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't edit it afterwards because a soft delete is the equivalent to a PROD, and as such due to the lack of participation does not represent a consensus decision. That is my understanding of how consensus works.
If a consensus regarding Francoforte was reached, I would have respected that consensus. I always respect decisions that are reached by consensus.
I don't see how this approach is disruptive, nor does it go against the spirit of the the 'restore' guidelines. Happy to hear and follow an alternative viewpoint if I'm mistaken about this. Jack4576 (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin. Just a friendly reminder to reïnstate Jack4576's earlier partial block, per your block comment here. (Would do it myself, but I seem to have gotten myself INVOLVED.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tamzin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Judaism and LGBT topics, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Billboard and other sources to song articles
I'm not sure I understand the question, 2600. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking my IP address
Ive never heard of you in my life and you blocked my IP address last November so I can't set up an account....please explain ...thank you 2A04:CEC0:F01B:FF13:886A:E541:5D2D:5433 (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your IP adddress range is partially blocked from the draft namespace to due long-term disruption by someone on your range. This does not affect your ability to edit any other page, only those starting with "Draft:". Were you intending to edit drafts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question about edit filters
Hi Tamzin, my question is, if an editor hasn't edited because they have tripped an edit filter such as article blanking, abuse etc, is it usual to warn them? I've come across a few new users that have not edited as such because of filters.
I have reported a few as vandalism only when they have edited but also tripped the filters, but not one that hasn't edited but tripped the filters. (I'm not sure if this makes sense even to me lol). No rush on answering. Knitsey (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Knitsey: So I'd say, usually if it's a single warning or disallow (especially if it's just a warning and they heeded it), no talkpage warning is needed. Now, if it's something really bad, like the sort where you'd be jumping to a level-3 or level-4im warning (say, an IP tripped a profanity filter but the profanity was targeted harassment of another editor), then yeah, a manual warning's probably merited. If someone's triggering the filter repeatedly (assuming true positives of course), then you should warn manually, and if it's malicious you should treat past warnings/disallows as if they were escalating usertalk warnings. (So if someone has 3 disallows for page blanking, starting with a level-3 or -4im is reasonable.) However, be aware that there can be multiple filter hits for the same edit, so it may look like someone has made more filter-triggering edits than they have. Also, note that most bad-faith-oriented filters do report automatically to WP:AIV after enough hits. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise they could trigger multiple times with one edit. So if they are trying to blank an article and use profanities in the same single edit then it will trigger multiple filters? Thank you for your answer. That clears up a lot. Knitsey (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tamzin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Encouraging a suicide, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: *O. But, hmm, tbh I'm not seeing why that needs to run so long? Just that this is a relatively simple dispute, and if I say yes to you I have to say yes to everyone and then next thing you know we AN/I now. But I'm also not gonna be the one to make you trim it, so 🤷. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin. I think I messed up a page move. Specifically in regards to Twitter verification. If you look at my recent contributions maybe you can figure out what I'm talking about? If it's enough of a mistake to revoke the permission you recently gave me, I'd understand. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 00:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss: So, your goal was for X Verification to redirect to Twitter verification, right? If so, looks like you got almost all of it sorted in the end. All that you'd missed was fixing the self-redirects that get created as the result of a pageswap, which I've taken care of. I don't see anything stranded in talkspace, nor any stranded talkpages. The correctly-capitalized X verification should probably exist as a redirect, though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was looking to basically un-do someone else's page move in the NPP queue and then I think there was an in-between move where I messed up and I couldn't figure out if I broke things? The intent was definitely to change Zoomheroxdpro's page move back to its original title per all the discussions about moving Twitter on Talk:Twitter. Something that definitely confused me were the self-redirects... I didn't realize that could even happen. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 00:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember that startling me when I first used pageswap too. It might make more sense for it to correct the self-redirects automatically, but then again there are occasionally times where you want to do some other thing with the swapped-out page. I've forgotten to fix the self-redirs once or twice myself. So, no worries, and thanks for coming to me. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm a bit late here, but thank you for the suggestion. I'll use that script to avoid the self-redirects. :) Clovermoss🍀(talk) 21:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tamzin! I noticed that you've blocked 199.119.235.173 as an LTA. Would you, perchance, be able to point me to anything (LTA page, SPI, etc.) for this user that I could reference in the future? I seem to have been recently added to the user's set of harassment targets, and it's getting to be a bit tedious to keep track of the IPs when requesting a block (to demonstrate block evasion and cross-wiki harassment). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin, I'm writing here rather than ANI as I think the troll has had quite enough satisfaction there. Can I suggest we remove the word "Emergency" from anything to do with the emergency Capcha thing, and the other actions taken during big attacks like the one that just happened? My rationale is that trolls like to feel important. They are at war. They want to see their attacks as having an impact. Being able to force Wikipedia into an "Emergency" state is a big win for them, an achievement. They are less likely to get gratification if they feel that the outcome of their actions is just another dull blip in the dullness of routine petty vandalism. But thank you for your calm and sane approach to sorting out the mess. Elemimele (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: You could suggest this to the devs on Phabricator, but I'm not sure how much interest there would be. DENY is an important objective, but it's also important that anyone pressing buttons knows the severity of what they're doing, and I think "emergency" hits that home. (Consider: The sysadmin who flipped the switch the first time had been awake only a few minutes when they saw my request. "Emergency" made clear to take things seriously. Imagine a more junior sysadmin, and a local admin with more nefarious goals, and a name without "emergency" in it...) I have some limited background in emergency medicine, where the distinction between emergent, urgent, and non-urgent is both critical and objective. E.g. you're allowed to do certain things in an emergency that would be considered unduly risky for the patient in a merely urgent situation—for instance, throwing them over your shoulder and running. I think something roughly analogous holds here. But again, you're welcome to start a task on Phabricator, or maybe test the waters by finding a suitable discussion page on MWwiki to float the idea. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking my point seriously and answering so thoroughly - but I trust your judgement on that one. I hadn't thought of the formal meaning of emergency in permitting unusual situations. All the best, Elemimele (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023
This isn’t related to Wikipedia but you were the last blocking admin to LooneyTunerIan’s sock. They’re still harassing me on Fandom today because I blocked them on 2 of the wikis there. Good call to keep that user blocked. Even 12 years later they still don’t learn. Orange Mo (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Projects LTA page
For what it's worth, I originally added that "users familiar" section per the "Hints on useful info" section on WP:LTA: Consider providing just a summary of the behaviors and nature of disruption, key case pages (SPI/ANI/RFAR), and the names of current experienced users familiar with the abuser (with their "giveaways", history, behavior traits, etc.) That being said, I completely agree with why you removed it. --Ferien (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A cetacean for you!
A cetacean for you!
Your signature fulfilled. Thank-you for all your work, especially your admin duties. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closure of ANI which was moved to Archive?
Hello Tamzin,
I was one of the editors involved in an ANI at the end of July which has now moved to the archives section. What is necessary to bring the matter to a closure at this juncture?
