User talk:Tamzin

{{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.

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 Kbhatt22. 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)

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)

@Robert McClenon: Yeah, the motion gets to me. And I think it's best if we all be aware of the heavy neurodivergent slant among Wikipedians, which correlates with such sensitivities. phab:T116501 has only been open 7 years, so maybe in another decade... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

@FlightTime: I should start a list of all the people it's helped. I'm aware of at least one time that it contributed to me getting a hat somewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, thank you! Now, the hard part, remembering to use it. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:47, 11 November 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)

@Randy Kryn: Thanks! Credit where credit is due to coäuthors Elli and theleekycauldron. Definitely the most fun I've had writing an article. Both because it's a silly topic and because it was one of those rare times where all the fun correlations you want to draw in an article but it would be SYNTH to, the reliable sources actually do draw! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the more fun articles I've had the pleasure to collaborate on for sure! Elli (talk | contribs) 13:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

...and here!   — Jeff G. ツ 23:36, 1 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)

Thank you, Timtrent. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I am in awe of SPI folk. While I'm capable of making a report, you all have the determination to get the drains up and deciding if all of our reports have merit. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

@Kioumarsi: Thank you! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:33, 11 November 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)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I realize you asked this about a month ago, and I didn't respond at the time because there wasn't anything to say, but I should be clear about why: When I become administratively involved with a page, I am very much not there to pass judgment on the merits of any content decisions, other than to make sure that they comply with our core policies and guidelines. (My one edit to that page was to enforce one of those, WP:BANREVERT.) Your edit doesn't violate any core policy or guideline, but you probably knew that; if you'd like peer review beyond that, you should talk to others who've edited the article from a content-oriented perspective. Sorry for the slow resonse. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:14, 11 November 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)

@Dying: My greatest abuse of the diaeresis is for words that are valid compounds. For a time I had a daily routine written out that included both "wakeüp" and "makeüp". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

oh, that is hilariöus! by the way, this has turned out to be quite the brainworm for me, to my surprise! i had a hard time refraining myself from including a diaëresis in my vote at the rfa of a fellow diaëresis user. (by the way, congratulations, Extraördinary Writ!) now i am finding myself deliberately misspelling things to get the opportunity to misuse the diaëresis (e.g., "brakeüp"), visualizing it in languages or scripts that generally don't use it (e.g., "Fumiö Kishida" or "Киї̈в"), and just creating havoc in general (e.g., "Briʻïš"). diaëresis users of the world, uniët! dying (talk) 05:06, 16 December 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)

@Narky Blert: Yes, erroneous bluelinks remain vexing. I was rather proud of this catch in the wild a few months ago. Makes you think about how many there are lurking like that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Gud catch indeed! I can't remember the details, but I once came across a politician who had played sport professionally over two decades after his death... Narky Blert (talk) 23:30, 21 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)

A kitten for you!

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

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

I wasn't sure if this was worth noting

Hi, firstly sorry for being a little vague about the original LTA account! This is probably a coincidence but I've notice a new account MMWorldCreators which reminded me of the LTA Worldcreatorfighter (I can't remember the full user name, sorry). I realise this could be a coincidence and you won't be able to tell if it's them unless they edit. Please feel free to delete if this information is useless. Knitsey (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments at the review page. Take care Tamzin. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018)

The article Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ayyyyy, nice job! High five :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin did a great job @Theleekycauldron! MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

We can only hope we see more, MaxnaCarta :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed! Tamzin, once you have a moment to self congratulate and enjoy your success, please do consider the page rename. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Wow, I'm finally ready to RfA now! ;)
  Seriously though, thank y'all for your kind words.​​ Six months to the day after the article was on DYK; and ten years, a week, and a day after I registered this account. Very nice symmetry. Thank you, MaxnaCarta, for being a great GA reviewer and amicus encyclopediae. I'd enumerate the ways, but res ipsa loquitor. Regarding your comment obiter dictum, ex rel. whether the article should remain sub this nomine, I'll ping you from talk, as any other option would be either in camera or ex parte. Your further thoughts are welcome in re this in rem matter, even as functus officio. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  In the matter of using Latin terms ad nauseum, respectfully, I dissent. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  That...required Google translating. Catch you about! MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  TIL of {{bcc}}. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Well, I just finished your GA review. Because you have worked so hard, it was not a difficult task. Well done on a great piece of work. I came here to congratulate you and saw the above drama. It also made me recall - we have "interacted" in the sense I opposed your RFA.

I've decided to leave some love for a few reasons.

First, I was inexperienced at voting there and I do not think my vote was quite fair in hindsight. While I remain opposed to what you had said about being open to desysoping Trump supporters (or whatever it was you said, and keep in mind I do not like him either), there was no evidence I had to support a presumption you may be biased in future.

Second, if I were to vote again, I'd support this time.

Third, I liked working with you, even if only briefly. You are nice!

Fourth, you write amazing content, and if that is not a reason to let someone know they are valued on Wikipedia, I do not know what is.

Happy tenth anniversary Tamzin. You are kind, you are doing your best, and that is all anyone can ask.

“When in the evening we are alone with our most existential thoughts, it is then that we come face to face with the most precious truths that we discover in our brief existence in this world. Just before fatigue envelopes us, taking us into sleep. We think of what our lives actually mean. And then we know how lucky we are if we still enjoy consciousness, rationality and love. But the greatest of these is love.” ― Michael Kirby

MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta: Well, I guess this goes to show I took Liz' advice to heart in terms of forgetting who voted which way. Granted, with >450 names to remember, it was pretty easy to let those fall out of my mind.

Thank you for the further compliments on my content work. I'd like to put the article up for FAC soon, I think. I'll take one more dive to see if I can dig up any post-Nieves analysis beynd Mills, and maybe add a teeny bit to §§ Prior jurisprudence and Lozman and Riviera Beach, but your comments solidify my impression that it's close to complete.

That's a lovely quote. If I may get personal for a moment, as someone who is plural/multiple, if I've spent a whole day focused on the outer world, then the moment I go to sleep will often be the one moment I check in with the others I share a brain and body with. Often what I see is love, from another self within a divided self. Which makes me think which of The Four Loves that would be, if any, which makes me think of this quote from wikiquote:C. S. Lewis § Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold (1956):

Lightly men talk of saying what they mean. Often when he was teaching me to write in Greek the Fox would say, "Child, to say the very thing you really mean, the whole of it, nothing more or less or other than what you really mean; that's the whole art and joy of words." A glib saying. When the time comes to you at which you will be forced at last to utter the speech which has lain at the center of your soul for years, which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you'll not talk about joy of words. I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?

Which I think rather nicely ties together several threads here. :)

Or maybe just seems confusing because Till We Have Faces is a weird book.

