I don't like the idea of getting pings over someone putting a box on my page that says I did nothing wrong while vaguely insinuating that I did, so I'm just parking these here instead.
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups
post-1978 Iranian politics
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
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.
Hello, I'm Czarking0. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nosebagbear (talk)
Block me if you must, but you'll never catch my socks!
(They're very cozy slipper-socks with like a stylized dog face on the top and then little fake ears on the side. Very cozy socks. AND YOU'LL NEVER CATCH THEM!) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.13:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atomic putty? Rien! "Quantity of love"? :P (For "much love", use olin mute, or more properly mi olin mute e ni 'I love this', although ni li pona mute 'This is very good' is probably more idiomatic, since the colloquial English use of "love" to mean "like a lot" doesn't really translate.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Special:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the [[:|article's talk page]], and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please note that such behaviour is distinctly unacceptable on Wikipedia. However, I realise you are still new to Wikipedia and learning the rules - please feel free to ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you are unsure about making an edit. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, @Tamzin, that that statement is in breach of rule 1 of this talkpage listed at the top. If you do not retract the comment, I may need to tell this user about the poor behaviour by yourself. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re above: by itself, from whomever is correct, if that's the end of the expression, placing 'whomever' in the objective case, due to its function as the object of the preposition from. But, in the longer expression From who[m]ever edited this page, who[m]ever is not the object of the preposition from; rather, the entire noun phrasewho[m]ever edited this page is the object, and that is an independent clause, containing a subject (who[m]ever), a transitive verb (edited ), and an object (the noun phrase, this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in the subjective case (a.k.a., nominative case), thus it must be whoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, like they/them, then it would be whoever edited them). Upshot for this expression: it must be from whoever edited this page. See the first example here, for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you dug into the page history to find that I did originally have it right. My lovely mother, whom I will stress is a published author and editor and taught me everything I know about writing, concedes defeat on the matter, Mathglot. However, for questioning the woman whom brought me into the world, you've still earned a place in the WikiHate section, congratulations or not. (Also thank you. :) ) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.)
@El C, TheresNoTime, and Wizzito: Well, currently item 1 on my big-project wiki to-do list is some content work (gasp! I know), and item 2 is the second round of 'zinbot automatic patrol circumstances, which I got consensus for months ago but still haven't run with, but this is item 3. If anyone else would like to take a stab at it (hint, TNT), what I'm thinking of is something like:
{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist|source_page =<!-- Watch all pages linked from these pages, emulating Special:RecentChangesLinked for them. Separate by newline. --->|source_user =<!-- Watch all pages edited by these users in provided timeframe. Separate by newline. -->|user_days_back =<!-- How many days back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 7. -->|user_edits_back =<!-- How many edits back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 200. --><!-- Either of `user_days_back` and `user_edits_back` can be set to None, as long as the other has a value -->|namespace =<!-- Name or number of namespace(s) to watch. Use 0 for mainspace. Separate by commas. Default: All. Prefix with - to mean "everything but" --><!-- Days back, edits back, and namespace can be overridden per source page or source user, by appending a # and then `days=`, `edits=`, or `namespace=` to the entry. You can also use a `prefix=` parameter. -->|always_watch =<!-- Will be watched even if not covered by the above parameters. E.g. Your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->|never_watch =<!-- Will be ignored even if covered by the above parameters. E.g. your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->|update_frequency =<!-- A number in minutes, or "auto". At "auto", the bot will update as frequently as possible, with the understanding that after each update you are moved to the back of the queue for updates, and the bot only edits once every 10 seconds. -->}}
Thus mine might look like
{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist|source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log
User:Tamzin/XfD log
User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable <!-- Open TPERs -->
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/ <!-- Only watch active RfD subpages. -->
User:Mz7/SPI case list <!-- Active SPIs -->|source_user = Tamzin
'zin is short for Tamzin
|user_days_back = 2
|user_edits_back = None
|namespace = -Category, File <!-- I don't really edit these namespaces -->|always_watch = User:Tamzin
|never_watch = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
|update_frequency = auto
}}