@JArthur1984: I warned the reporting user for BLP violations. No one seemed to feel that you did anything wrong, nor do I. So I would consider the matter closed, at least with respect to yourself. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is at AfD, which the now banned editor User:Michael21107 sent, should it be closed down? I am also not sure if the article had disruptive editing or not per the last edit. Govvy (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I know how to even...what was that dark magic? Valereee (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uther sits back and grabs his large bowl of popcorn.... - UtherSRG(talk) 19:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, do you want to tangle with someone who can put you one accidental "confirm" away from blocking an arb for reason "I'm blocking Arbies"? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
THAT'S ENTRAPMENT Valereee (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you had reverted a malformed SPI this sock had filed here but I hope you will do the same with his recent SPI (alleging an account editing since 2018 to be mine) per WP:DENY. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 19:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfA vote
The Socratic Barnstar
Your vote at Leeky's RfA was one of the most reflective contributions I've read in a long time. Thank you! Schwede66 19:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped by to say "What a nice thing to say about a friend!" but I see User:Schwede66 was here first. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 01:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your question
No, I don't think I've bumped into you here before. It looks like you were getting started at Wikipedia when I was on an extended break due to a job that completely swallowed my life. (Middle-school teaching. OMG.) Blissfully (and my still-working friends would say "smugly") retired now, though. Thank you for your assistance with the REVDEL question. Have a lovely day! Joyous!Noise! 22:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joyous!: I spent a year working in a middle school with AmeriCorps (City Year), doing a mix of teacher's aide duties, behavioral interventions, and actual teaching. I learned more from that about handling user conduct disputes on Wikipedia than I've learned from actually editing Wikipedia. I also learned to hugely admire anyone who can handle that line of work, let alone make it to retirement. So, my hat's off to you, and I look forward to seeing you around the wiki. I'm sure you're enjoying only having to deal with vandals, harassers, nationalists, racists, and hostile state actors, compared to the Hell that is middle schoolers and their parents. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responding on A/RE
I know I’m over 20 diffs 500 words, but I’d like to respond on the A/RE discussion page to a claim that Nishidani had "misunderstood" when he called my edit "insidious". Nishidani had asked me to please clarify and explain my usage of the phrase. I clarified to Nishidani that my usage was "I interpret conflict of interest in this context to mean related to an interest in the article and not personal at all.".There was no "misunderstanding" (unless Nishidani missed my response in the mess that is that talk page). It was only after I had clarified that Nishidani elsewhere accused my edit of being "insidious".
I don't know if have some kind of weird filter on, but almost every single one of 'zinbot's recent reviews is either at RfD or has been deleted. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh... silly me, I thought it was making erroneous reviews. My apologies. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tlc
Literally had to stop myself from texting her at 5am her time this morning to suggest theleekyclaudian. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re:mental health
Thank you for your advice, but I think it’s too-little-too-late at this point. You yourself suggested a siteban (and weren’t the only one), and the near-unanimous extreme negative response to my behavior (including from at least 4(!) admins, including you) means that, as I said, most people want me gone. I’ll be lucky if I only get an XfD ban. The only reason I haven’t retired (or at least semi-retired) is because I’m worried that will get me in trouble too. Dronebogus (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: To be clear, the siteban is not a suggestion I make happily, just one I feel resigned to. I appreciate what you bring to this community. But the longer I've been an admin, the more I realize how fragile the community's patience is, and how much we give up to keep revisiting the same issues.There have been long periods since I started editing in 2012 where I felt I was not of adequate health to edit. Most dramatically, I was warned for edit-warring in 2018, and didn't edit again for 20 months, and only participated minimally for another 13 months after that. My return to frequent editing, in April 2021, coincided almost to the day with me feeling ready to participate in this project responsibly. (Not that, at every point in the preceding 33 months, I had been unable to; it was more that I wanted to do it right or not do it at all.) Even since returning, I've taken one break from editing and three breaks from admin work, the first three relating to stress/burnout, the last of them due to an acute—although not clinically concerning—DID-related issue.All that is to say, if you feel that what is best for you and/or the project is to walk away for a while, then you should. A CBAN looks unlikely to pass at this moment. I think people would appreciate you deciding to take some time to focus on yourself. I know I would. If it's any help, I do have a standing offer for cases such as this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to be blocked Dronebogus (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for sockpuppetry Rasmekonnen4334
Hello Mx, I'm Ras mekonnen4334, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to me even if you haven't unblocked me. For my usernames, I did not think more than that, I only took the names of historical characters that I like. For example, one of my accounts is called "Arnauld d'Abbadie" because I wanted to edit the page of the historical figure in question.