P.S. MOS:CURLY :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your change to the RFC prompt

Friendly greetings, I'm posting here to let you know that I reverted your changes to the RFC prompt; arguing that the RFC was malformed is perfectly kosher, but doing so in the prompt itself is not. I hope you understand. Best, DFlhb (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@DFlhb: adding dedicated options to the RfC, that have explicitly received support from several editors, is allowed even after an RfC has begun. This includes options that call for a procedural and non-prejudicial close of the RfC for cause. Please self-revert this where it hasn't already been reverted by another editor(s). Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I asked Silverseren (who also participated in the discussion) for clarification, and he said much the same as you. I now agree with both of you; I didn't know options for procedural closes were allowed in RFC prompts (though I did know that users could simply propose alternative options during the course of discussion). I've now reverted. My most humble apologies to @Tamzin. DFlhb (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to tag @Sideswipe9th; tagging just in case. DFlhb (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't worry about trying to fix the ping. I've got this page on my watchlist :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate you :) I'm still relatively new here, so I'm eager for any and all feedback DFlhb (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your conduct in the Inverted Zebra ANI thread. I doubt I'd be able to keep my cool nearly as well as you did when personally attacked. Your writing managed to convey being justifiably angry without being aggressive. Major props to you for your conduct there, good Mx; I hope I can be even half as civil if I ever find my own person under attack. I hope it blows over quickly now, so you can get back to editing.

EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Rangeblock question

Hello, just wondering how you figured out that a /16 rangeblock was needed here. Wouldn't a block on 98.46.104.0/21 have been enough? I'm not too familiar with CLCStudent, so I figure I'm missing something here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Well, Bullseye gave the smallest allocated range as the /16. When going with ranges smaller than what's known to be allocated, there's always the question of how meaningful a pattern it is for someone to be in a particular subnet. It does look like this has all been in that /21, but, is there a reason you think that the /21 is meaningful here, or is it just the narrowest range you could find that they were all in? (I may well narrow the block either way, but would like to know if there's something I missed pointing to that /21.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

So my logic was this (partly thinking out loud with stuff you likely already know): Based on a look at their contribs, all the CLCStudent RC patrolling was between (not including) 98.46.107.0 and 98.46.112.0, dating back to 2 October. I have noticed that some ISPs seem to let their customers roam about on significantly smaller ranges than the allocations can suggest, sometimes pretty rigidly so. This isn't limited to IPv4, and an RC derper who was supposedly able to move about on a /32 according to allocations, was found to only have access to a /39. My logic was that it was vanishingly unlikely that they were moving about on perhaps 20 or so different addresses on a /16, and yet remaining within a (relatively) tight window of IPs, by random chance, and that there was probably something technically limiting them from going past that, (even if it wasn't immediately apparent what that was).

I guess an analogy would be to drop balls into a tube and record where they land, but there's a catch. Supposedly the tube is a cylinder, and you aren't able to directly see what shape it is. But, if they are all recorded as landing in a smaller area than you would expect for a cylinder, no matter where they are dropped from, or how many you drop, then you know that the "cylinder" is really a funnel of some kind.

I rather wish that ISPs would enlighten us a little as to how small the outlets of their funnels are. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 01:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Good points all around. Switched to the /21 for now; we'll see if it spreads to the rest of the /16. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Page under constant attack

@Tamzin and Zzuuzz: The John Foster (printer) article which I recently created and is presently being featured in the DYK section is being constantly vandalized. The Rcrunchy account was just created today and went straight to the Foster article and started in with vandalism. Minutes later an IP user hit the page and made more tasteless edits. Another user, or likely the same user, did this to the article. Can either of you look into this, and while you're at it, give the article semi-protection at least. Sorry to keep having to notify you guys, but what else can one do? Best, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that's been done. If it was an LTA or wider problem then I'd probably mention it, but it looks like a result of just being prominent in the DYK pile. Take comfort that it's being widely read. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Gwillhickers: DatGuy has semi'd; probably all there is to do now. Weird quirk: Sussus Red Sus used an Amongus meme that's in Toki Pona... Never seen my favorite conlang come up in vandalism before. jaki a ('Nasty!'). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin and Zzuuzz:, — Thanks to both of you for your prompt reply. Yes, DatGuy was looking out and semi-protected the page, which, however, will expire in only two days. I highly suspect that Rcrunchy is really Awolf58 at it again, as he created an account and went straight to the Foster page, with his usual signature of tasteless vandalism. In any case, Thanks for chiming in and looking out. All the best, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I've initiated an SPI. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Userboxes

This user has registered rights on the English Wikipedia.

0+This user has made more than 0 contributions to Wikipedia.

This user is one of the 45,227,129 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This user has been on Wikipedia for at least 0 days.

This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than zero years.

BLOCKThis user has been blocked for cause before, and would like to be again someday. (fulfill)

This user is a Wikipedia admin­istra­tor but would like to not be one someday. (fulfill ^'crats
_stewards )

Is your userboxes not updating? Shocked at first when I read: "This user has 0+ contributions to Wikipedia." Definitely not true... Sarrail (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Assuming you can treat 0 in that matter, it feels probably true! CMD (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sarrail, well, this is edit #47,000, but at least according to MediaWiki, {{#ifexpr:47000 > 0|true}} returns true. :D (Look closer, all the userboxen in the top section are silly, including the bottom two, each of which is randomized between two silly options each time you purge the page—expanded to the right for your convenience, since it just took me 7 tries (1⁄128!) to get both options for the top one.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI#RW abuse

Done, thank you. Fragrant Peony (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Pickersgill

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Any news? I can extend the review period for a week, if needed, but it would be good to get the thing sorted before too long. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: I have been promised wifi by the 23rd. I do not currently have it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I'll extend your nomination until 1 Dec then.Amitchell125 (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

A likely story... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you like being called Tammy?

Is there a personal reason for it? 2607:FEA8:FE10:80D0:19BA:6297:7766:A64 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Many brave Tamzins died in the Great Tammy Wars. Some find strength in looking back, but I find it easier to forget. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

You’ve got mail

I’ve sent you an email. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 02:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

'zinbot question

Out of curiosity, how often does it run? I just found 4 RFD redirects in the queue, which is rare. I started poking around and the BFRA says "probably every 30 minutes". One redirect was RFDed at 18:55 and I reviewed it 20:49, so it's actually not every 30 minutes, right? MB 04:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@MB: Thanks for bringing this up. 'zinbot runs 30 minutes after the last run ended, so like, 30 minutes plus 0 to 20 seconds. I can't say for sure what happened in this case, but I'm guessing the issue is on PageTriage's end: Sometimes pages take a while (hours, even) to get added to the queue, and so, while it may look like 'zinbot has missed them, it's really that they were only added to the queue since the last 30-minute cycle. I can't think of any way to verify that that's what happened here, but perhaps, if you see this happen again, don't patrol the page, and see if it's still unpatrolled in 30 minutes? If so, definitely let me know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, I saw one today that was in the queue for about 40 minutes already, and the bot got it on the next run. Whatever was causing the delay yesterday isn't happening today. MB 19:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the tips on socks/vandals.

LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Transitioning as a lede-worthy event

So, I've been working at Kimberly Reed, and I'm wondering whether placing some mention of her transition in the lede is okay, or not okay. One of her most important works deals with her transition, but only as a secondary theme. I feel like saying in the lede "She is a transwoman" is way too much? She was not notable before her transition. Advice appreciated. Valereee (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: I would tend to treat it like any other personal life DUE question. Since the article isn't long enough to merit a multi-paragraph lede that gets into personal life stuff, I think the question would be whether you want to have mini-synopses of her two documentaries in the lede; if so, then mentioning her trans-ness in the context of Prodigal Sons would seem merited. If not, it's probably undue to mention just on its own, in that short of a lede. But just my opinion as to how I'd write it (and I've only written one biography of a trans person); it's not something I'd remove if I saw in the lede as a standalone fact. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! That's a really helpful way of considering it. I'm not sure brief summaries are really helpful there, as both documentaries have their own articles and are only described briefly in this article, so I'll just leave it out. I just accidentally came in (was looking for Jack Smith (lawyer)'s wife, whom he'd mentioned in an interview had produced Dark Money, got to this article, and thought...nah, we'd be seeing at minimum mentions in right wing media lol), got interested in her backstory, and stayed to clean up (the article was disorganized and had a lot of unsourced content, a lot of stuff that was sort of fancrufty). I want to watch both documentaries, they sound fascinating.

Thank you again, also, for being willing to be Your Queer Tour Guide.^[FBDB] It's very helpful to know there is someone to go to with stupid questions. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

64?

Hi Tamzin. I’m confused because the only mention of “64” was by you, I never mentioned a 64, did I? Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: A /64 is a CIDR range of several quintillion IPv6 addresses. In most cases, a single IPv6 connection will have access to an entire /64 (see WP:/64 for more information), so when looking at an IPv6's contribs, it's necessary to also look at the rest of their /64's contribs, which can be done by appending /64 to the end of the URL. In this case, the /64's contribs confirmed my suspicion that the IP was Ethiopique (who has long been obsessed with 2000 Mules). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying and for investigating too. I guess the matter is dealt with completely, which is good, much appreciated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Gracias

...and you know why, I think. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow

		Bravery Barnstar.
		I'm going to assume it's bravery, anyway. We'll see if Stephen Harrison will have to write another article. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: And now for my thoughts on the Arab–Israeli conflict, Kennedy assassination, and Waldorf education... /j -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Waldorf education? did someone tell Statler about it? haaaa ha ha haa... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Atkinson Hyperlegible

On 22 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Atkinson Hyperlegible, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that to optimize Atkinson Hyperlegible for visually impaired people, its designers intentionally broke the rule that a typeface should be uniform? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Atkinson Hyperlegible. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Atkinson Hyperlegible), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,248 views (593.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Congrats Tamzin! I have to wonder how you can make hooks get lots of views... ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: A quirky taste in article topics, a former middle school teaching aide's sense of what keeps people engaged, and, of course, a large botnet with spoofed useragents. /j -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

ACE2022

I usually let ACE answers speak for themselves, but I would appreciate it if you could clarify or correct what you have written here: I believe [my block] was consistent with policy as written at the time, and to my knowledge you are the only person to suggest that it wasn't. I have never commented on the specific block, because I don't know what it is. I have said in general terms that non-functs blocking based on private evidence is (and always has been) against policy, but I am far from the only person to do so: almost everybody in the ARBN thread also said as much, and it was the overwhelming consensus of the subsequent RfC. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: The block that sparked the Committee's statement—which I've already publicly said was of GBFEE—was not based on any private evidence. Now that this has been clarified, could you please correct the mistaken assumption in your ACE question? Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I would be happy to. Which part is incorrect? To clarify, when I said ArbCom's initial communication about one of your blocks, I was referring to your own comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49#Special Circumstances Blocks: And, apparently, basically no one has exercised that option on a case that wasn't "highly sensitive" until I did a few weeks ago on a very complex behavioral block, I gather sparking this discussion. – Joe (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: The statement your reaction to ArbCom's initial communication about one of your blocks was apparently that they were wrong and you were right is incorrect because ArbCom's statement was not in opposition to my block, and indeed not about my block. I invoked a provision of policy. ArbCom subsequently removed that provision. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about that last part. But I didn't know you'd changed your mind about ArbCom's announcement being in response to your block; happy to revise that. Could you please also correct the record about me being the only person to suggest something? – Joe (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I haven't changed my mind about anything. My policy-compliant block led ArbCom to change the rules on that kind of block. The statement was not framed as a criticism of my decision to make that block or invoke that provision. You are indeed, to my knowledge, the only person to say that it was. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

But I didn't say that Tamzin. I said the statement was about one of your blocks – solely because you yourself previously said that that block had sparked the discussion. To reiterate, I have never expressed an opinion on whether your block was consistent with policy, because until you just told me now I didn't know what it was. So that part of your answer is simply untrue. Whatever, good luck with the election. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I've never understood the logic behind misrepresenting public conversations, let alone misrepresenting what someone has said in the previous comment, given that anyone can read it for themself. At this point, I have made my best good-faith effort to correct your misunderstanding of what transpired. Please stop saying I said things I didn't say (e.g. that you expressed an opinion on whether [my] block was consistent with policy; I said you said ArbCom had), or that others said things about me they didn't say (e.g. the Arbitration Committee told you that you'd misunderstood a part of the blocking policy that they originated [1] [emphasis original], which you acknowledge in this thread you had no factual basis to believe). This is, to be clear, a formal request of you under WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT—which is the only reason I'm pinging you; no response is necessary or desired. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"Marked Frontier Ventures as reviewed"

Hello. I see that you "marked Frontier Ventures as reviewed", but you did not leave a comment on the discussion. What do you mean when you mark this as reviewed if you do not leave a review of the redirect in that discussion? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghost of Kiev: My bot marks all redirects as reviewed after they're taken to RfD. It's not actually a comment on the merits of the redirect, but a reflection of the fact that RfD will sort things out and thus NPP's help is not needed. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/'zinbot. Anyways, did you get an Echo notification about this? The bot should be set to not notify. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Tamzin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC). 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.

Sorry for emailing again, but there was a new development you should probably know about. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 18:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Cetacean needed

Apropos to absolutely nothing, I just wanted to stop by and say I love your [cetacean needed]. We all need one! :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course we all need a cetacean. Otherwise our lives would have no porpoise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

whale I'll be... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, what did I start?! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to put this thread under seal? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we otter consider it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Nar… well OK then. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	This year I'm thankful for 12 new admins to add to the admin corps. Thank you for volunteering to take on more responsibilities on the project. We're lucky to have you! Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

A vandal is disrupting the Geography of Bolivia page

Hi Tamzin! How are you? I wanted to inform you that an IP has been vandalizing the Geography of Bolivia page. I quickly reverted the vandalism, but they are still active. Could you please block them? I don't want them to vandalize any other pages. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino: No edits in several hours, so it's unlikely a block would serve any preventative purpose. Feel free to re-report if they resume editing disruptively. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

References

New NeuroSex sock?

