User talk:Tamzin

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 7 as User talk:Tamzin/Archive/6 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

{{ds/aware}}

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

NOTE TO MOBILE EDITORS

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

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

Selected WikiLove

See further at /Nice things.

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar from Joshua Jonathan

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

Reply

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

Barnstar of Diligence from L235

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

Reply

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

Civility Barnstar from Sdkb & Writ Keeper

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

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

Further kind words

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

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

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. i/j/nb/s -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious

may memories be for a blessing

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

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

Discussion

Thank you very much, Gerda. This means a lot to me, especially given the circumstances and given the date (see userpage footnote 2). After years of, as you allude to, mostly working on improving articles by trimming them down, it's been a very eye-opening experience to build a full-length article from the ground up. I'm glad I got to have this experience with a list that's meaningful to me, although the downside of that is being very aware of how quickly this list grows. A small fraction of those killed overall, but as Masaq' Hub says in Look to Windward, "It's always one hundred percent for the individual concerned". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Thank you, this means a lot to me, - see my talk today and 23 March. We have one name in common even, and named victims stand for all the unnamed. - "Stand and sing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC) @Gerda Arendt: Oksana Shvets was on my mind when I suggested at Talk:List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War that perhaps a List of artists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War is in order—also to list Artem Datsyshyn, Brent Renaud, Mantas Kvedaravičius, and perhaps Maks Levin. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC) yes - just working on Maks Levin --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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
@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)

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
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)

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)

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

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

Reply
@Scorpions13256 and The Night Watch: Thank you. I try. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Technical Barnstar from Hawkeye7

	The Technical Barnstar
	For Help:-show classes. Really great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Selected WikiHate

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

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

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

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

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

Meta-WikiHate against my mother of all people

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

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

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

Outrageous abuse of power by Tamzin

I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

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

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

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

Pinned discussions

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

Editing principles (Topic: Neurodivergence)

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

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

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

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

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

toki! (Topic: Toki Pona)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus mine might look like

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

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

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

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

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

A mini-project to improve rcat templates

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

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

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)

RFA

I opposed you at RFA, but after seeing you in action over the last few months, I see my fears were misplaced and I was mistaken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis. You were one of the admins who had the biggest influence on me when I first started editing, so that means a lot to hear. I've enjoyed working with you so far, and in fact can't think of an opposer who I haven't enjoyed working with, which I think says something good about the project. (Although I've been following Liz' advice of doing my best to lose track of who !voted which way... easy enough with 468 participants. There's some people where it's like "Hmm... I remember you were very strong in one direction or the other, but I can't remember which.")

By the way, while I have you, I'd been meaning to ask: What makes this one instance of "admin" as plural incorrect? Or was your account compromised for a minute there? You were back to your trademark plural "admin" 2 hours later. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Even at Wikipediocracy they make fun of me for using "admin" as a singular and a plural. (all in fun) I have no idea why I do that, it is properly "admins" but I have used admin as a plural, incorrectly, and have for years. So I try to catch myself, although I don't take it very serious.

What I DO take serious is stepping up and saying "I was wrong" when I'm wrong. I think it's important to keep humble, which takes a little effort, being I'm a business owner/alpha type. As an admin, it is important to be able to admit a mistake whether it is pointed out or not, as we are expected to be examples. So yes, I think you've been doing a great job, and my fears, which were sincere at the time, were simply off base and wrong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Dennis Brown. Believe it or not, I actually trust you more than most administrators in the AP2 area. Now that these recordings related to January 6 have come to light, I understand where you are coming from even though I don't agree with you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'd just like to say that I supported you at RfA – but seeing you quietly and discreetly do your job well has been totally off-putting! where are the permabans for the trump supporters? get your act together, tamzin, c'mon... /ij /nsb :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: The thing I most wish people would get is... Caring about the neutrality of the encyclopedia is a value unto itself. I have my political views, and they're important to me, but I also have my non-political views, and one of those is that furthering Wikipedia's mission is important. I've given a significant portion of my life to this site, and for even longer than that have treated its content with a sort of reverence—the largest reference work humanity has ever created, most of it generally decent, some of it very good, all of it a labor of love. From that perspective, setting aside politics is not just easy, but reflexive. The day Wikipedia articles start reflecting my political views is probably the day that I give up. My political views are about how the world should be. Wikipedia is about how the world is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Janae Kroc

Janae Kroc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The pre-transition photo and "other names" seem to be the subject of slow, contentious edits by different people. Some want the names and photo, others don't. I'm not sure what should be displayed here. Would you please take a look at it? Thanks Adakiko (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: Working my way through old talkpage posts. Hmm. Kinda feels like an "Everyone might be wrong" case. I think SugarBowlSkier2006 was wrong to remove her birth name, given that she refers to herself by that name sometimes. But I think HearthHOTS was wrong to restore the image without discussion, and 216.154.0.102 was right to remove it (although I don't condone their edit summary). But at the same time, the question of including the image is more nuanced than it might be in most cases. Kroc regularly posts pictures of herself pre-transition and is genderfluid, so one shouldn't assume that she'd be uncomfortable with a pre-transition photo in her infobox. (Speaking as another binary-presenting nonbinary person, I often get frustrated with people assuming I have a problem with my birth name or such.) A talkpage discussion about the nuances of that question would seem wise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Janae has no problem whatsoever with people seeing the Clinton photo, it is featured prominently at https://www.janaekroc.com/about and it was the IP who removed it without discussion - I added it for the first time in June and its was up months before they blanked it with the false accusation of transphobia.

The reason I chose the photograph is because it's US government property, whereas we would need permission from Janae to use any of her more recent photographs. If someone is able to secure that, then we could discuss whether it would be a substitute for the very notable photo of shaking hands with the 90s POTUS. HearthHOTS (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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! HouseBlaster^talk 22:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Excessive redirect creation

You warned AistisXD about three weeks ago about creating redirects for alt capitalizations that aren't very useful. They seemed to have ignored this. I just looked at their contribution history and found they have created nearly 500, must of which are also not very useful. I was going to list this at ANI until I saw you were already somewhat involved. MB 01:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@MB: Whew, thought that this was gonna be about me for a sec, and was thinking "Heyyy, I only make a few a week..." But yeah, thanks for flagging this. I've given a more direct warning, and will keep a closer eye on them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that helps. What about alt languages. It's common to have redirects from other languages when they are relevant, like the native language of the subject. But this user is also creating redirects from unrelated languages. I just RFDed Biblija (Bible in Serbian-Croatian) - the one that started all this, and Литва́ (Lithuania in Bulgarian). MB 01:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@MB: If you want to add an additional note about that, feel free, but for now I'm more curious to see how this develops on the communication side. If they don't heed my latest message, it sort of doesn't matter whether you or I explains any further redirect norms to them. Anecdotally, bad-redirect-creation warnings seem to have a very low success rate (i.e. usually end in indefs). Hopefully this doesn't go that way, but we'll have to see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Lee Pace

There seems to be a slow edit war on Lee Pace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Whether Pace identifies as queer or gay. The sources seem to mostly use "gay", but some seem to think he identifies as "queer" talk:Lee Pace#Why was this article tagged under "Gay actors"?. Not sure what to do here, if anything. Source missing? Suggestions? Thanks Adakiko (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Addressing Editor as "Boy"

I agree with your instruction to an editor not to refer to any editor as a boy, and that it is often offensive, and that in the United States it is racially offensive. I had a stray thought. You didn't instruct the editor not to refer to any editor as a girl, because that wasn't the mistake that they had made, but much of what you said would also be true. The details of the offense would be different, which is not much help. We do have editors whom I consider to be overgrown boys (who may have been stuck at 14 or 15 for twenty years), but that is another matter, and personal attacks are forbidden.

So you don't want images of dancing pixies? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just being sardonic. Robert McClenon (talk)

Pile on

I would like to join the other experienced editors and thank you for the Pipe trick link, as used just now for the first time by me. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Redirect

Regarding Romanzen, I'm not sure to redirect to the specific cycle is a good idea, because it misses Composer - period - context. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda. :) I retargeted that page after running into a mention of it at Works related to Federico García Lorca, a list I split recently from its parent article and am trying to whip into shape. Usually, when a redirect is about a subtopic that has a dedicated section in an article, I target that redirect to the relevant section. My main reason for that is that usually if someone is typing in such a term, they are probably looking for information on that specific thing; since it's specialized knowledge, they may well be familiar with the general context, and if not, scrolling up to the top of the page is easier than finding the part of the page they were looking for. There is also a benefit to editors. With it this way, I can link to Romanzen from Works related to Federico García Lorca, and if someone later writes an article at Romanzen, the link will point to the right place. Whereas if I link directly to Song cycles (Killmayer)#Romanzen, that link could fall out of date if an article is written at Romanzen. So I do think that it's better to link to a section in a situation like this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of creating Romanzen (Killmayer) as a redirect? With the composer mentioned, the specific place is fine, but from a broad concept, I find it tricky to land in the middle of an article, - too much of a surprise ;) - Should I move, and then Romanzen could be used for a dab or a different redirect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

September songs

In your list: you may want to sort poets by last name, for example using {{sortname}} where you can write first name|last name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I made a few edits in the list, but have no time for more (another Recet deaths article waiting), generally for music

• genre as precise as can be (opera, song cycle), - not "set to music" unless we really don't know what kind of music
• small works in quotation marks (songs, motets), but larger works italic, so a Suite probably better italic
• I see no need for a leading "a" or "an", just "Opera" etc
• what's "based around"?

see you later --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Oh, everything there is still very preliminary, still slicing and dicing it from an under-sourced and over-detailed list that was previously at Federico García Lorca. Sort values are on the to-do list but for now the priority is just removing things that shouldn't be there, adding sources, and getting it more readable. You're right on the indefinite articles, though; I'll drop those going forward.