That would render as {{Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the {{{update_frequency}}} value.Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tamzin! I was rummaging through the NPP archives and stumbled onto this discussion. First, my belated THANK YOU!! Second, please see this redirect which showed up in the NPP queue as a result of: 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · ←Blanked the page and then reverted 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · Undid revision 1097374915 by Turtle-bienhoa (talk). Is there any way we can get the Bot to recognize that type of activity so that it doesn't remove reviewed status? Best ~ Atsme💬📧14:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, talkpage watchers! If anyone's looking for an article to write, here's one that I think is really interesting, easily notable, and maybe has GA potential, but with which I have a minor COI: Edgar Labat, a Black man wrongfully convicted of rape in Louisiana in 1953. At the time he was freed (1966), he was the longest-serving death row inmate in U.S. history. He was the subject of protracted litigation throughout that time and became a cause célèbre, with lots of coverage. This Time article gives an overview. Newspapers.comTWL has lots more. And there's scholarly coverage. My COI is relatively small (my grandparents advocated for him and he lived with them briefly), enough so that I'd be fine assisting once written, but I shouldn't be the main author on this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)18:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to you because of your excellent work on Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, as well as the discussion at Talk:F1NN5TER about doxxing. The question of how to treat sources that are at least somewhat reliable but are (rightly or wrongly) perceived as prejudiced (either broadly or based on protected class) has been repeatedly discussed on Wiki. Therefore, I think that writing up a „how-to-deal-with-this“ might be useful, titled something along the line of WP:PREJUDICEDSOURCES. What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Yeah, I noticed that too. Possibly better to leave the ES but yeet the IP, rather than the other way around, to leave a clearer record if anyone ever adds it back? (I'd suggest OS over RD; email me if not clear why.) But yeah, seriously, at least the sixth time I've seen this with a BLPNAME violation being worsened when it turns into deadnaming someone and/or forcing them to overpublicize a transition. A friend's boyfriend, Seph Mozes, reached out to me years ago about the plight of being deadnamed in his mother's article but not having publicly transitioned. I offered to remove it as a BLPNAME violation but he was worried that, given his mother's fame, celebrity journalists would notice the removal. Not a likely event, given that most journalists can't even find the history tab, but I understand why he was that concerned after a childhood in the spotlight, and he shouldn't have been in that position to begin with. I would have been in the same position, during my 9 months of partial social transition in 2019, if Rms125a@hotmail.com hadn't had the sense to remove my name from my dad's article in 2013. In the past few years I've also run into the non-notable-trans/enby kid problem at Mike Tyson and Eric A. Meyer as you know, and also at Terence Tao, Bob Lee (businessman), and Tony Hawk. Not sure what to do about this. It's not a trans-specific issue, obviously, just more obvious there. BLPNAME violations are ubiquitous, possibly on more bios than not. Perhaps some cleanup project is needed, especially for minor children. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read the expression "my disdain for a lot of our administrative culture". That exactly encapsulates a lot of my feeling. If you spend long enough searching through my editing history you will see that just very occasionally I mention some of my feelings on this. What you will not see, though, is that on those occasions what I say is a toned-down, censored version of my true opinions. Every so often I seriously consider posting somewhere a diatribe giving something closer to a full account of my thoughts, but so far I have always held back, because I think on balance I will probably achieve more by just doing what I can without stirring things up. Who knows, though, whether one day I will decide to let rip. From things that you have said and written in the past, I know that your criticisms of the admin culture are not identical to mine, but there's a considerable overlap, and I feel that there's a similar overall character to them. (Having said that, I hope when you read this you won't be sitting there thinking "What does JBW mean by posting this crap? They are one of the worst examples of the noxious admin culture that I hate so much". 🥺) JBW (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: Well, you have already read a "toned-down, censored version" on at least one topic, namely the way that certain administrators (not you, and not Tamzin) are so reluctant to give blocked editors another chance. What really frustrates me most about that is the way the system is stacked in favour of administrators who don't like unblocking: anyone who does not want to unblock can just decline an unblock, and that's the end of it; on the other hand anyone who does want to unblock can't do so without consulting the blocking administrator, and although the policy doesn't say so, in practice most administrators treat that as though it means that one is virtually banned from unblocking unless the blocking administrator agrees. And unfortunately there are administrators who deliberately use that situation to make sure that their decision stays no matter what, not to make sure that their opinion is taken into consideration, along with others, in making a decision.