Hi Tamzin, Unfortunately, it appears that NeuroSex is back again with a new sock. https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/Antfightclubcatsup Would an investigation be possible? Thanks. Keyhound (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Rev/del?

Does this need rev/del [2] (comment about stepdaughter) at Talk:Musk family. Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've deleted it. Thanks Knitsey for reporting it.-gadfium 21:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Your talk page is semi-protected

Some trolling went on. Cullen328 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of BUMD

The article BUMD has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The first one is called BUMdes, not BUMD, the second one is BUMD, just to avoid having the same initialism for two very similar concepts. Removing the first one leaves us only with a redlink which wouldn't help as a redirect (not explained at target), so deletion is the best solution here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: Thanks. Village-owned enterprise used the abbreviation BUMD when I created the DAB, but I see that's been changed, so, G7'd. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for standing. After the first question, I found more candidates I could support than seats to be filled, so I asked a second. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

BLP self-deletion request help

(In advance, apooigies for ambiguities here. I am trying to say as little identifying about the article in question as possible to respect said individual's privacy) A not particularly notable person on whom there is a Wikipedia article requested that the article be deleted. They did so through means that would not themselves work as it doesn't meet an important criterion for deletion in the method they requested, but I was wondering what the best way would be to get this page deleted (also, to I guess validate if the request is actually from the person who it claims to be from). What would you say the best way to proceed here is? TartarTorte 14:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@TartarTorte: Thanks for asking this. I'll just address my response here to the person in question, and you can forward it along. :)

First off, if the article on you contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and ... this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard, it may be eligible for summary deletion. If you think that may be the case here, feel free to contact me at wikimediantamz.in and I can take a look.(N.B.: This usually doesn't apply, but worth mentioning.)

Failing that, your option would be to have the article sent to a deletion discussion. On the one hand, policy allows for deletion under certain circumstances when an article's subject requests a deletion discussion. On the other hand, deletion is not guaranteed, and doing this runs the risk of a Streisand effect, wherein you draw more attention to an article that might otherwise have been ignored. If you do wish to avail yourself of this option, please email info-enwikimedia.org, if possible from an email address that is verifiably yours, and say that you are requesting deletion of your article. Please say in the email that you consent to your request being shared publicly; by default, all correspondence to that address is covered by a non-disclosure agreement, so we need an explicit waiver. If you'd like me to be the one who takes a look at the email, feel free to include "attn: Tamzin" in the subject line and say I told you to write in.

Hope that helps. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

snicker

They are not currently attributing in compliance with the CC BY-SA, so, they should do that if they don't want to get DMCA'd by some Wikipedian with too much time on xyr hands. [emph mine] Valereee (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Vattakara for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vattakara, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vattakara (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@SD0001: Seems that if revisions are revdelled, XTools attributes all of their content to the editor behind the next non-revdelled revision? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose so. That would be a limitation with the WikiWho tool itself, which XTools and SDZeroBot both use under the hood. – SD0001 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirects to Persona 3

Just spotted your CSD revert, thanks for the feedback, I'll redact my messaging. Thanks again ♥ ~ Chip🐺 12:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@ChipWolf: No worries. :) And apologies for the cross-post. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for introducing me to some excellent templates on your userpage :)

– SJ + 16:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

XNR of sockpuppet

Hi Tamzin, when nominating a redirect for Rfd I noticed that User talk:Moscowamerican is a XNR to User:Infinitepeace, both of whom it appears are sockpuppets for User:Okip. The XNR seems odd, and there is no sockpuppet notice at User:Moscowamerican. I know you work in this area so thought you would be able to take a look and clean this up rather quickly. Cheers Mdewman6 (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: Thanks, redirect removed. @GeneralNotability and Dreamy Jazz: Should SPIhelper overwrite redirects if the blocked user's talkpage is one? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I noticed you blocked 104.153.242.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for evading a block and mass deleted a number of their pages. Another IP under the same /24 CIDR range (specifically 104.153.242.128/29 range), 104.153.242.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been mass creating pages, including re-creating some of the ones you've deleted. I came across this while data mining so I'm just letting you know that this user has apparently continued evading their block. Uhai (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Uhai! :) Gave the /24 a month off anon. only; the only others editing logged-out on it are vandals (assuming that's not the same person doing some CIR-hand/outright-bad-faith-hand). And nuked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Re Re R(F)C that is malformed and misleading

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.

---

Thanks for your comment on this. FYI: I did used to operate an account 2014 until earlier this year, and found many parts of wiki were getting quite toxic ala other social media in these day, I have always used IP's both previous to that and subsequently, and always from other locations or devices that were work, borrowed etc. until the recent change as above. I have never had a ban or even a warning and not been involved with any disputes on either side, so this is a first for me. I note GoodDay got involved very quickly, he was one of the user recruited (on his talk page) for the RFC the other was Golbez [[3]]. I cannot find any more canvassed user although I suspect there are more, via DM or pings from the two user mentioned here.
Anyway to the crux of this post, what should I do now? Wait for further admins to ask for details/proof/back-up? Answer some of the errr comments by involved users? Defend my report and actions? I do not want to drag this out or turn this into another another toxic bun-fight, any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:E41C:B4B2:FB86:9A61 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay commented on the RfC before[4] I contacted him for help with publicizing the RFC on WikiProject talk pages.[5] Shortly after I created the RFC, Golbez started a discussion about the same topic at Talk:List of governors of Florida. The natural response to that, on that page, was to invite the editor to join the RFC, so as not to have the same discussion in multiple places. A notice about the RFC was similarly posted at Talk:List of United States senators from Nebraska [6], where I had engaged in a discussion with users disagreeing with me. So, to conclude, you are shamelessly lying. Surtsicna (talk) 19:52, 6 December 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.