And good points on Romanzen; I'll get back to you on that in a bit. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Okay, so, Romanze redirects to Romance (music), and I think it would make sense for Romanzen to do the same. I was going to create Romanze (disambiguation), but actually Romance (music) does a fine job at disambiguating "Romanze" and "Romanzen" even though it's not a DAB, so I think the best approach is:

• Retarget Romanzen to Romance (music)
• Create Romanzen (Killmayer), targeting Song cycles (Killmayer)#Romanzen
• Add link to Romanzen (Killmayer) at Romance (music).

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

excellent! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

found In seinem Garten liebt Don Perlimplin Belisa --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Great! I'll be sure to add that when I make my way to Fortner. I swear, finding sources for this list will be the death of me. It's not that there's any shortage of sources, but it's a new journey to find the one or two sources needed for each entry, and then I have to start over again. Really all I'd wanted to do here was split off the damn bloated list from the main García Lorca article, since someone had taken the step of collapsing it rather than either paring it down or splitting it. But then I realized that I'd be creating a new article full of unsourced statements, and I couldn't bring myself to do that, even as part of a split. So now I'm pulling teeth, one cite at a time. But I'll get there! Eventually... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess the consolation prize here is that it keeps "Take This Waltz" constantly playing in my head, which is a pretty nice mental soundtrack to work to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

travel and strings sound --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Tamzin. Thank you for creating Deep Song. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the D page. You should consider granting yourself AP. Happy editing.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Eh. I'll wait for someone else to see fit. I think my slow drumbeat of DABs plus the occasional article isn't up to AP yet in terms of quantity, although I do hope I'm there in quantity. Thank you, though. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the revdels

Oshwah too. I was actually wondering in that case if it's acceptable to just delete the talk page, since it's block notices and then revdel material. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I have, on some of my own blocks under similar circumstances—usually if I block someone whose username I don't want showing up as a search suggestion. Depending on who's edited the page, I see it as a mix of G7, G6, G3, and maybe a touch of IAR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I'll see if there's any other input. I know that CSD is pretty by-the-book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish - You're welcome! :-) And yes, like Tamzin stated above, I've done it many times before and still do so in circumstances where the user talk page belongs to an account with an obvious, blatant, and highly egregious username that violates Wikipedia's username policy without question. I just use my judgment; if the username is bad enough that I would absolutely not want anyone who could be potentially offended or emotionally affected to stumble onto the user talk page, I will delete it. I also extend this to any logs that contain the username as well; I'll revdel the action/target information from the block log, the username from any edits and other logs, and both the action/target and the username from the user creation log (you need to revdel both the action/target and the username/IP from the user creation log if you must hide it, otherwise it'll still be visible and fully viewable via the API). If it's a highly offensive and egregious username, I don't hesitate and I'm not afraid to do what's necessary to make sure that it can't be found. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Had a question...

about this edit at Robb Elementary School shooting that you approved. In my opinion the added statement

[On May 14], the same day a mass shooting occured in Buffalo, New York, [Ramos sent a private Instagram message reading, "10 more days".]

is an editorial tangent in Wikipedia's voice and Buffalo does not appear within the cited reference. I do not think that the statement contributes to more knowledge about the children and teachers killed at Uvalde or to more knowledge and understanding of the murderer or to more knowledge/understanding of the overall event. The statement has no bearing upon any of the persons associated with the event. While tragic and sad, the Buffalo shooting could be said to be emblematic of an overall societal issue with guns and violence but it is still a coincidence that had no clear bearing on Ramos or the Uvalde event.
I started writing this out and just went back to check and realized that another editor has reverted the statement so perhaps my post is moot. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Shearonink: First of all, hi! Excluding a talkback, this is the first time I've had the pleasure of having you on this talkpage since you welcomed me almost ten years ago. Thanks for that! Pretty sure I'll stick around. ;)

As to the matter at hand, I accepted the edit because it met the pretty low standard for accepting articulated at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. I did consider whether to revert as simply tangential, but it seemed at least arguably relevant context, and thus best left up to the normal editorial process, rather than the more cursory "sanity check" that pending changes reviewing is meant to be.

So, in the future, if you see me accept something but object, by all means, feel as free to revert as if I hadn't. (Although I review things quite rarely, so it might be another decade.) Also, I have now taken the time to look deeper at the edit from a content perspective, so I will say, I don't object to MarioProtIV's revert, but I think his query and your objection do have an answer: The IP was highlighting that the "10 more days" message was made the same day another high-profile shooting happened. That then raises a WP:SYNTH problem, and perusing some sources I don't see any drawing that connection explicitly. But, if only pedantically, I don't think it's unrelated or tangential. But again, none of that analysis went into accepting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Jerome501

Having in mind that you and Bishonen deleted some "creations" of Jerome501 (talk · contribs) from their userspace according to WP:G3, I should say that basically everything in that userspace may warrant speedy deletion. —Sundostund (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sundostund: I'm 10 in and have only found one that clearly required action—User:Jerome501/Countries by dictator, which didn't fall under any CSD IMO, but which I blanked as a BLP issue. User:Jerome501/Black population by thingy sounded like it'd need deletion, but "thingy" here seems to mean "state", so, it's fine. Could you give me a list of the ones you think need deletion, and which CSD criterion/a (or BLPDELETE if applicable) apply/ies? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, upon reviewing the wording of CSD G10, I have deleted Countries by dictator. Marginal, but Jerome has lost the benefit of the doubt. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say that these seems like particular candidates for speedy deletion:

User:Jerome501/Userboxes/Mountain separatist (I already nominated it at MfD)

User:Jerome501/Userboxes/Mexican Gnome (it could very well be interpreted as anti-Mexican)

User:Jerome501/Userboxes/No Tourism Ever (basically pure nonsense/trolling)

User:Jerome501/allah (just its name could sound problematic, beside its racial composition of Kansas)

User:Jerome501/Sandbox2 (do we really need to keep this racial composition list of schools?)

User:Jerome501/Heavenly Mandate of Divine Knowledge (this preaching may be quite unnecessary)

User:Jerome501/Predicted unemployment rates after robot introduction (could be seen as a fringe conspiracy theory)

The other ones may not be so controversial, but they still are a waste of server space IMHO, especially now when the user got indef block. —Sundostund (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I G3'd the fourth as seeming to push some sort of racial agenda, and the sixth as trolling, but the rest I would rather let run their course at MfD, or you can just blank them. That said, no prejudice against Bish or any other admin deleting them under any applicable criterion. (Oh, as I write that, Bish got #3. I'll leave this in her capable hands.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the seventh (added after prev. comment) just barely crosses the line as a hoax, so gone. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Tamzin. Thank you for creating Hurricane Shark. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Dianna Agron

Is this content on Dianna Agron#Relationships last para in section starting with "Agron's sexuality..." acceptable? It's been there a few months, at least. Thanks! Adakiko (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: I'm not a big fan of "are they gay?" sections/paragraphs, but as those go, this one looks pretty well-sourced. The only things that jump out to me are the words "in Hollywood", which is not supported by the cited source, and the failure to include Agron's answer to the question of whether she was dating Swift. Meanwhile "something common in Celesbian culture" rubs me the wrong way a bit. It's verified in a reliable source (BuzzFeed News, back when it was still hosted on the main BuzzFeed domain), but I'm not sure it should be in the encyclopedia's voice, at least not without in-text attribution; but I dunno, that might be more a question for the talkpage. Also, "queer" and "personality" shouldn't be wikilinked, but that's maybe less important. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice work...

...at Hurricane Shark! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

...and here!   — Jeff G. ツ 23:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Query about COI

Hi @Tamzin:

I was going through WP:COI and had 2 questions: 1. If an editor is a published author/researcher, can he/she cite his/her own works as a reference in a Wiki article? I am asking this, knowing that Wiki prefers secondary scholarly sources that are not self-published.

2. If an editor happens to know a person personally who has a Wiki page as notable person, can he/she edit that page, as in, adding references to news articles or fixing grammar? I am aware that puffery or editing in favouring of the subject is strictly discouraged.