I didn't really think about the names of my accounts and reading you I think it would have been better if I just put "Rasmekonnen1" "Rasmekonnen2" and "RasMekonnen3", because I wouldn't have had any problems.
I just wanted to respond to the points you raised, I'll check out the link you sent me.
Hi Tamzin, I have a side question that came up at the Leyo AE, though I don't want to fork that main discussion over here except to say I'm perfectly fine with a warning for battleground, I just mostly want to get back to editing without having to be on edge about Leyo in the future on the non-admin side.
My separate question though is about your comment This is a rarer topic area to see at AE, and I don't entirely know its discussion norms. We used to actually deal with aspersions stuff in the GMO topic a lot pre-COVID back when GMOs were a hugely contentious area rather than occasional flare-ups. Did the additional background and list of AEs I gave you help related to your comment?
Back when we dealt with this much more frequently in this topic, sometimes admins weren't aware of how much of a problem toxic accusations where in the subject. Usually they ranged from direct accusations of being a shill for a agricultural company to just bludgeoning about someone having an agenda on talk pages related to pesticides etc. Normally obvious WP:TPNO and pot-stirring textbook WP:RUNAWAY stuff, but it comes along with battleground attitudes in the topic often unfortunately. At the ArbCom case back in 2015, editors and arbs recognized this and decided to craft this specific principle to address what frequently showed up in the topic and nail down that yes, it is a problem. That was to tamp down obvious violations but also under the radar sniping or veiled comments like mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive241#Petrarchan47 as an example of how it escalated after repeated attempts to tamp it down. The challenge though is that sometimes admins didn't realize how problematic occasional comments like that were over the long-term, even with the Arb principle for explanation. Occasionally at AE, we've had to spend a lot of text on this background explaining just why there's such a low tolerance for it in the topic, and sometimes that gets into long drawn out discussions.
So since it sounds like you were fresh a set of eyes coming into this topic's sanctions, is there anything you would suggest that would help to briefly highlight this background better in AE filings? Obviously I hope the aspersions stuff just no longer becomes a need, as just giving someone the GMO CT alert and mentioning the aspersions principle the first time (sometimes) gets them to knock it off. Instances like this recent block have me thinking the background will likely have to be explained to other admins new to this area like you were. Thanks! KoA (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tamzin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Dewey".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 10:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Salt
Hi, Tamzin. I've just seen Wikipedia:Salting is usually a bad idea. I wish a few more administrators realised the very basic and simple fact which is the main point of that page. Many times I have been carefully watching a repeatedly created title to catch the next sockpuppet, only to be thwarted by someone coming along and protecting it. A related case is a personal photograph, often on Commons but sometimes on WP, which is used only for persistent WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by an editor who keeps coming back as various socks, and naively puts the same image in each new user page. So easy to check "what links here" every now and then, until someone deletes it, thereby cleverly persuading the sockpuppeteer to recreate it under a title that I'm not watching... Sigh...JBW (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curious
I'm curious about several IPs' abuse of your talk page. Are they only silly imitators or sockpuppets?