Outside Connections

Hey Tamzin, you said that I was using multiple accounts, or coordinating editing outside of Wikipedia. I am not using several accounts, but AG5263 is indeed my classmate. I was simply trying to be humorous since he is my friend, and my intent was not vandalism, and I am NOT collaborating with him on editing, and even if I was, what is the issue with that? I'm not trying to be rude, I am simply wondering what I did wrong, and if you could show me. I will not edit AG5263's user page or talk page again with the intent of being humorous anymore, but I may help add to it, but not with a vandalizing or humorous intent. Thank you, Matthew. MasterMatt12 (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MasterMatt12: Special:Diff/1125907784 certainly looks like vandalism to me. So there's what you did wrong: you called another user a bunch of mean nicknames and moved their talk page. As for User:AG5263, their block log has a big stinking notice to the effect of "the technical logs on this account prove that multiple accounts are being used by one IP/computer/person", and saying the user "is my friend" suggests that either your friend is doing something shady or you're doing something shady. Tamzin was just covering all her bases. casualdejekyll 22:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you casualdejekyl, I understand what I did that was wrong and was interpreted as vandalism and I won't do it again, I intended it to be making fun of him and didn't expect this to be as big of a deal as this, but I am wondering why he is blocked, and why they say that his IP address has several accounts?? He has one account, and so do I, the only time I or my friend did things on the same IP address is when we accidentally edited signed out, and why does he have an edit ban on his account? He understood that it was just a mean remark and put a bunch of wikilove on my talk page saying that, and that apparently was considered as using several accounts on an IP address? I'm a bit confused about what is going on right now. And he is my friend, that is why I put the mean messages on his talk page because he would know that it wasn't real and intentional vandalism since he is my friend, and I wouldn't do that if it was some random person because they would probably think I was being serious, and if anyone has an edit ban it should be me, not him. Once again, I am not trying to be rude, I am simply trying to find out what is happening, and how to resolve what is going on.

Thanks, Matthew. MasterMatt12 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@MasterMatt12: Your warning was for inappopriate behavior regarding accounts you're connected to, and it doesn't sound like you dispute that that's what happened, except inasmuch as you dispute that your actions were inappropriate. (They were, and if you do things like that again you will wind up blocked.) If your friend has questions about their block, they can follow the instructions in the block notice they were given. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright I understand, and I apoligize for my actions, it won't happen again and I hope I can continue contributing here. I have a question though not about my friend, I understand why he was banned, I am wondering why User: DA9523 is blocked since I he is not related to the 4 accounts User: AG5263 has. Thank you, and once again I apoligize. MasterMatt12 (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@MasterMatt12: That account too is welcome to appeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Well I guess this mess is over, and I don't think User:DA9523 is open to appeal, since he already asked to be unblocked, and the administrators said that he was confirmed to be connected to the other AG5263 accounts and that he can't explain what happened. Thank you anyways. MasterMatt12 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 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.

Hpm h (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Welp

Hi Tamzin. I just closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Final(?) batch of mainspace archive subpage redirects and found that XFDcloser deleted all the talk pages of these redirects, which, of course, include talk page archives. I usually would take care of it myself, but I'm off back to work shortly and won't be able to look into it for the next few hours. If you're available, could you look into this and restore whatever talk page archive is necessary? I'll clean up everything else when I have the time to do so. ✗plicit 03:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Explicit: Think we just bumped into each other halfway through. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance! I usually take care of my own messes to not burden others, but the timing was bad since my lunch hour was almost up when I realized what happened. I have a little downtime now, so I'll try to finish this up. ✗plicit 06:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering what was going on here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Me Too. Talk:Desmond Tutu/Archive (2006) is populating Category:Redirects for discussion with talk page redirects, which I created and patrol. So I looked at Desmond Tutu/Archive (2006) and found it was part of a long-closed RfD. Expanding the four collapsed boxes, I see all red except for two of them: Desmond Tutu/Archive (2006) and Ramzi Yousef/Archive1. The logs for those show that they were deleted but then you restored them (restore G8-exempt per Special:Diff/1126212146) – which brings me here. I see Bot1058 incorrectly retargeted a talkpage archive you moved, confused by an existing mainspace redirect for that archive. Nice to know my bot helped surface this issue, which I only learned about when I read that RfD. I only log directly into my bots once every year or two, and I should probably do that again soon as I'm sure there will be a big bunch of notifications waiting for me! I occasionally patrol Talk-to-mainspace redirects, I should set up one for the reverse (main-to-talk) as well! My experience tells me that if it is possible for editors to do something that you don't expect they would ever do, they surely will. Murphy's law. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Ugh, yeah, looks like a pair of accidental undeletions while sorting out the preceding group of accidental deletions. Should be sorted now. Thanks for flagging this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Fuckboy

...and there's this. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Alright, we need to get Fuccbois and Fuccboi up for a double DYK! Drmies (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  (talk page stalker) Just stumbled across this with no context, but looks like fun! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 01:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  you have my bow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Hey, who you callin' a...
  Oh, right, the DAB.
  At the moment I'm trying to get Draft:Mi Shebeirach up to snuff, but I'll see if I can find room in my heart for Fuccboi or Fuccbois. Actually, hey, @Your Power, would the latter be up your alley? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't tempted to revert but I just saw it and was extremely confused. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: thanks for the invite - shrewd and correct observation to say that this is well within my field of interest as a gay Filipino! I'd love to work on it, but I've got a complex cocktail of big Wikipedia work and big, real life work to balance at the moment, so unfortunately I can't do much... to save you folks some trouble though I found some sources y'all can use to further flesh out the article

  • https://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/2022/09/13/2205560/cinemalaya-widens-horizons-regional-filmmakers
  • https://www.pep.ph/guide/movies/148665/best-filipino-movies-2019-a759-20200116-lfrm2
  • https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/showbiz/chikaminute/768774/aswang-film-on-war-on-drugs-wins-big-at-2020-famas-awards/story/
  • https://pop.inquirer.net/78545/not-your-ordinary-fbois-3-gripping-things-about-the-film

  ‍ ‍ Elias 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
  _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 02:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm working on Fuccboi, so if someone wants to take Fuccbois, we could make this a thing :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'll add something to Fuccbois. But the first thing on the list is WP:GNG. Sarrail (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I’ll work on Fuccbois. Think I’ve found enough sources to address the GNG concerns. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 17:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just made an expansion into the Fuccbois article It should be above 1.5k characters now! ‍ ‍ Elias 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
  _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 09:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Looks good now :-) Sarrail (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Welp, looks like we did it. Now the only question remaining is how to incorporate them both into a hook. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 18:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Drmies, Theleekycauldron, Your Power, and HelenDegenerate: Whoo! Alright, how about Did you know ... that Fuccbois won awards and Fuccboi's "bros" and "baes" received praise? (Also, not-it on the QPQs. :P) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, I'm not sure that works for Fuccboi, since as far as I can see, the "baes" were somewhat criticized by NYT. I'm gonna make the nomination with a placeholder hook, anyone who wants to add an article and/or a hook is more than welcome to :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Done: Template:Did you know nominations/Fuccbois :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what's going on, but it looks like Fuccbois' talk page just got vandalised... Sarrail (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Whoa, that's crazy. I can't believe the size of those articles. Here, you can have this one, Template:Did you know nominations/Volodymyr Kozhukhar. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Allow me, I've got way too many – next ones are on me, off my QPQ list. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

    I also reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Innokenty Fedenev. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 23:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:STOPIT

WP:3RRREALLY? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Mi Shebeirach...