Thanks in advance. - (Panchalidraupadi (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) @Panchalidraupadi: as to your first point, WP:SELFCITE is part of the COI guideline and explains what is and isn't allowed - generally, you are allowed to cite your own works, but only if those works would otherwise be considered reliable sources. For your second point, you are allowed to do so, though for substantial changes it's recommended to use an edit request instead (using the template {{Request edit}} on the talk page of the relevant article). Fixing grammar or reverting vandalism would be pretty uncontroversial, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Elli: Thanks :). -(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC))

Great SPI

I've been following a few of these. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Mass%C3%A9nat_Emmanuel. Should Global locks be requested in view of cross wiki abuse? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Good call.  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)

Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

According to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Mass%C3%A9nat_Emmanuel there is a link with Greatnessdev, which has not so far edited here. Knowing that blocks are intended to be preventative I am wondering what, if any, action here ought to be taken, or whether you might again use your knowledge of the global lock process to consider whether they are appropriate for thsi editor too. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For going above and beyond in a thankless role behind the scenes. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #63662

If you could have a look and make recommendations to the user, they would likely benefit. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you! Kioumarsi (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion at Physicians Mutual

Of an IP you blocked this summer. WP:LTA. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• /64 blocked, RD1'd, PCP'd a year. Thanks for reporting. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Why no tools?

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Physo172. The {{socklist}} isn't generating the tools links on that page. Do you know why? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: It was a malformed filing originally, and I guess the |tools_link=yes didn't get added when that was corrected. I've added it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that should be the default? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well it's generally only desirable when used at the start of an SPI report, which is the most common use case of {{sock list}}, but also 99% of the time is generated by {{SPI report}} rather than by hand, so it seemed easier to make the default in {{sock list}} to exclude, but the default in {{SPI report}} to include. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

85.238.101.64

I'm starting to lose this my patience with this IP editor. It seems more like they have an axe to grind[1], which is what I originally suspected. Any suggestions? BlueNoise (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Curious...

...that this brand new account's one and only edit is to try and delete this tp thread, much like this account sought to do just before you blocked them. Just sayin'. Cheers - wolf 22:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Annd they've tried again. (fyi) - wolf 04:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Dealt with. - wolf 15:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Revdel

Can you remove the phone number from that link? Mehedi Abedin 14:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I happened to see the thread title "revdel" on my watchlist, so I stuck my nose in and did this myself. In general, it's better to ask for this by email, to avoid a Streisand effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Your help is needed on Nayyara Noor

You have blocked User:Magnatyrannus for edit war and sock puppetry. He is doing again and don't let me add reliable references for nayyara noor. I tried to talk to him on talk page but he is reverting again. 116.71.10.181 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not true. This is another attempt of a sock to joe-job me. I am innocent. This user is hopping IPs. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 16:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Sir he is not letting me add even a reliable reference on ethnic bases. Admin User:Cullen328 blocked him for indefinitely but he survived and now doing it again.

This is incomprehensible. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, as stated on the top of her talk page, please do not call her a "sir". Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to add this reference https://dailytimes.com.pk/984742/singer-nayyara-noor-passed-away/ from daily times news which is very reliable. Why he is reverting?

I literally explained in the edit summary and on the article's talk page. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, I'm sorry that you received this post. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for disruptive editing. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Appeal to be removed from sanctions

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

---

As you said I could appeal on ANI or your talk page, but I chose your talk page first. Can you please remove the sanctions from me on Uyghurs? I am only stating facts on Draft:Uyghurs in Afghanistan per the sources. They seem notable to me so that is why I added it. I didn't there were as such brual sanctions on this topic even when discussing topics unrelated to the Uyghur genocide. Can you please remove the sanctions? Thanks. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Muhafiz-e-Pakistan: We expanded the Uyghur genocide DS to all Uyghur matters because ideological disputes about the genocide—which you have stated on-wiki you do not believe is a genocide—were spilling over into other related topic areas. Which is what it appears has happened here. But I am open to discussing this. Do you see what the issue is with statements like Uyghur militancy are where most Uyghurs in Afghanistan are involved in, unsupported by any citations? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean by the sources I see on the internet, that is as far as what I see. You can search 'Uyghurs in Afghanistan' and you will see Uyghurs who came to Afghanistan to fight the Chinese government during the Chinese conflict, while a minority of the sources conclude some Uyghurs came as refugees or previous descendants. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are there any reliable sources that say, explicitly, a majority of Uyghurs in Afghanistan are militants? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No, but sources indicate so indirectly. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

So, that would be a WP:SYNTH conclusion, and I don't think even a correct SYNTH conclusion at that. [2] [3] The difficulty in reaching the correct conclusion via synthesis is, after all, why we forbid that practice. It's too easy to look at the sources and make them say what you want them to say. Now, under normal circumstances, my response here would be to explain SYNTH to the user, warn them about how "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and leave it at that. But in this case, you are known to have a pretty extreme POV here. And editors are allowed to have such POVs, but they are expected to keep them out of their editing. So the most charitable explanation here—the one that stops short of saying you deliberately misrepresented sources—is that your strong feelings about Uyghurs prevented you from being able to judge the sources fairly, and led you to state something unsupported and likely untrue in the encyclopedia's voice. And if that's the case, then you should not be editing about Uyghurs. I'm afraid I cannot lift this topic ban. There are many, many things to edit about on Wikipedia other than Uyghurs. I wish you the best of luck editing about them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As a note, the user has also contributed to Uyghur Wikipedia, on which I am an administrator, and the user has previously removed common Uyghur alternate names for Xinjiang from the corresponding article's lead. While GS is limited to enWiki conduct, I do think that there is something more going on here than a simple misunderstanding/misreading of RS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk Why does it say "Majority of the population is Gay"? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Muhafiz-e-Pakistan: With reference to ياكى شەرقىي تۈركىستان ۋە ياكى ئۇيغۇرىستان, a quick latin transliteration would becomes yaki sherqiy türkistan we yaki uyghuristan, which is quite obviously not "Majority of the population is Gay" and is (roughly) or East Turkistan and/or Uyghurstan in English. Are you saying that this phrasing is indicating that the majority of the population is gay, that content elsewhere in the ugWiki article says that the majority of the population is gay, or that the draft does? I'm not able to find it, so, if so, would you please quote it and indicate what you're talking about? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

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

P-blocks regarding Libertarian Association of Massachusetts edit-warring

Hi Tamzin. Thanks for placing those partial blocks on the editors warring over Libertarian Association of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, two of them on the talk page have declared that they will immediately revert to their preferred version when their partial blocks expire [4], [5], even though Jon698 has not agreed to it (I don't agree to it either though I have only just learned of the dispute; it goes against our sourcing policies). Could you please warn them that they need to reach consensus before making further reverts? Thank you. Tartan357 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I won't revert to my preferred version, it was merely a suggestion from the other p-blocked user. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Tamzin, I think the other user (Datmof) needs a warning. Tartan357 (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

me and magnus used talk and discussed what our issues were @Tartan357. we both did do multiple reverts to different versions. we came together and looked at the different versions and he agreed that the best version was the 24th june the one version I had changed it back to from your edits. I have on the talk page explained why with links. we are discussing the changes as wikipedia rules allow editors to do. we did reach a consensus we were at odds and now we agree. Datmof (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You have not reached a consensus, that is inaccurate. The user you were reverting, Jon698 disagrees, and so do I. One other person agreeing with you is not consensus. Tartan357 (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

and we are working on it @Tartan357 you were not part of the talk when me and magnus came to a consensus on it. But please report me to @Tamzin asking for us to have further warnings. this is what the Talk Page is for. we do not need an Admin to admonish us. I did not se jons disagreement on there. so please stop Datmof (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That's Magnatyrannus to you, not "Magnus". Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

sorry Datmof (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

help for alt account

Hello, Whats the right way to disclose about alt account (inactive for years) that was not disclosed for privacy reason? Acc was barely used, certainly not for vandalism. Please advise. 2405:201:800A:A843:F8BA:A745:65DD:487E (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Nancy Davis (business woman)

Hey, Tamzin,

I hope you are having a good weekend. I was surprised to see that you deleted this article as a CSD G5 as plenty of other editors had worked on the article besides the page creator and it had just survived an AFD discussion. Typically we don't delete articles as G5s if there are non-sockpuppet editors who made contributions to the page (unless they were just minor edits). Were there any other as-yet-unidentified sockpuppets interfering on this article?

Thanks for considering my query. I will just add that I have had more discussions with editors about the G5 criteria on my user talk page than any other form of deletion. Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. I did a full G5 eligibility review before deleting the page. My finding was that all edits by non-sox were to correct issues with the sox' edits, without adding any substantial content in the process. At Special:Undelete/Nancy_Davis_(business_woman) we have, in order: four category changes; two minor copy-edits; an orphan tagging + minor copy-edit; then a series of 14 edits by Hipal, 8 of which were basic fixes, 5 of which removed promotional content, and 1 of which added an {{unreliable source?}} tag; the AfD tag being removed at close; a move and defaultsort change; a two-word shortdesc addition; and a second move. In other word, the most substantial addition to the article by a non-sock would be a three-way tie between the orphan tag, the unreliable source tag, and the shortdesc of "Business Woman". It has always been my understanding that merely removing noncompliant content added by a sockmaster does not qualify as a substantial edit for the purposes of G5. The alternative would be a perverse incentive by which, in removing such content, one insulates the rest of the article from deletion.