Some of them vandalize other talk pages as well. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tamzin, I just noticed this editor making several small, unnecessary edits to random articles, mostly within the AA topic. I suspect some WP:GAMING might be going on, with the user trying to reach 500 edits to become extended-confirmed and able to edit protected articles. Chiswick Chap also seems to have noticed something weird. Despite creating their account only a week ago, they seem to know how to archive discussions, are aware of previous discussions, and know about 3RR. Thoughts? — Goldentalk 19:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their editing looked a bit uncontrolled, perhaps over-enthusiastic, to me, which is why I commented on their talk page. If it is more than that, it's obviously beyond my knowledge or ability to investigate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in theory this all violates WP:GS/AA, but I literally just proposed (like, as you were posting this) an amendment to that regime because of how overbroad it is. So I'm loath to enforce it at the moment. Anyways, I'm seeing potential issues here, but I don't think it's gaming. I would take a wait-and-see approach here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AE/Nishidani 2
Hi Tamzin, hope you're well. I saw this report at AE yesterday, and couldn't find the time to respond before a couple of hours ago, when I saw you had already closed it. I recognize the need for the warning you left after the first AE report, but I struggle to see Nishidani's subsequent conduct as an example of what he was warned about. Furthermore, given the text he was responding to (no offence to whoever wrote it, but as written it was coming close to endorsing pseudoscience) it was a pretty mild reaction. I know, AE doesn't adjudicate conduct; but a mealy-mouthed sentence about race and intelligence is something I would consider worse provocation than a direct insult. This was an AE call, and as such completely within your discretion; but I think you could do a lot worse than rescinding the page ban. Be well, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I appreciate your feedback. As I said at AE, I'm not happy with the sanction, even though I thought and still think it was the right thing to do. It made me genuinely upset to issue, and I've thought it through several times since and each time concluded that there is no point in giving warnings if they're not going to be enforced. The comment was hotter than necessary, and Nishidani dismissed Tryptofish' concern when the latter asked them to walk it back. I didn't see a way to not enforce that warning, under those circumstances, without having the warning be meaningless. My goal here, in three consecutive AE threads about that talkpage, has been to push it back in the direction of productive discourse, and I didn't see another option here. A two-week pageban, without enforcement by pageblock, is one of the lightest sanctions one can give—and, for what it's worth, was influenced partly by a recognition that Nishidani's objection to Tryptofish' edit was, in its substance, entirely reasonable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree that the comment was particularly "hot". It was concise and explanatory, and it discussed article content, not editor behaviour. Nobody in my timezone, including uninvolved admins, had any real chance to comment, with the request open for a mere nine hours. But then all the people who did protest were ignored, so as far as your (very quickly placed) sanction goes, it probably didn't matter. I would have liked to be on the record, though. Bishonen | tålk 20:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
If someone's already on a warning, I tend to sanction promptly if I see the criteria for sanctioning as having been met. I didn't close the thread; that would be Callanecc. I have no objection to reopening, nor to the sanction being critiqued at AE—and while a formal appeal has to be first-party, I'm fine with it being overturned if there's a rough consensus at AE against. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a light sanction, and for that reason hope Nishidani feels able to move past it. But I think I've recognized after a while at AE that not every rule is worth being enforced in every circumstance, simply because we have a cadre of committed POV pushers (not referring to anyone involved in the most recent AE) who are willing to leverage the simple conduct rules to distract from their own violations of much more complex ones. In this case, I see the violation as minor at best (referring to this comment, for the avoidance of doubt) in response to this content, which we've both agreed was terrible. I would honestly take no action at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have to chase this issue all over the project, but I feel the need to come here and express my belief that Tamzin did the right thing. Vanamonde93, you and I have had very good interactions in the past, but I feel strongly that I need to correct some things that you have said here, that are wrong and unfair to me. The diff you give above, of my supposedly terrible content, is actually a diff of me adding blue links with no change in wording. Here's the actual diff: [22]. Please pay attention to what I was changing it from. It was content created by the sanctioned editor, and it said: "Late 19th century science affirmed the idea that humanity was divided into a hierarchy of races." I didn't introduce that to the page. "Science affirmed" that? In real life, I'm a scientist, and that's a very strong claim. Science accumulates all kinds of evidence all the time, without necessarily concluding that something has been affirmed. When I changed it to "provided evidence", that was watering it down, albeit not enough, in hindsight. "A hierarchy of races"? As in some races are ranked above or below others? That's what a hierarchy is. I changed that to genetic differences between races. There are all kinds of genetic differences between people, but that doesn't put them into a hierarchy. Again, that wasn't, in hindsight, a good enough fix, and I recognize that there are problems with the wording I came up with. But there were fewer problems than the wording I replaced had. I was trying to move it away from endorsing pseudoscience. I did a mediocre job of it, and I said many times that subsequently other editors improved a lot on what I had done.