...is absolutely fascinating. I didn't know any of this. Your work is appreciated as always. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ezlev: Neither did I! Nor almost any Jew I've talked to since starting on this. Nor most of the Jews surveyed in the ethnographic study mentioned in the article, apparently. But you know what I noticed while writing it? We have a) no article on LGBT synagogues (and LGBT-affirming denominations in Judaism is a mess) and b) no top-level article on Judaism and LGBT topics! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: Made a shell for now at Draft:Judaism and LGBT topics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Mi Shebeirach

Nice work! Cullen328 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks. I'd had the thought to link to it when posting on your talkpage, and was surprised to see it was a redlink. I'd expected to write a few paragraphs, maybe just barely enough for a DYK, but got drawn in as I learned the whole history of Friedman's version and the queer Jewish community of San Francisco. So, thank you for having indirectly sent me down that fascinating journey. I hope all continues to improve for you and yours, baruch HaShem. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

1202

Thanks for fixing my bad regex! Forgot about partial matches. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi thank you for your work on Harry Amorim Costa. Please include inline citations. Have a nice day ahead!

✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 05:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003: Please see the page history for the actual creator. My involvement is purely technical. Thanks for the kitten though. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Crush (relationship)

Hi,

I'm getting the wrong warning from an automated filter "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. Disruptive behavior may result in being blocked from editing." when I try to revert.

Please revert the merge to the old version. That is Non-constructive and unreliable change. Please warn them "Have a consensus at talk page before you merge or change bigger". The edit changed the exact meaning of crush (Infatuation) to 360 degree. Also, add the "update" tag and remove "merge" tag. Thanks in advance! Ritushpress (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My Immortal

Moved to Talk:My Immortal (fan fiction)

 – Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks

Hi, Tamzin. It's not entirely clear to me why you have blocked Saterserge and Epcotprimea indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopedia. Is there more there than meets the eye? Are they socks? Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Those are both sox of Gustin Kelly, who has a penchant for harassing female and nonbinary editors. See Special:PageHistory/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names for what made me so sure it was him. He tends to move at pretty high speed, and often resorts to violent harassment, so in these cases I just hit one of the Twinkle presets both for expedience and for WP:DENY. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Maybe adding "LTA" to the Twinkle verbiage in such cases would be clarifying for the likes of me, though. Bishonen | tålk 21:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC).

DYK nomination of Mi Shebeirach

Hello! Your submission of Mi Shebeirach at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

FobTown tag

Hi Tamzin - can I just check with you why you made this change? Maybe it's something I've missed - that SPI case is insanely long - but it looks like you're saying they're a sock of themselves. Let me know if I'm being a doofus. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Ugh. I'd meant to change "FobTown" to "FobTown2" in the SPIhelper dropdown before blocking and tagging, but then forgot to. Someone pointed out to me that I'd failed to block FobTown2, which I fixed, but it didn't occur to me that I also had a tag to clean up.  Reverted. Thanks. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for fixing. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 16:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Ashton-Cirillo

Moved to Talk:Sarah Ashton-Cirillo

 – Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This?

Hey @Tamzin. Could you please take a look at this template and let me know if all is well. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi: All looks good to me! Got the url-encoding right, which is usually the pitfall with these things. The only question that comes to mind is whether it would be better to have a "User wikipedia/Eliminator" template that takes a |wiki= parameter... But I haven't thought that through that much. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin, I was thinking of the same. We have {{User translation administrator|wcode=x}} where "x" is a specific wiki. I'm not much into template stuff so I don't know how to do this. I just wanted one for myself so I created it there. User group eliminator is on a number of Wikis so having a standard template as you suggest would be quite helpful ;) ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Same issues as before from GalantFan

If possible, would you be able to look at this ongoing discussion: Talk:Second Battle of Fallujah#Proposed changes by GalantFan. I would open up another AN/I thread, but that seemed inappropriate since I recently opened one that has been closed. Unfortunately GalantFan has since engaged in the same disruptive battleground editing as before. We were making some progress yesterday. However, today their behaviour has become significantly worse and it's becoming increasingly difficult. They even started to bring up old edits of Green547 and making very inappropriate comments about them, which was one of the main issues before. They made edits to the disputed section after Gusfriend opened an RfC, and again even after advised regarding this on their talk page. They're still not understanding Wikipedia's guideline's that multiple editors have made them aware about. While the discussion has made some progress, some of their behaviour has been unacceptable. I've tried my best to move the discussion along but their behavior has made it very unpleasant and difficult. GreenCows (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@GreenCows: What I'm seeing here, overall, is the messy process toward consensus on a fraught article. It's not always a pleasant thing, but it looks like y'all are moving in the direction of bettering the encyclopedia, and I'm hesitant to meddle in that process too much, especially given Drmies' no-action close at AN/I recently. I'm also not immediately seeing the issue with editing part of the article other than the part subject to the RfC, but maybe I'm missing something. That said, I'm also mindful of Girth Summit's warning about the Green547 comments. I'm inclined to give GalantFan a final warning on dredging up ancient history, but to otherwise leave things be. I've got a houseguest over, so I'll be focused on that for the next bit. If neither the Good Doctor nor the Good Teacher has objected in a reasonable amount of time, I'll go forward with that warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, thanks for looking into it. I know getting consensus is a messy process and while some progress has been made, it's just incredibly frustrating, and at times unpleasant, that since the closure of the recent AN/I, GalantFan is continuing much of the same behavior as before. For the record the most relevant diffs regarding the RfC issue I mentioned are:1, 2, and 3. Thanks again. GreenCows (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some of their behavior is unacceptable. I also find that their continued insistence on using YouTube really betrays a level of incompetence, and "THE DOCUMENTARY IS NOT THE CONTROVERSY. THE USE OF WP IS THE CONTROVERSY. THE DOCUMENTARY IS ONLY ONE OF THE SOURCES OF EVIDENCE" shows a confusion between article writing and reality. The documentary cannot be used as reliable secondary evidence, and while we could start an RfC to determine that, that is really a waste of time. I don't know why they bring up "old" edits/comments, I really don't. But it's very tiresome. I am somewhat loath to act in an administrative capacity because I edited (trimmed) one of the articles, and of course I closed that report--but I did so hoping they'd rein themselves in, and that was in vain. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: Good afternoon from Newark Liberty International Airport, home of the least trans-competent TSA agents I've yet encountered. Got like 6 hours to kill, so guess I'll try to write GalantFan something personalized. My success record at heartfelt warnings written while at an airport is, to date, 0 for 1; maybe second try's the charm.  Kinehore -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

So I was there twice. The first time I had ten hours to kill, and the second time they lost my passport. I have made sure to never go through Newark again. I wish you good luck in all your Newark-related ventures! Drmies (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I was at Newark airport a couple months ago. I figured it would save me money on my Boston-DC trip. The tickets were much cheaper, but the savings were swamped by all the $ I spent at the Newark airport. So many nice shops and restaurants! I will fly direct next time! Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd definitely take the Acela for that trip. Not as fast, but far more comfortable (and environmentally friendly). But I'm obviously biased. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Average speed 68 mph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't sound as bad when you realize no waiting in lines at the airport or TSA screenings, but yes, it's not the fastest. That said, 40+ inches of legroom and two free carry-ons plus two free personal items is nothing to scoff at, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Last time I flew (early August), I'm 99% sure I caught Covid at Reagan National Airport; the place was like a zoo. I can't imagine flying anywhere again anytime soon. I hope none of you have that happen to you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