As to the past AfD, per WP:CSD § Pages that have survived deletion discussions, an AfD closing as keep does not preclude G5 if the AfD participants were unaware of the page's G5 eligibility. (I suppose in this case 3 participants were aware, but that's because they were part of the same sockfarm.)

I hope that addresses your concerns. Thanks as always for keeping me honest. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. What's the proper way to get it undeleted then reviewed by a larger group of editors? I spent a great deal of time reviewing the article, and it appeared to me to be salvageable, with a subject that met BIO by the refs identified at the AfD. --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Deletion Review#Instructions provides some instructions related to seeking a community review of a decision to delete an article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal: Per WP:PROXYING (somewhat a misnamed bit of policy), if you're willing to take responsibility for the full content of the article, I can restore the article—to mainspace, draftspace, or your userspace, as you prefer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you restore it into draftspace, where it will get a good review before being considered for mainspace? I'm not very familiar with deletion review, and my experience with it suggests the focus would be on why it was deleted rather than if the content is worth restoring to mainspace at some point.--Hipal (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal: Draft:Nancy Davis (businesswoman). (Took the liberty of changing the disambiguator to a more standard spelling.) I trust your judgment as to whether to publish directly or send it through AfC. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the mess surrounding it, I think AfC is the way to go. --Hipal (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal (talk page stalker) I've just looked at the (unsubmitted for review) draft. As a reviewer, ignoring any prior brouhaha and the threads up to now, I feel it not yet to be in a position to be accepted. Were it accepted in the current state I think it would head for AfD very fast. There is no real content, and the references seem to major on what Davis says, not what others say about Davis.

As long as those wishing the draft to be accepted make it acceptable there should be no issues going forwards. At present, though, it looks like a UPE piece. YMMV, of course.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the submitter. We want to accept articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

So it's not overlooked, I've been noticing a number of situations like this. I didn't think much of them until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 24. I found Nancy Davis Quadratic while looking at the scope of the problems with the Naveen Jain AfD. I've been planning to bring some of this up at WP:COIN to see if others are aware and if it's a large problem that might need a large effort to address. --Hipal (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Your block

Regarding this block. Please also see this editor. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Magnolia677, and the rollbacks. Blocked and added to the open SPI; feel free to add any more you find there (and to ping me if you do). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I have 22,386 pages on my watchlist, and I just start seeing patterns. Hey, cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Statistics

Thanks very much for posting Athaenara's RFX statistics. I had been thinking about her record in this area myself and wondered. I'm still left wondering why she attacked Isabelle so viciously, though, now. It's almost like she (Athaenara) was pissed at something and didn't give a shit about the consequences. It's possible that this was a cumulative thing, but seems unlikely to me. I don't know her at all, even a little, so am probably not in the best position to judge, but that's my take. Anyway, thanks again for the research.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I was also weirdly fascinated by the RFX statistics - in a macabre sort of way, I guess. I have noticed, Bbb23, that when it comes to people in this social sphere, people over time have become more likely to speak out their mind, as if they are oblivious to the consequences. I've been friends with people in the right-of-center camp who seemed to suddenly snap and become almost militant in their beliefs. I don't know if it applies to this specific scenario, or if that also is just a form of confirmation bias that I'm experiencing. In this case, it was such a decisive and unmistakable comment that there couldn't be any doubt in my mind that Athaenara acted with total malice aforethought.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's one theory. As we all know, it's hard to impossible to pass RfA if you've done anything controversial or conflicted with other editors. So the people that pass RfA, by and large, have never had to deal with big conflicts. That's either because they're the sort of people who can defuse a situation calmly and gracefully enough to not let conflicts escalate (good), or because they've never done anything that invites strong criticism, and don't know how to react when it turns up (not good). There have been a whole bunch of "legacy admin" disputes in the last year or two that have wound up with an Arbcom desysop, and the fall from grace experienced by Neelix when we found he was a de-facto vandal isn't really necessary to repeat in full here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film)

Hi Tamzin, perhaps the page is still on your watch list after your intervention. Could you take a look at my edit? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Note

I know the ping was accidental, but might as well take the opportunity to confirm I'm trans, in case you were wondering. I say this 'cause GW had that same doubt, afaik. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: It's funny, the persistent ambiguity that comes from being nonbinary, or presenting oneself in a way that implies that one is nonbinary, without going into further detail. Kinda in the opposite direction from this, every now and then, someone comes to know that I'm nonbinary without knowing that I'm trans (discounting the extent to which nonbinariness falls under the trans umbrella), and it kinda amuses me, the thought of being mistaken for a fem-presenting AFAB enby, which is like, a whole different set of stereotypes.

Anyways, rambling. Please continue to be well. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Advice

Hi.

I sincerely believe you are acting in good faith and think you are doing good things for the project. As I've said elsewhere, I have seen some the abuse and vile shit that transgender people have had thrown at them, and completely understand why you might want to turn the air blue over it. However, comments like "Are you trying to speedrun the "DS alert → AE thread" sprint?" come across to me as being more aggressive than concillatory and look like intimidation. I know Chris Troutman has made some sub-optimal comments, but that doesn't really give you the right to yell at him. People who don't understand the issues about transgenderism need education, not browbeating. As WP:CIVIL says, "No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse." I see other editors have bludgeoned that conversation at ANI too, but as an administrator, I think you should be able to set a good example.

I'm sorry to have to write this, but I think I need to before things get worse. You were given the administrator toolset after a lengthy and contentious debate with people prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I urge you not to throw that good will away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree here Tamzin, it's just not worth it… take it on advisement from someone who is about to find out — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I don't think this is quite fair, Ritchie - Tamzin's within their rights to reply to discussion points and their reply to Chris' point was much milder than Chris' original posting was. Why does Chris have the right to "yell" in his initial posting replying to Tamzin's proposal while Tamzin doesn't have the right to show any emotion when "yelled" at? Did you go to Chris' talk page and counsel them to not yell? While I don't agree with the use of RfA voting stats to argue for a site ban - Tamzin's been quite civil and restrained in the whole situation - certainly not even approaching the angry/emotional/bludgeoning line that I'm seeing from others. I'd suggest that perhaps your efforts might be better placed counseling others to back off a bit, rather than Tamzin. Of course, that's just my view. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of education, please don't use the term "transgenderism". That's often used to imply being trans is an ideology and a choice rather than a natural state of being.

Speaking as a trans person myself, I don't think editors like Troutman or Athaenara are interested in being educated on these issues. Funcrunch (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to speak to Chris Troutman as he has already been adequately rebuked for his comments by others. I get on with Tamzin (or least I assume I do!) and I'm confident they'll take my message in the spirit intended. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333. Thank you for reaching out on this. I want to stress, first and foremost, that I'm not acting in an admin capacity in that thread. I'm clearly INVOLVED as the initiator. I'm aware that admins should always lead by example even in non-administrative capacities, but at the same time we are not forbidden from speaking with passion, nor from making clear to users that if they persist in a particular behavior we will seek administrative remedies against them in the same manner that a non-administrator might. Part of the reason that I mentioned the DS alert is that, when I gave it to Chris, he responded with incredulity as to what he had done to deserve it. So when I saw him pop up at AN/I showing clear familiarity with relevant GENSEX conflicts, I'll admit, yes, I had little patience for that rhetoric—rhetoric that, I'll stress, was only a hair's breadth away from outright advocating for the exclusion of, or discrimination against, trans people on Wikimedia and in general.

There are plenty of times where I'm happy to educate someone based on a misunderstanding of trans issues; in fact, if it weren't for the personal-attack angle, I'd have reached out to Athaenara to do the same, as she doesn't strike me as a "die-hard transphobe", but more someone who's picked up a particular perception over the years and come to a regrettable conclusion about it. (N.B.: "Person should not be in our community at this time" and "Person could potentially be dissuaded from the views that make them unwelcome here" are not mutually exclusive positions.) Chris, frankly, does not strike me as a person I could have that conversation with, at least not on the current footing he's on. If he'd ever like a frank discussion of trans issues—noting that I'm far from a "partisan" on one "side" myself—he (or any other editor!) is always welcome to reach out off-wiki, subject to my emotional availability. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Addendum @Ritchie333: Today I learned {{involved comment|admin=yes}} exists, and seems very underused. I know you didn't accuse me of breaching WP:INVOLVED here, but I do think I'll make use of that template in the future where applicable. Although, @GorillaWarfare, thoughts on making the template say something like comment from involved admin in non-admin capacity or just comment in non-admin capacity, to avoid any misunderstanding of what "from involved admin" means? I could see a newer user—or an experienced user looking to cause trouble—taking it as more a threat than a disclaimer.