But to claim that I had created some objectionable language when it had been alright before is nonsense. And I didn't make a stink about what I found. I just made an edit to try to improve it, and supported and even thanked other editors for fixing what I had done. I didn't go to the talk page to clutch pearls over the language while ignoring the language that preceded it in order to make someone else look bad. I've been active at the talk page, in a way that has been courteous and collaborative with the other editors there. The two editors who got logged warnings in the AE thread that came just before this one have been repeatedly making the discussions difficult. And one of them did it again, right after being formally warned. And I only went to AE after he refused to acknowledge anything about my concerns. You, Vanamonde93, see the violation as "minor at best", and Tamzin agrees that it was a borderline violation, but one that was just far enough over the border that it would have rendered the logged warning meaningless if it had been ignored. And Tamzin thoughtfully issued a very limited restriction, by AE standards (heck, not even a page block). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: Yes, we've only had positive interactions that I can think of, so if you would please read carefully over what I'm saying here. At no point did I call you out over the content, and this was very intentional: I ascribe you no responsibility for the awful sentence you tried to fix. That said, the fix wasn't a huge improvement, as you've acknowledged yourself; and while we have a sentence supporting scientific racism in the lead of a prominent article, I'm willing to condone considerably sharp language on behalf of those who are fixing it, because reading that content would create a far stronger chilling effect on the vast body of potential editors than reading borderline aspersions on the talk page. I wouldn't have used the language Nishidani used. But given the totality of the circumstances, I don't see the sanction as helping that situation. AE is not a legal system: it exists to facilitate the writing of an encyclopedia. I don't see how this sanction does so, even though (as I've said) it was within admin discretion as an enforcement of a previous warning. In that same spirit, I'd like to ask you to recalibrate a little. I believe Nishidani has gotten under your skin here; given that you only have so many words you can type in a given day, do you really believe focusing on that comment was preferable to adjusting the wording of the lead? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. But as I tried to make clear in what I'm saying here, what you just called "considerably sharp language on behalf of those who are fixing it" was spoken by the person who created the worse version that I was trying to fix. So: Nishidani created the worse version, a version that was worse in terms of those potential chilling effects. I tried to fix it, then Nishidani posted on the talk page in a way that demonized the attempt to fix it, even though it was a fix of what Nishidani himself had written. Was he acting "on behalf of those who are trying to fix it", or was he the editor who created the problem in the first place, and was engaging in the kind of temperature-raising conduct that led to the logged warning in the previous AE? And it was a continuation of that conduct, because he had been sniping at me and sniping at other editors over and over again, even though I had not been doing something to cause him to do that. If you look at what he said in this case, I can understand people feeling like it wasn't a big deal. But if you look at the context, it was a continuation of an ongoing pattern that led to the logged warning that was a consensus of multiple AE admins. It wasn't the worst instance. (My nomination for that would be one of the diffs I presented in the earlier AE, where he replied to another editor (not me) on the talk page by simply asking whether that editor had read Alice in Wonderland.)
I do try to pay close attention to what you and other editors say. So I agree that you make a valid point that there is an ongoing problem with POV pushers trying to use the AE rules to get the upper hand in content disputes. I agree. But you began this thread by expressing concern to Tamzin about this AE complaint. And I know, because you said clearly that you are "not referring to anyone involved in the most recent AE", that you will agree with me that Nishidani and I really don't have any POV issues about that page. I'm not even sure that I have a POV about that page at all; I've been more concerned with making sure of the page focus to avoid SYNTH, and with trying to help with discussions started by other editors about renaming the page. So, while I agree with you about the broad issue of AE and rules, I want to support Tamzin's decision here, and don't think that it would have worked to cut down on POV-pushers to ignore the complaint I raised this time.