NO KITTENS ALLOWED AT NEWARK CAUSE KITTENS ARE NICE AND KILL THE NEWARK VIBE

Drmies (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Socks and TPA

Please revoke TPA at the get-go when blocking this rash of socks. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I've pulled TPA from a bunch that were reported at SPI, but there are probably more lurking about. firefly ( t · c ) 14:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't think any of these were my blocks, but if any were, I apologize. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

No need to apologize; it was just a heads up. I was being pinged like crazy on umpteen vulgar unblock requests.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Sorry you weren't elected. You had my vote, but when I tried to give you more, they told me I would be removed from the committee as of 31 December. Happy Jewish Christmas, and I look forward to many years of continued editing! BDD (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, BDD—and to those who've expressed similar sentiments privately. To be honest, I'm relieved. For a number of personal reasons I felt somewhat obliged to run—most notably because I think it's easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize, and a lot harder to do the work, and, having done the former, it seemed only fair to submit myself for consideration for the latter. But I'm pretty happy with the niche I've carved out for myself here, especially the past few months, mostly working on articles with some admin work mixed in. (Don't think I could ever be a pure "content admin" to the extent that you are, with 5 indefs ever, 4 of them self-requested, but seeking a balance more in the vein of my other RfA nom.) So, yeah, happy to keep on with what I've been doing. Looking to get Out of the Blue (book), Mi Shebeirach, and maybe Sarah Ashton-Cirillo to GA, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) to FA, and got one page I think I can bring from redirect to FA. Much more pleasant than diving deeper into administrative areas. Feel free to make me your sixth indef if I try running again anytime soon. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Perma-ban a Nazi

Hey Tamzin! Hope you're doing well, wish I was on your talk page with better news but I just came across a Nazi who's been making racist, transphobic, and antisemitic edits for months and only today got a 3 month ban. And I say nazi because he literally calls being trans a jewish ideology and adds "14/88" and "HH" to articles. Not sure if this is the right place to ask but could you make it permanent? 3 months seems far too lenient and he should have been banned long ago. The IP is User:71.105.95.153 TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP addresses generally aren't blocked indefinitely unless it's an open proxy. 3 months is a decent amount of time, and if the disruption comes back, the address can be blocked again. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, also want to note that @Funcrunch brought up that they may be connected to User:2600:1017:B808:B1A0:FDF9:E827:CF16:7761 who isn't banned at all but should also be for adding "transgenderism is Jewish science. 14/88" to Gender binary.

Geolocate says 71.105.95.153 was in St. Louis, whois says Ashburn, and dp-ip.com says downtown manhattan by city hall.

Geolocate says 2600:1017:B808:B1A0:FDF9:E827:CF16:7761 was in Arlington, whois says Ashburn, and db-ip.com is said it came directly from NYC city hall... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist: Hi! (Relevant username! I was just playing an anarchism-themed boardgame with some other trans folk, as it happens. Or, trying to play. We decided it was more complicated than we were in the mood for.) So, per Maddy, we rarely indef IPs (not even most open proxies actually). The rule of thumb is to block for as long as the user in question appears to have been on a given IP, and that looks like exactly what PhilKnight did here, as disruption goes back to late September: 3 months of activity, 3-month block. As to the second IP, don't mind that geolocation. Cellular ranges often use landmarks like that; my mobile range in New Jersey geolocates to 30th Street Station in Philly (in fairness, this is occasionally correct). That edit was 2 weeks ago, so it's unlikely a block of the IP would actually impact the person who made the edit. If you see edits like these that are more recent, do please let me know. And, if disruption resumes from that first IP in 3 months, let Phil know; I imagine he'll block for 6 months to a year in that case. But I don't think there's any new blocks to be made at this time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for explaining! Sorry for getting back to you late, the past few days have been busy, back to back Hanukkah, Christmas Eve, and Christmas parties lol. Also thanks for letting me know about the game! Me, my gf, and her gf/my friend (lotta t4t goodness is a constant in my place lol) saw the message then got sidetracked looking up the game and making plans to get it and play together soon! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Need your advice

Hello, Tamzin! I hope you are well. The user ZaniGiovanni, who you previously Tbanned for engaging in persistent battleground behavior, continues to display the same behavior a month after the expiration of their Tban.

On the 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, ZaniGiovanni repeatedly removed ([7], [8]) an article from JAMnews, a third-party source that employs journalists from all around the Caucasus and Central Asia. ZaniGiovanni asserts that the article is unreliable due to the fact that it was published in Baku and refers to it as a "Baku-based article". Aside from the problematic nature of the fact that ZaniGiovanni automatically assumes an article is unreliable if it is published in Azerbaijan (very similar to the reason they was originally Tbanned for), the red flag here is that ZaniGiovanni does not apply the same standards when it is advantageous to their position. Here is ZaniGiovanni using a similar article from the same JAMnews, this time published in Yerevan, 5 days before their reverts, to add a statement in wiki voice (something they were apparently very concerned about: Please find a non Baku article to support this statement, especially if you're going to say it in wiki voice.). ZaniGiovanni was also unconcerned about reliability when they restored incorrectly attributed information from a local Armenian news letter without even verifying (3rd point) the source or when they used a propagandistic website such as "panarmenian.net" to prove a point.

ZaniGiovanni was also recently engaged in edit wars on the same article and was reported by another user. The administrator who closed the report confirmed that ZaniGiovanni's edits (& reporting user's too) constituted an edit warrning and issued verbal warnings before closing the report as Stale. I think it's evident that ZaniGiovanni hasn't learned much from previous Tban. What do you think should be done here? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Abrvagl: This sounds like a matter to bring to AE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi and happy holidays. I noticed some serious misinterpretations here so I thought to comment regarding the points Abrvagls raised one by one. I hope you can take a look Tamzin.

1. On the 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, ZaniGiovanni repeatedly removed ([7], [8]) an article from JAMnews – The edit in question was making extraordinary claims that humanitarian aid passed through the blockaded corridor, which even to this day, is highly doubted and at the time, wasn't true. WP:RS clearly state that supplies are running low or either are entirely lost due to the blockade. HRW, referring to some media reports, says trucks allegedly containing humanitarian goods were allowed to pass. So to say something like this in Wikivoice no less using a source called "Jamnews" from a Baku based article needed additional third party to confirm per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:UNDUE, especially when multiple other sources didn't confirm this at all and stated that supplies are lost or running low, or another third party reported more than a week after blockade still with "alleged" wording (HRW).