Also, CC @El C, as related to a past disagreement. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the template! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, while I haven't read the above discussion closely yet, having only skimmed it, even still, I'm not sure I understand how any of this connects to our past disagreement. Because it wasn't about being un/involved (I don't think, I don't really remember it that well tbh), but rather, a warning you issued that I felt was especially poor in a number of ways. Nor, for that matter, was it about trans-anything (I don't think, again IIRC). BTW, I didn't even know you or TNT were trans until it was mentioned in your RfA. Likewise, I didn't know Isabelle Belato was trans either, until it, too, was mentioned in their RfA. But once I found out, it made no difference to me. That's not something that matters to me, not in any meaningful way, at least. El_C 18:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

New sock same as the old sock

As you were the admin who banned a disruptive editor, User:Awolf58 and various sockpuppets (e.g., MrBeastModeAllDay), please be aware of his return under the guise of User:NeutraI—with an "I," not a lowercase "el". He just began to recolonize the article United States as he always has: with multiple edits that add unnecessary WP links while inserting "stealth" changes with petty rewording. After he took offense at a few of my grammatical edits a few months ago, he created a username close to mine (Mayson.Jones) and undid a few of old edits. As he now rejoins "United States," he's taken an odd interest in another WP article I've monitored since 2006, adding several unnecessary changes there on the same day. As a project, WP is grounded in good faith and consensus, but bad actors abound. Awolf58/MrBeast/NeutraI once asked you not to temporarily block him because, he said, "I was still a minor back then." Later, when he was permanently banned, you suggested he might "find another hobby." Actually (I smile as I type this), I will find another hobby. Unlike Awolf58, I do have other interests besides WP and this site is toxic. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: Was just getting ready to block and then zzuuzz beat me to it. Alrighty then. Guess I'll go G5 some stuff. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry (ish) to steal your thunder. I figured it might save a little time and paperwork. No obvious sleepers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz. No complaint here. The main thing that was taking me time was deciding whether CU would be needed or if I could duckblock, so, thanks for simplifying that haha. I've G5'd everything worth taking the time to G5. Guess now it's time for the much more frustrating task of sorting out banreverts... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed socks are extremely rare (with the exception of my sock Patachonica), so is that a problem? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it's a problem, yes, but it is what it is. I have a few more admin tricks up my sleeve. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Elizabeth the Great (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Elizabeth the Great (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• I know the target was a disambiguation page when you created it: I'm just dutifully pressing Twinkle buttons ;-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Shhhnotsoloud: No worries. I'd've gotten it myself if it had occurred to me. I mean, uh... you darn deletionists! /s -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  :-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

A comment

I just re-read the deletion discussion for Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour as you had posted earlier in the WP:CBAN debate for Athaenara, and I was extremely saddened by it. There were so many people !voting there whose arguments basically boiled down to "fuck trans people and fuck people who list their pronouns!" It is hard for me to comprehend how this sort of attitude still persists on Wikipedia, even though most of us are in agreement that this page was controversial at best. I wonder what I'm doing here sometimes when I'm surrounded by people who have these types of opinions. That said, I feel like the Athaenara indef was basically the equivalent of Wikipedia's collective fever breaking. Hopefully it's also a sign that we've turned a corner in terms of civility and just general common damn courtesy -- but I would hate to be overoptimistic. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Novak v. City of Parma

On 16 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Novak v. City of Parma, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Onion said in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that "the federal judiciary is staffed entirely by total Latin dorks"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Novak v. City of Parma. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Novak v. City of Parma), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

diaëresis

Tamzin, i just wanted to say that i like your use of the diaëresis in the word "reüpload", and was wondering why i hadn't seen that spelling before. hilariously, your comment on wp:errors was at one point the 21st result in a google search for that spelling of the word. i'm sorry i didn't mention this earlier; after i archived the aforementioned google query, my browser crashed and then i promptly forgot i had been writing you a message. dying (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I am curious about the reasoning behind this diaëresis, and if I may adapt its power to my own ends. jp×g 15:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dying: Thanks for archiving the Google search. That's fascinating. :D To the both of you: Join us! Join us! Join us! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ωg, that is a great essay! personally, i tend to use the diaëresis whenever i can't decide between using a hyphen or not. it's like choosing the secret third option (the "nonb̈inary option", if you will). i also like using the diaëresis in "diaëresis" because i like accents that use themselves in their names, like the çengel, the ʻokina, and the caron háček. (i think the accent aigu should have been spelt "accent égu".) your essay has given me some new ideas, and although i believe i have (regrettably) never used the word "tacoÿ" before now (as i don't really know anything tacoÿ besides tacos), i can see the diaëresis being used for similar words, like "gooëy". i am now wondering if someone opposed to a nietzschean goal for humanity could be properly described as antiü̈bermensch. anyway, signed. thanks for writing the essay! dying (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Tamzin,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Cetacean's greetings

This edit summary is annoying and disruptive, but is it annoying and disruptive enough for a revdel? I've decided... to let you make that decision. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for reporting. I find that kind of thing qualifies as "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project" under RD3, analogous to the enumerated example of "malicious HTML or CSS". Could be worse though... They could be an admin sticking that kind of thing in a deletion summary, like I did in 2013 on Wikidata. :D (Would link it but, well... revdelled. Lol.) P.S. Air Force today? Seconded? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't even know what that was or how they did it... which means I'll be spending some time on Google to figure it out, just need to find the correct search term. And no, I'm goofing off in the usual place today; I doubt the Chair Force would take me. (Hmm, wonder if I could somehow get sent TDY to the Space Force... I should Google that too...) 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Cape Canaveral Space Force Station seems like a nice place to go this time of year. On the other hand, I would avoid a TDY to Thule Air Base for the next 4 months. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you please open this SPI?

I noticed in the recent changes log that there were a bunch of accounts and IPs making similar bizarre edits to user talk pages, especially User:Bsadowski1's talk page. Here are all the ones I could find:

• ‎Sanrderlo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ‎RecipeJr (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ‎Beaterloa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ‎116.50.174.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ‎67.141.66.250 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Conjumper (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ‎Coredilo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

Some example edits would be [6], [7], and [8]. All of these accounts seem to like to go onto the talk pages of prominent users and post long streams of bad fiction text, often with headings consisting of combinations of the letters "a" and "s." One of the users, Sandrero, has had most of their edits revdelled. I believe there is some kind of bizarre sockpuppetry or long-term abuse going on here, and that there is enough evidence to start an WP:SPI. Could you please do so? Thank you. 2601:647:5800:4D2:90D9:7958:A746:75B7 (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 2601:647:5800:4D2:90D9:7958:A746:75B7, all of those editors are already blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I know, but the sheer volume of vandalism coming from these accounts suggests that more accounts may come back in the future to vandalize more. 2601:647:5800:4D2:ACC9:6CC1:951:E25C (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@2601: I'm not doing much anti-vandal/sock work at the moment, but my understandng is that the right people are already aware of all this, so I don't think there's need for a SPI at this time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Indeed, there are plenty of eyes on this particular nonsense. :) firefly ( t · c ) 10:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Getting a CheckUser here to help would be extremely helpful. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 10:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

CUs are involved, as are stewards. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

However, CUs can confirm them to more than one user. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 10:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Multiple CUs are involved in dealing with this matter. They are doing what they are able to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: There has been new talk page vandalism from some IPs in the last day or so. Here are some IPs doing this vandalism, which has a similar pattern to what I previously mentioned:

• • 2604:2d80:800a:0:adc9:e8c0:dff6:b7a1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • ‎2a02:8108:59c0:1820:c4af:3226:745c:99be (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ‎190.196.61.146 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ‎116.50.174.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ‎84.54.86.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools
  2601:647:5800:4D2:ACC9:6CC1:951:E25C (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Emoji Redirects

Hello, Tamzin,

I'm coming here because of your knowledge of redirects. I was just looking at the contributions of an editor who is forever blocked and noticed they made a few redirects using emojis. Is that acceptable? Here is an example but I'm not sure if that is a link that works with cut & paste so I'll just say that the editor is User:Rosedaler and they made a handful of these redirects. I'm not going to nominate them if emoji redirects are completely acceptable. Thanks for any insight you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Emoji are a strange little nook of redirect-world. There's many editors (myself included) who feel that any single Unicode character ought to redirect somewhere if at all possible, and the same often applies to combinations of emoji characters and joiners that still render as a single glyph on some/most platforms, as this one. WP:EMOJI talks about this a bit; so I'd say this one is fine. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry for butting in here, but I wanted to mention this has come up before. One example is 🚇, which came up at RfD in 2020 and was kept. [9] Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Tamzin and Trainsandotherthings. It looks like another editor has nominated one of these for consideration at RFD. I'm not sure if they will bundle in the others created by this blocked editor. I believe they were all different emojis for "Chef" and if this is acceptable, we could be looking at hundreds of future emoji redirects for other occupations or objects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well we do already have at least 2,394. Looks like the only question at the RfD at this point is correct target. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Upcoming possible vandalism warning

see this discussion on uncyclopedia to possibly prevent a future vandalism edit. Sorry guys at uncy, but my "loyalty" is closer to wikimedia projects than uncy projects.