That's for unblocking. How about placing the block in the first place? Again, the system is stacked in favour of administrators who like blocking. Here are two situations which I have enocountered probably literally thousands of times in my 14 years as an administrator. (1) I review a report at WP:AIV. I see that it is a new editor, and there are problems with their editing, but I think a friendly warning is appropriate for the present, so I go to the editor's talk page to post a warning, only to find that another administrator has got there first, and blocked the editor. I can't override that and impose my preferred outcome, because reverting an admin action merely because I personally would have done it differently is frowned on, and if I did it frequently I would be ArbCommed & desysopped. Maybe you are thinking that's just a matter of which administrator gets there first, and it could have gone the other way? Well, no, because here's the other one of the two situations that I mentioned: (2) I review a report at WP:AIV. I see that it is a new editor, and there are problems with their editing, but I think a friendly warning is appropriate for the present, so I go to the editor's talk page, and this time I'm the first to get there, so I do get to post my warning. Then along comes the other administrator, who, as before, has chosen to block, but this time has been a little slower than me; they go ahead and block. They are under no obligation to accept my prior decision, because posting a talk page warning is not an admin action. So, you see, it's not a matter of who gets there first; it's a matter of the one who likes to block always being able to get their way, if they choose to use the system that way. They don't have to do it that way, they choose to: they know I have chosen not to block (or they should do, because they should have checked the talk page before deciding to block), and have consciously decided to impose a different decision over mine. In that situation in reverse, where I am the one inclined to block an editor but see that another administrator has decided to just warn, I usually defer to that decision, and leave the editor unblocked. However, there's a large body of administrators who don't, and many of those are also the ones who aren't interested in listening to anyone else's opinions relating to unblocking. To be blunt about it, they are happy to use the setup to impose a blockist agenda. I can't help wondering whether the most extreme cases of that are people who impose and maintain blocks for sadistic pleasure, rather than to protect the encyclopaedia. (Yes, I mean that absolutely seriously.) I won't mention any names, but probably I don't need to.
Well, there's just a very small fraction of my anger about just one of the many ways that I think the whole administrator system works. A full account of my thoughts on the matter would take up a hefty chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation's server space, and Tamzin's talk page isn't the place for it. JBW (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: This is absolutely the place for it! :)One thing I've thought about a lot is how we have no real case management system here. I moderate a fairly large Discord server, and there, if a user reports something, there's a button I can hit that says "I'm handling this." It's not perfect but it's a lot better than nothing. Right now we have no way for an admin to say that they're composing a response to something, or for that matter that they agree a block is needed but are looking at evidence to decide what kind, or that they've responded and consider a matter resolved. One could imagine restructurings of AIV, UAA, and CSD that would address that, especially if some JS were added to MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js that lets us know "The user whose contribs you're looking at has a new talkpage message" etc."Overruling" a no-block decision is tougher. I think I've done it a few times, when an admin seemed incredibly off-base, like giving a gentle username note to someone with a name like I-hate-gays or whatever. Then again, I've also overturned other admins' decisions to block a few times (and only landed at ArbCom one of those times :P). I think the root problem here is with WP:RAAA. It begins Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. I mean. Fucking seriously? Every fucking admin knows that's a lie, because we've all had times where we deleted a page or blocked a user within seconds of looking. Usually entirely justifiably, because some deletions and blocks are just that obvious, but there's no world where that's "consider[ing] carefully". And in other cases, the lack of careful consideration speaks for itself. If an admin blocks two users as sox because they didn't know about the meme both were referencing in their usernames (actual thing I've unblocked over), they obviously did not carefully consider that block. Just like the admin who nolle prosses I-hate-gays (also based on a true story) has obviously not carefully considered that decision, because if they'd carefully considered it and still found no violation of WP:ATTACKNAME, that would mean they are either too bigoted or too clueless to be an admin.So I think the solution, or at least a major necessary step toward a solution, in all this, is replacing that presumption of careful consideration with something else. I'm not entirely sure what. I'm honestly not sure if we need RAAA-shielding for routine admin actions. If an other admin were to see some routine vandalblock of mine and think I was hasty, and wanted to just unblock, then more power to them, as long as they're the one who wears the responsibility for whatever comes next. RAAA is useful for, say, blocks of experienced users who might have an admin-friend in the wings, or keeping people from fucking with things they mightn't understand the full story behind, like sockblocks, copyvioblocks, and socking-based page protections. But it creates a latch effect on the simplest admin actions, I think often more than even the admin intends. I think the solution starts with fixing that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In part this harks back to the recent Graham recall debacle. Perhaps that could have been avoided if I'd voiced my concerns with some of his blocks. Speaking up and speaking out are the only tools we have now, but they are useless when we don't use them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, Tamzin, what you have said is very interesting, and raises a whole load of points that I have thoughts about. However, here are just a couple of them.