2. Here is ZaniGiovanni using a similar article from the same JAMnews, this time published in Yerevan, 5 days before their reverts, to add a statement in wiki voice – Tbh I just noticed that it was a Yerevan edition article but nothing I added is extraordinary or undue anyway, so I don't see why are you comparing apples to oranges here. You can find these statements in 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article as well. In any case I replaced the source, but you could've told me about this on Lachin Corridor talk if you were so concerned about that source instead of bringing up content here. It's the first time of me learning about this issue you apparently had with my edit, from an admin talk page...

3. ZaniGiovanni was also unconcerned about reliability when they restored incorrectly attributed information from a local Armenian news letter without even verifying (3rd point) the source – The source was already cited in the article (not by me) and actually you added a source that's no better. But this is something that has been extensively discussed in here which you haven't replied to for a week now. So again, why are you bringing random content points from a discussion here? Also, a third party source for Az soldiers being involved in the blockade [9].

4. or when they used a propagandistic website such as "panarmenian.net" to prove a point. – This isn't even an edit and you're straight up posting random comments of mine from another article discussion where I was suggesting you a wording supported by third party WP:RS, [10], [11], to which you literally agree to in your next reply.

Tamzin if it's not too much to ask, please take a look at the context I provided. I believe there have been several misinterpretations here and omission of various important details/context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For your clear and prompt help with John S. Clarke! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You're doing incredible work on the Fucking Trans Women article. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fucking Trans Women

The article Fucking Trans Women you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fucking Trans Women for comments about the article, and Talk:Fucking Trans Women/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Long time no speak! Just wanted to clarify my position of bold, is that MOS:TEXT#Article title terms comments that this should be for the first usage of the term, not specifically if it just redirects to a section. Both terms appear in the lede (although I do see "muffing" isn't bolded), which would be my preference. Hope you are having a good holiday. Great article, btw. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and as an FYI, the #NOTE TO MOBILE EDITORS no longer applies, as you can see the information on the talk page, it's just a bit hidden on first viewing. I think it's something that was specifically fixed, if that's of any help to you. :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Yeah, sorry, got those rationales muddled. So, for Miranda Darling Bellwether, that's the first time her full name appears in the article; the name used in the lede is her much-better-known nickname, Mira. As to "muffing", I considered which usage to boldface, but concluded that the proper one was the first usage after the redirect's target. This seemed consistent with MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Boldfacing in the lede would be misleading since the redirect doesn't point there. If that train of thought doesn't make sense, happy to discuss further on the article's talk. Glad you liked the article. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

TCG

Hello Tamzin, I am contacting you because you have blocked TheCurrencyGuy as an AE action some time ago.

Personally, I think TCG's mass edits to currency names and notations are so pervasive and widespread that the swiftest way to deal with them is to declare them reversible on sight, unless there are consensus in favour of his changes. Would you say that it is wise to start a discussion - potentially at ANI - over this course of action, or would it be too draconian?

Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka: Not an AE block, actually, but anyways, don't I recall you starting some thread to this effect at AN a while ago? I would just say, if there's an edit that you think was not beneficial to the encyclopedia, go ahead and revert it. If someone disagrees with you, discuss. If there's edits you're not sure about, you could start a discussion at a suitable WikiProject. But I don't see a need for any special rule here, personally. (Of course, any edits made by sox postdating the siteblock are covered by WP:BANREVERT.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks! NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Happy New Year, Tamzin! In 2022, other editors thanked you 1003 times using the thanks tool. This places you in the top 10 most thanked Wikipedians of 2022. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2023! Mz7 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

BLPN

The thread you hatted was not actually a TBAN violation if you compare the timestamps. Paddykumar did violate their TBAN, but that edit was already reverted. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: Ah, my bad. Reverted. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Fuccboi (novel)

On 4 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fuccboi (novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fuccbois' crew won awards, while Fuccboi's prose received both praise and criticism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fuccbois. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fuccboi (novel)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies, Theleekycauldron, and HelenDegenerate: I think we can all agree, truly, for each of us, our greatest accomplishment on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Well...hmm...yes...but Chicken fried bacon got 26,500 views... I had a seven-fold DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Going to the Dogs, which was fun... And obviously y'all did most of the work on this... Drmies (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Oh, I did little here myself but cheerlead. Don't think I'll give myself the topicon for the few sentences I did write. Now, Fucking Trans Women, on the other hand, that was quite an effort, and a worthy conclusion of the Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything / Fuck Boy (disambiguation) trilogy. We'll see if its eventual DYK run scandalizes anyone. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Oh I saw that while you were working on it: very impressive. Aaaah you young people, scandalizing folks... Must be lovely to have such drive... ;) Drmies (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

    When that day comes, I’ll be ready with the popcorn! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 02:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed, I'm off to place a {{Retired}} template on my talk :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Beira's Place

Hi Tamzin, the talk page of Beira's Place, has some comments by multiple IP's, that the IP view tool says are from German and the UK, but I have a suspicion are the same user or closely related, and I would like your opinion on whether they are dynamic IP's or someone using multiple IP's. Hopefully you can take a look and see what's happening with the IP's. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: Both IPs geolocate to Berlin, and the latter acknowledges being the same as the former here. This is not in itself a policy violation. Whether the comment violates other policies or guidelines such as WP:NOTFORUM, I don't have an opinion on at the moment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet? Query

Hi -- I saw that you are the admin who added a block to user Simoneleigharchive for their editing on the Simone Leigh article. I've never really seen a situation like this before and I'm on the newer side of editing, but I think that user may have created a sockpuppet account to continue editing the page. A new account was created earlier today (Special:Contributions/Gnaffy and immediately used to remove an image of the subject of the article that the blocked account had been consistently trying to remove. Honestly just wanted to alert you in case you have a way to tell if the new account is a sockpuppet. Have never really encountered someone seemingly trying to evade a block before. Thanks for any insight/direction on this! 19h00s (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@19h00s: The block is a "soft block", so the user is allowed to create a new account. Not sure if that's what's happening here or something else. The best course of action would probably be to just warn them for this removal ({{subst:uw-delete1}} or a custom warning) and see where things go. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Rangeblock

I think a rangeblock you made possibly needs strengthening, someone is inserting deliberately false info [12]. I actually just spoke to Drmies yesterday about this same issue on a different ISP, very odd. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Balph Eubank: So, this isn't the same person I pblocked the range over, who was a CIR case rather than an ethnonationalist. For now I've gone ahead and blocked Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:11B9:6D51:B447:E0FF:FEAE:81CB/41 for 72 hours. /41 isn't an officially assigned range here, that I can see, but all the disruptive IPs so far are within it, so time will tell whether a wider block is needed. (The narrowest assigned range here is a /32, which is 512 times larger than a /41, hence my hesitance.) The return leg of my ambiguous travelnotice kicks in today, so if you have further questions about this range and I don't respond promptly, you may be better off asking someone else. (I know Firefly has some familiarity here.) Any admin has my blessing to modify or undo that block as needed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, safe travels! - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)