Also feel free to laugh your socks off at the discussion directly above that one. You might find it funny! ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 10:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) laugh my socks off? I need them for AfDs! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You have a sockpuppet too!? ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 10:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Heh, if the worst they've got planned is vandalizing a subst'd template, I think we'll be fine. I'll keep an eye on it though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll regret telling them about this now... Still, they're seriosly doing it, it seems. If you come across a user making edits just to get autoconfirmed, then messing around on help pages, policy pages, ect, and they seem to know their wiki stuff, feel free to block them. They're only gonna come back if you don't. Wait, I got an autoconfirmed account... What does this "undo" button here do ;)? ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 06:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Oop. Somebody got enough time to spy on them and use discord to let everybody know what to look out for? I don't have discord. (tip: go on their discord and spy on em. That way, I don't give them any ideas! Please undo this edit after reading it. If you're fast enough, they won't read it! ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 19:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Just gonna block them when they show up, L10nM4st3r. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding cats

The only kind of cat I like to add. -- Tamzmnim^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe)

Hi Tamzin. As a fairly new user I have a question if that's OK. I've come across an IP editor who is removing the description of actor from articles. Their reason is the article subject doesn't have actor as a category. See Clint Black who is primarily a singer but the article talks about his acting career. I have added American male actor to his category. Firstly, is it OK to do that if they're primarily a singer (or other occupation)? If it's OK to add the cat then would it be considered stalking if I checked the IP's other contributions and add the appropriate actor category as long as they've had a few acting roles? Thanks in advance. Knitsey (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Knitsey: As to the merits of your edits, I'll be honest, I don't know who's right. I decided a long time ago that editing is much more pleasant if, to the maximum extent possible, one pretends that content categories don't exist. So my common-sense take here would be that your edits are reasonable, but category policies and guidelines don't always follow common sense, so take that with a grain of salt. As to the hounding question, mass-reverting or mass-modifying another user's mass edit is generally not considered hounding, although you should take care to be civil in doing so—and should make sure you're right, so maybe best to go ask someone with more category experience. Also, if the IP is static enough to hold a conversation with, that might be a good idea to avoid conflict. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You're so tactful lol. Thank you. I think I might just avoid it altogether for now. I can see why NOT adding the actor cat is ok when there aren't many acting credits. I think I will just ignore in this case. Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Another illicit sockpuppet for "Neurosex?"

Hi Tamzin,

Thanks for your previous work in investigating the vast number of sockpuppet accounts by NeuroSex. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NeuroSex/Archive

Unfortunately, it appears that NeuroSex is back again, this time under the username "UgherBob." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/UgherBob)

I would appreciate it if you could address this latest account. Unfortunately, due to the sheer abundance of the sockpuppet accounts, and the persistent of the account operator, most of the illicit edits still appear on various Wikipedia pages, disinforming the public. Can't this content be removed entirely to prevent further misinformation?

Thank you for your time. Keyhound (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Keyhound: CheckUser requested at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeuroSex. As to removing the content, I already answered tht question at User talk:Tamzin/Archive/5 § Response and Continued Sockpuppet Abuse, and am still waiting on you to give a list of the content you think should be removed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and action on the latest NeuroSex sockpuppet account, Tamzin. Unfortunately, the sockpuppet account operator appears to be undeterred. Just hours after your action this individual has already set up another new account to insert the same content. Please see "BrandolinisLaw" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BrandolinisLaw). Keyhound (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Hurricane Shark

On 20 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Shark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "the Hurricane Shark is real"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Shark. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hurricane Shark), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,344 views (862.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive

Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jtrainor (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I have closed it per WP:SNOW. Revert me if I am not within policy. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

User_talk:Dream4206969

This user is making only troll comments shortly after he was blocked. If you don't mind me asking, will you please revoke TPA for this user? Thanks in advance. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Aardwolf68 vandal

Hi Tamzin, sorry to bother you, but i have an issue with a vandal that I would like to introduce you, if you don't mind.

User: Aardwolf68 just made the nth vandalism on the Exclusive (album) article, 1. User said "AllMusic score was edited to reflect the real score", lowering the review's score from 4/5 to 3.5/5, while the source clearly says that AllMusic's rating is a 4/5. Pure vandalism.

Funny thing is that, referring to what the sources really say, he says (quoting him) "I really don't feel like rummaging through this crap". His talk page is filled with warnings for WP: cherrypicking and writing false criticisms. User:Instantwatym and many others have found in his edits blatant cherrypicking, so do I. All this to me looks pretty self-explanatory. Thank you for your time--Lionel juners (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This was all a complete mistake on my part, I looked at the user score and mistakenly thought it was the critic score. I apologize for the error. Look, facts is, dude, you’ve joined Wikipedia 4 hours ago. If you’re somehow another sockpuppet of Morce Library, then go away. If not, I’m sorry that you caught a mistake of mine and thought it was purposefully made to harm the quality of the article. Aardwolf68 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

October music

October songs

today featured Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56! - I don't know if because of that, I had a strange visitor on my talk, Kusma the same, - please watch. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Head's up

Hi, Tamzin,

I just responded to a CSD applied to a User Talk page and saw this editor you blocked make this statement, User talk:StarkGaryen#new account time which seems like an announcement that they will try block evasion. I'm not familiar with this editor but just wanted to alert you that you might run into them under a new account name.

Hope your week is otherwise going well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sock help wanted

Hi, Tamzin. I appreciate your help with the sockpuppet who recently plagued the Founding Fathers article and talk page. I just learned that someone is reverting material elsewhere by one of the legitimate Founding Fathers editors using my name but with capital I's for my l's. I have zero experience with this and don't know exactly where to report such things. What would you suggest as the most direct, effective approach? The incident I'm aware of affected Template:Pablo Picasso though the editor who mentioned this to me on the template's talk page says this isn't the first such incident. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Randy Kryn (the other editor involved). Allreet (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Blocked,  Likely Awolf58 FWIW. firefly ( t · c ) 15:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Belinda Jones (writer)

Hi Tamzin -- I've tried to clean this up a bit. Unfortunately most of her reviews are either offline/paywall or in tabloids that we can't use. I think the prod was fair but was surprised at the A7 in the history; for what it's worth, Random House (now Penguin Random House) is a perfectly mainstream publisher, and anyone with multiple books with them would never be A7-able because there's a high probability of reviews to meet WP:AUTHOR. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Thanks for cleaning the article up. I stand by the A7 tagging though. A7 is for articles with no "credible claim of significance". Publishing with Random House (which, at least in its current form, publishes 85,000 books a year) is not itself a credible claim of significance. It may be part of a notability assessment under WP:AUTHOR, but credible claims of significance are not the same thing as notability, and an article can fail A7 while being on a topic that would still pass GNG or an SNG. (Trivially, I could pick a random one-term New Hampshire state legislator, create an article that says "<person> is a good person" and literally nothing else, and that's an A7 fail despite the topic being an NPOL pass.) I'm glad that the article has been improved, but I do think it was A7-eligible in its previous form. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but if you wrote "John Smith is a New Hampshire state legislator." then the article would certainly not be eligible for A7.

"EA is a writer." is an A7 but "EA has published multiple books with [blue-linked publisher]." is not an A7, because it means there is the need for further research to determine notability via looking for reviews and other sources to discover whether EA is notable under WP:AUTHOR.

Likewise, "EA is an academic." is an A7 but "EA is a full professor at [blue-linked university]." is not because further work needs to be done to evaluate notability under WP:PROF.

I'd also write, again, that tagging long-standing articles for speedy is, imo, a poor practice. When an article is new, the creator is the sole contributor, so a patroller plus the deleting admin makes a reasonable quorum. When an article has been in existence for more than ~12–18 months, multiple editors have edited it and (presumably) silently agreed with its continued existence in the 'pedia. A patroller plus an admin then no longer forms a quorum and an AfD is appropriate to understand the community's view. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've seen and nominated for deletion a ten year old hoax (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewell train). That an article has been in mainspace a while doesn't mean it's better. If anything, very old articles are less likely to have been properly reviewed after they were created and should be given more scrutiny. Tamzin's A7 tag was entirely within policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: I think that's just a difference in philosophy on how A7 (and for that matter G11) are supposed to work. The way I see it, the community has set no time limit, so there is no time limit. Most pages pre-c. 2011 were subject to no meaningful review, and some do slip through the cracks. And other users editing an A7-eligible article doesn't make A7 ineligible, for new articles or for old. This is more the case for old articles than new, I would argue, where many edits may come from drive-by gnomish edits. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to take an edit I make to some random article I stumble upon as silent agreement that it should exist. All it means is that, at that moment, I did not see it as worth tagging for CSD—quite possibly because I didn't read the full article but was just fixing the little bit I noticed while skimming or while running through a Quarry or set of search results. If you want to propose a time limit on A7 (or G11), I think that would be a good discussion for WT:CSD, but I respectfully but emphatically reject the idea that that is or should be a best practice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

possible restoration of 2 drafts

hi, i found your handle in the 'Wikipedia admins willing to provide copies of articles' category. unfortunately i can not get my email to confirm, so im not sure how to get the revisions except to restore them to my personal userspace sandboxes: sandbox 1 and sandbox 2. the request drafts for restoration are (1) Draft:Veracity_of_statements_by_Joe_Biden and (2) Draft:Veracity_of_statements_made_by_Joe_Biden, to the extent allowed. i see that the first one was deleted using G10, but the author disputes on the sysop's talkpage that it was an attack article. the second one looks like it might be less troublesome to restore, but i dont know, so thats why i am requesting both of them restored then assigned to the two sandboxes in my userspace so i can assess whether these contain anything useful for an article. sincere thanks in advance. :^) .usarnamechoice (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@.usarnamechoice: Please see User:Tamzin/Discretionary admin things § Deleted pages and revisions, the page linked from that category: I usually don't restore pages on direct request, unless I'm the deleting admin. Instead, you can use WP:REFUND to restore the G13 (although the reviewing admin should be made aware of the G10 of a similar page; CC Liz, HighInBC) and WP:DRV to restore the G10 if the deleting admin has declined to restore it himself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Huygens talk