You also point out that Nishidani has gotten under my skin. Guilty as charged. You are right, and I know that intelligent editors who condescend are the ones who have always done that to me, in ways that the trolls and the numbskulls never do. It's true. But that doesn't mean that I opened that AE for that reason. I already said there that I tried to just point it out on Nishidani's talk page, and had hoped that that would be that. But his reply amounted to an announcement that he intends to keep on doing those things, to all editors he wants to, and not just me, and I made a measured decision that the right thing for me to do was to go to AE. But it wasn't just me. There were other editors on the talk page expressing concerns with Nishidani's conduct. And I said in the first AE, that I had been thinking for a while about taking Nishidani to AE, but I had chosen not to, because I appreciated the work he had been doing on the page itself, and I didn't want to step on that.
As for it being better to try to fix the lead instead of going to AE, um, that's what I did, and it's what got us here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out, the root cause of the trouble here seems to be that the word "affirmed" is ambiguous: it can be read to mean either "contended" (as the person who used it meant) or "proved" (as you read it and rightfully objected). The two of you are actually in agreement in principle here, and whatever else has happened on the page, I'd chalk this disagreement up to a good-faith misunderstanding. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another AE question
Thanks a bunch for mopping up that mess (and thanks to the other admins as well, if they're watching this page). That was my first time filing an AE report (but almost certainly not my last) and I'd like to know if anything I did wasn't in line with best practices and, if so, how to avoid such pitfalls in the future.
What's the best way to request enforcement when there are several parties involved across multiple pages? I titled the report "Melechha" because their conduct was the most egregiously disruptive, but I wasn't sure if it would've been better to file multiple reports or even start a thread at ANI (ok, probably not, but I did briefly consider it). I realize that the answer probably depends on the situation and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, — SamX [talk·contribs] 02:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hi Tamzin, can you discern if these micro-edits are innocuous, or is someone trying to ramp up their count quickly with junk contributions [23]? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Not sure if good-faith, but I've blocked before it gets any farther out of hand, with note that they can be unblocked if they agree to stop. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, I’ll be filing an SPI on this. Got three confirmed socks, but need eyes on how to deal with them. Courcelles (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tamzin, this is just to mention that I think you've forgotten to notify or ping Tryptofish about your reopening of the "Nishidani 2" AE, unless Ive missed it. Anyway, I've dropped a line to them just now. They may want to comment. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Another probable Neurosex sockpuppet account
Hello Tamzin,
Just reporting another probable Neurosex sockpuppet account. This latest account is following the same MO as previous Neurosex socks, adding English content (citing the usual sources, with the usual POV) to the page on Pornography Addiction but for some reason (potentially to cloak that it's another sockpuppet account) switching to German to add a "Slate" article, an article entirely sourced by the Neurosex account operator herself, to the NoFap Wikipedia talk page.
Hello, I'm Keyhound. 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)
Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Global lock(s) requested. In addition, @Do not follow: You might want to take a look at fr:Spécial:Contributions/TOP_MAG_WORLD, fr:Spécial:Contributions/MJ.edit, and fr:Spécial:Contributions/RichardGPierre (cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TOP MAG WORLD and block of fr:Spécial:Contributions/Massénat_Emmanuel). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
; see Talk:Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
KinehoreDefinitely adding some of your (Matt)'s templates to my userspace. But maybe think about putting them in userspace instead of templatespace? casualdejekyll 05:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Kinehore
_by_Ron.jpg)
2(dppe)22.jpg)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Special:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mike Tyson's tattoos and Talk:Mike Tyson's tattoos/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
wikimedia.org, where a team of lawyers and paralegals will look into the matter. Such matters are above my paygrade as a site administrator. In the meantime, do know that the userpage in question is already excluded from search engine results. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Done. In the future, please refer such matters to Oversight. (I've done so here.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged. Pings @Blablubbs and RoySmith if they wish to confirm / check for sleepers. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed to each other. I don't see anybody else, but only took a cursory look. RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