I was about to add a note at the RfD, but realized it is deleted. At the talk page of the redirect, User:Double sharp had requested, in case of a deletion, to move the talk page conversation to User:Double sharp/Fairy piece notability. Jay 💬 09:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons discussion

Hi Tamzin. Just letting you know ahout this as a courtesy. I'm not sure whether you ever venture over to Commons, but you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Sockpuppetry since you were mentioned by name by one of the people posting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Janowar

Hi Tamzin, I'm not part of the Copyediting Guild but just thought I'd give it a shot on this article. Full disclosure I can't read Bengali and the plot is really hard to follow but I think I got the gist of it based on these two sources. [[10]][[11]]. Cowlibob (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Out of the Blue (book)

On 1 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Out of the Blue (book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Liz Truss's rise to power went from "astonishing" to "explosive" a day before she resigned as prime minister? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Out of the Blue (book). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Out of the Blue (book)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,497 views (624.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Damn nice! I"m jealous, my DYK barely got any before being taken off the main page ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Channa Mohallah

TY for the ping. Good close! IMO there's far too much emphasis in the MOS on trying to force a WP:PTOPIC in doubtful areas, but the minimum %age for pageviews should be no less than 90 and preferably more. PTOPICs may save one click, but collect bad links like there's no tomorrow - see WP:BPAT - which may mislead readers, because we must not assume a basic level of knowledge. Narky Blert (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on God in Abrahamic religions

Despite the ongoing discussion that I opened on the talk page of the article God in Abrahamic religions, there's one IP vandal using different IP addresses that keeps deleting sourced content and continuously engages in edit warring (the same one from Talk:Ger toshav). So far, no admin has intervened to stop that guy despite all of this. I have already requested an increased protection of the page and reported his IP addresses to WP:AIV, and yet nobody seems to care. GenoV84 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

RfU revisions

I see you have hidden 22 revisions of RfU including genuine ones. Do you plan on re-inserting the genuine ones? Jay 💬 03:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

OK never mind, the content is there, revisions have been hidden. Jay 💬 03:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Foreign language redirects to Hungary

Your close came 12 minutes after my retarget vote. Didn't you happen to see it? Jay 💬 19:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jay: So sorry about that. I already had the page open when you made your comment, and XFDCloser doesn't alert to that race condition when closing. In the future I'll make sure to reload the page between consecutive closes. Restored and close reversed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it is a good enhancement to have for the XFDCloser. I refresh the page history one second before I make a relist or a close. Jay 💬 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Admin's Barnstar from Huldra

	The Admin's Barnstar
	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)

@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)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Tamzin,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Range block

Hello, Tamzin,

I just did a site-wide range block for 2409:4071:0:0:0:0:0:0/34. You issued a partial block to them yesterday but today they tagged dozens of articles for deletion and kept persisting even after I reverted their edits. I'm not that familiar with range blocks so I'm hoping you can tell me whether this one will have collateral damage or should be made for a shorter period than 3 months. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations on hitting the 10 year mark! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I've had to range block a few other IP ranges like 2405:204:5000:0:0:0:0:0/37 because he keeps jumping around. All of these ranges already had limited, partial blocks that I made site-wide. Maybe you could just tell me how to see whether or not this affects a lot of other editors besides the IP jumping vandals. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: First off, thanks! 10 years... wild. So, on 2409:4071:0:0:0:0:0:0/34, that block won't actually prevent the edits they were making, because those edits were to their own talkpages. I was close to siteblocking the range myself, so agree it's necessary here, but usually lengths for partial rangeblocks are a lot more liberal than lengths for sitewide rangeblocks; maybe reduce it to 2 weeks, revoke TPA, and then make a note to restore the partial rangeblock when that expires? There's really no way to gauge collateral damage other than how many good edits were coming through pre-block, but 2409 seems to have been having at least a decent amount of them; 2405 less so, and probably could be given a long-term rangeblock if things persist there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Aaron Maté

Tamzin, can you review the editing history for the article over the last couple of days and see if the one-revert rule has been violated (and if so, whether warnings or blocks are needed)? I haven't dealt with WP:GS/ISIL and am not immediately familiar with the notification requirements and typical sanction practices; so passing the 1RR buck to you given your earlier note at the talkpage. FYI I had closed a related ANI thread a couple of days back. Abecedare (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Was on a phone call while composing the above message and missed that you were already on the case! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Yeah, read your mind. :) Despite all the edit-warring, the only bright-line 1RR violation I see in all of there (since I clarified that 1RR applies) is when Poyani self-reverted and accidentally reverted some others in the process, which I'm disinclined to sanction as a 1RR violation; but I have p-blocked them for regular edit-warring, and p-blocked Volunteer Marek for gaming the 1RR, as for two days in a row he's reverted a bit past the 24-hour mark. Now I see another editor just barely skirting 24 hours, so I think I may bump the 1RR up to 72 hours. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. I hate "counting" reverts (because it can so easily trup good-faith editors, and be gamed by bad-faith ones) so won't even try to evaluate whether the bright-line has been crossed; but I completely agree with your observation that the editors on the page are repeatedly making edits that they know to be disputed without establishing clear consensus for their preferred version; edit-warring, in short. Support your proposed action (as my phone rings again). Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I just state that all I was trying to do (as the editor that supposedly “just skirted” the 1RR) was keep the page stable while discussion was ongoing, per my posts on the talk page where I continually asked for civility and perhaps a break to cool down? If a block is going to happen, I think it necessary to take a look at where the “bright-line” has been crossed.—Hobomok (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

For purposes of the 1RR that you imposed, is removing content sourced solely to a self-published website a revert? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: If it was added recently and doesn't fall under any of 3RRNO, then yes, it's a revert. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm asking your interpretation of WP:3RRNO#7; if content is solely sourced to an SPS, is it (in your opinion as the administrator imposing the discretionary sanction) exempt under that provision of 3RRNO? Additionally, can you clarify "recent"? Additionally, is content added in December 2021 "added recently"? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: There is no formal definition of when something stops being a revert and becomes just removing old content, but I don't see any way that something from December 2021 would be a revert. Personally I tend to draw the line at "before the current exchange of edits", unless it's like, very slow edit-warring or something. So yes, not a revert. That makes it moot whether 3RRNO#7 applies, but in general the answer there would be, it depends on whether the self-published source qualifies as "poorly sourced"; usually the answer would be that it does. That's assuming that the claims in question are BLP-related. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, there is one EW exemption I do not recall ever seeing, which reads: Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Equating violating consensus with "clear vandalism" seems quite odd given the fact WP:VAND states Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Or am I completely missing the picture here? Thank you, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, the thing I'm looking at does not appear to be willfully against consensus. It appears to be a good-faith mistake on a source in thinking it's a NEWSORG when it's a self-published expert blog, so I don't see it as being intentionally contrary to the community consensus of WP:BLPSPS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't referencing the source you found, @Red-tailed hawk. But out of curiosity, which blog is it? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: That language in Module:Sanctions appears to date to ProcrastinatingReader's first draft. Proc, is there a particular policy that that clause derives from? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah... Those parts were taken from ArbCom's DS templates I think, Template:American politics AE might've been the exact one I copied from. It was probably written by Coffee or Awilley, as I believe the DS templates were originally written by individual admins before effectively falling under the clerks' purview.

I suppose they could explain the rationale better than I, but although I didn't write it the logic makes sense to me. Otherwise you'd end up in the tricky position of editors changing text to deviate from a established/agreed-upon RfC consensus, and others being unable to change it back in fear of DS sanctions. It's not uncommon (mainly on articles that suddenly gain lots of visibility, eg current events) to have cases where lots of different editors make a change to deviate from an RfC consensus and only a few editors remember that consensus and change things back.

To be clear of course, it's not an exemption to 3RR, just to the DS revert restrictions (1RR etc). Which makes it a bit confusing, as presumably you're exempt from revert 2 and 3, but after 3 the normal WP:3RRNO applies so your next revert is sanctionable? I figured this was a bit confusing and likely to lead to unintentional 'violations', so I tried to add the exemption into WP:3RR at the time to sync them up. I think this addition was reverted some time after and I never got around to holding an RfC to clear this issue up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Reading through it now, I think the clause is probably redundant to the one right above which says Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions., as that conveys what I personally understood the point of the second bullet to be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Imran Khan

Why would you remove this? Imran Khan named 3 persons responsible for the attack. 39.44.96.19 (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I've always taken "accused" in {{infobox civilian attack}} to refer to someone having been formally accused, i.e. by a prosecutor. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Well this is censorship. Khan repeatedly named these 03 persons in his press conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.44.96.19 (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to raise the matter on the article's talk page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. You're welcome to join. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.44.96.19 (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Consolidated Marek threads

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

---

Query on situation

I've been asked not to post on user Volunteer Marek's talk page (by him) in the past (we just don't see eye to eye I guess), so I'll post this here. I don't want to judge either way. You feel you, as an administrator, are within Wikipedia rules of his gaming the system and feels he is within the rules. He has asked for an unblock request because of "future" rules you put in place, not really grasping that it was only because you felt it was gaming the system. To end this logjam, out of simple curtesy and second chances, could you simply asking him (whether he believes he is in the wrong or not), if he will abide to no future reverts that even remotely could be construed as "gaming the system?" So, no slow burn reverts on the topic. And if he agrees then lift the block? That allows him to save face by disagreeing with you, yet you would show you still mean business but are willing to move on. I think your point would still be made and likely more eyes would now be watching his future edits. This is just my own musing. I hate seeing editors blocked even if I have issues with them.... not if there's any way out of it. No need to reply to this, I'm just trying to help as a long time editor. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Query from Red-tailed hawk in re Volunteer Marek

Moved from User talk:Volunteer Marek § November 2022

Tamzin, with respect, which diffs contain the personal attacks launched on this page that warranted revoking TPA? I'm reading through this talk page and I'm having trouble finding direct personal attacks made by Volunteer Marek that have not been struck. Is there something I've skipped over? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Well you're somewhat loading the question there. We don't have a policy against "direct personal attacks". We have a policy against personal attacks. Since the initial struck comment, I see:

• apparently it’s not actually a 1RR/day restriction but rather a “1RR/whateverTamzindecidesonaspurofthemoment” restriction
• Us lowly editors cannot be expected to mind read what you awesome all wise administrators actually want
• You basically just yelled “respect mah authoritah!” and refused to even consider the possibility that your block was out of line
• how are users suppose to know what you have in mind when you impose a restriction, if you are just going to make up arbitrary standards for what constitutes supposedly “gaming that restriction”? Sorry but, in all good faith, this looks a lot like “block hammer them first and then come up with excuses for the blocks later” approach to administrating
• you also think YOU can read MY mind
• you made it clear that your objection to an unblock is not on the merits of your original block but simply because you're annoyed by some non-admin user having the temerity to question your actions. Got to put the little people in their place, huh?

All of which are varying levels of violations of WP:NPA (via WP:ASPERSIONS), WP:CIV, and WP:TPG, while acting in a GS area and thus expected to hold a high standard of decorum. (To be clear, I am not saying that each of those comments is individually blockable. It's the sum of them, after a warning.) That was capped off by twice reverting my attempt, as blocking admin, to ask another admin to assess whether NPA had been violated. That order of events is why "disruptive editing" appears first in the block reason, not personal attacks: If it had been just the PAs, I would have awaited NYB's determination, but actively reverting comments that object to one's unblock request is a classic form of disruptive editing, and routinely leads to expansion of blocks and revocation of TPA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for the use of the term "direct"; I had not meant to load the question. I think I understand your rationale for the block better now. I'm a bit confused, however, as to why this is a GS sanction rather than an ordinary block and TPA revoke. If the GS were written as all edits related to the Syrian Civil War or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, I'd understand why those edits would be in its scope. But I'm a bit less clear on why we're declaring a user's talk page within the scope of all pages related to the Syrian Civil War or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. Would you please explain a bit about why this is a GS action as opposed to a regular admin block? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: The discussion for an unblock appeal regarding edits in the SCW topic area is an extension of that topic area. Well, maybe not if the discussion quickly turned to things unrelated to the underlying content dispute, but Marek was bringing up the merits of his reverts throughout the discussion. His disruptive edits were ultimately about his desire to make certain edits in the SCW topic area.

To reduce it to a simpler example, suppose someone gets DS-tempblocked and responds with a littany of personal attacks against the users they'd been in conflict with. The sanctioning admin looks at those comments, decides the user isn't cut out for the topic area, and TBANs them. I think most people would agree that's within the scope of the relevant sanction authorization, even if the comments were on a user talk page and not the article's talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for taking the time to swiftly reply. I'll have to let this sink in a bit. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin you were asked not to post on the VM talk page [12]

then you reverted him -->[13], blocked him and withdrew his talk page access. The block and cancellation of talk page access might look like a way to win the edit war on his talk page... you know. It looks like an act of revenge... I'm still trying to wrap my head around all of this. I'll post my thoughts here or on VM's talk page. Please take a look at it later when you get a chance. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: First, I didn't revert VM after that message; I think I would have been within my rights to, but it seemed pointless since I'd made the comment in question irrelevant. Second, WP:NOBAN exempts necessary messages, and notifying an editor you've blocked them is surely necessary. The alternative would be that any editor could make themself unblockable by banning all admins from their talk. Third, you're welcome to respond on VM's talkpage, but I will not reply there, as I don't think that responding to post-block comments by third parties usually falls under the aforementioned NOBAN exemption. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

But there was nothing necessary about this message you clearly restored. You could have posted that on NyBrad's talk page, you see... To me it looks as you were edit warring because your authority was challenged. (sorry Tamzin, I'm just being honest) If you wanted NewYorkBrad to review any comments, then you should have waited for them. Now it looks like you jumped the gun and executed the blocked yourself and that unfortunately looks vindictive. (being an admin. sucks..you know.. I hate to post this critisism becase I respect you so much) GizzyCatBella🍁 06:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, it is a very bad look to block someone on account of rude words said to you. You are a party to the argument and therefore involved. You should leave any action for another administrator or refer it to a noticeboard. Having editors react angrily to a block is part of the administrator's lot. Zero^talk 10:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zero0000: My role here has been purely administrative, so I am not involved. An editor criticizing an administrator for blocking them does not make that administrator involved. Even so, I recognized it would be a bad idea to block him for the personal attacks myself, which is why I deferred it to another administrator. When VM chose to escalate that by removing comments relevant to his ongoing unblock request, left by me as the blocking administrator, even after being told not to, I judged that as disruptive editing and blocked him for that. You don't need to take my word for it after-the-fact that the comments on their own weren't something I was going to block over: I said that in the very comment VM removed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You wrote "disruptive editing and personal attacks" in the block notice. I agree that administrative involvement in a dispute doesn't make you automatically involved, but when you start using your admin tools in response to words written to you personally, everyone will see it as a personal response. It would be fine if the personal attacks were against someone else, but they weren't. Zero^talk 11:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I agree that it's bad optics. So... Well, lots of things on my mind, but let's start with: What do you think I should do here? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not Zero0000 but I'll offer my thoughts: I think you should self-revert all of your administrative actions outside of the incresed 1RR/72h for the page in question (that was a good idea). Then you can either ask for a review of your actions at AN or not, depending on whether you realize and admit that you went to far or not. I'll leave you with a link to my thoughts on related issues from a while back, with a note that while your first block was borderline (blocking someone for a few days from one page is "not a big deal", escalation to a week long block after you have been criticized, which creates an issue with being uninvolved, looks bad for the reasons mentioned above, and also in the context of "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". What kind of damage or disruption is that second block designed to prevent? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Marek

I will be relatively patient and give you an hour to reverse your egregious block. Then its a case before ARBCOM for general conduct unbecoming. Blocking an editor on a flimsy rationale, then forcibly muzzling them when they vociferously object to your flimsy rationale is outside what is expected of an Admin's behaviour. Your job is to de-escalate, not throw gas on the fire. If any other admin wishes to unblock Marek in the meantime, I may be persuaded no further action is necessary, I may not. This is not the first sub-par decision you have made as an admin. I am not inclined to see any more of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not intend to reverse the block unlesss someone can show me why it's unnecessary to prevent disruption to the project. I've treated Marek exactly as I would treat any other editor, and I'm not going to start giving anyone special treatment now. You're welcome to take me to ArbCom, although do note that neither ArbCom nor an individual admin can overturn a GS block, which are appealable only by the blocked party and only to the blocking admin or AN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Who I said I was looking to overturn the block, I am looking to have your tools removed for conduct unbecoming. Which is strictly an ARBCOM function. I was willing to consider the possibility you might have re-thought your actions, but since that doesn't appear to be the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• It's peculiar how Only in death's editing is nearly all noticeboard related and sparsely even that. In their past 500 edits quite a bit of it has been crusading for Marek in noticeboards: [14][15][16][17]. That last diff also has an ARBCOM ultimatum against an admin: " If they arnt unblocked with either an apology the next step will be ARBCOM to request Ymblanter's tools are removed.". And odd edit pattern overall in this account. --2A02:3035:805:A178:B197:2A68:7B63:70EA (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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

A kitten for you!

A random act of appreciation from a queer person to another.

LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)