You say that you have "Overruled" a no-block decision "a few times". I have done it probably more than just a few times (though of course that depends on what you mean by "a few") but a very small proportion of the number of times when I have decided not to. Most often it's just a question of a different personal judgement, and I accept that they have as much right to decide as I have. There are also very occasionally the "incredibly off-base" cases such as you mention, but far more often there are in-between cases, where I think there's a serious misjudgement, but not completely off the end of the scale. Those are more difficult to judge. I think in that situation I far more often than not leave things as they are, but not absolutely always. It depends on various factors, including what particular administrator it is; there's one in particular who has an astonishingly extensive history of not blocking for reasons which (in my opinion) can only possibly mean that he hasn't actually checked the editing history of the relevant editor beyond the last day or so, and I tend to be less inhibited against taking action in that case. However, this is drifting away from the topic of administrative culture and onto issues of individual administrators' approaches.
You have said "Right now we have no way for an admin to say that they're composing a response to something, or for that matter that they agree a block is needed but are looking at evidence to decide what kind, or that they've responded and consider a matter resolved." Well, that's true in the sense that there's no formalised way of doing it, but there's nothing to stop one from doing it informally. In relation to AIV, for example, I have quite often thought that it might be worth posting Note: I'm investigating this, and hope to make a decision soon. JBW (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC) while I'm checking a report. There are reasons why I've never actually done that, but they aren't really compelling reasons. Probably the main reason is that far more than 90% of cases just don't need it. I don't know whether you ever look at UTRS, Tamzin, but that does have a button to click for an administrator to click to reserve a report that they are dealing with. (Since Deepfriedokra has taken part in this discussion, I will mention that he knows all about that, being one of the most active administrators on UTRS, maybe even the most active one.) JBW (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thought about blocks. You are of course right in saying that accounts with deliberately offensive names such as "I hate gays" should be blocked on sight, but apart from that kind of thing I absolutely don't understand why anyone would consider using a block for just a username. Someone comes along to contribute to Wikipedia, and, like most of us when we start editing, doesn't know about the username policy, so, in perfectly good faith, they create a username which is against policy. Am I missing something, or is it totally gratuitous biting of the newby to slap a block on them, instead of giving them a friendly message explaining the situation to them and asking them to change their username? As far as I remember I have never blocked an editor for a good faith username policy violation, and if I have it was a long time ago, and I don't expect to ever do so again. However, I see other administrators doing it all the time. Why? I honestly can't understand the mindset of someone who would even consider doing that. If any of those administrators reads this and thinks there is a good reason for it that has escaped me then I will be really interested to be told whatvit is. (To avoid any possible misunderstanding, I'm referring specifically to the situation where a good faith username policy violation is the only reason for the block, not where there is any further problem, such as continuation of editing under the unacceptable username after being told about the policy.) Bizarrely, I have seen these good faith username blocks even from administrators who will refuse to block outright malicious vandals unless they have been warned several times. Why????? JBW (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: Lots to think on here, but just to get the easy bit, I feel like the username-softblock situation could be solved with a warning that says "Your current username is in violation of <rule>. Please request a change before you continue editing, or you may be blocked from editing. You may also simply abandon this account and create a new one. Or if you think your username is not a violation, please explain why below." Then have a bot that replies to that message with "User has requested a change" if they request one, or reports to UAA/BOT if they keep editing without doing so. (The bot would have to have global renamer rights to see the queue, but I feel like we could probably get that cleared on Meta if it's read-only, or get a custom group made for it.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reading this does make me feel less like I might become some kind of bull in a china shop with my developing unblock habit. Or at least perhaps that the china shop delenda est.
As for I can't help wondering whether the most extreme cases of that are people who impose and maintain blocks for sadistic pleasure, rather than to protect the encyclopaedia. (Yes, I mean that absolutely seriously.) I won't mention any names, but probably I don't need to., uh, seems bad? We probably shouldn't be able to joke about and active admin like that, let alone say it seriously. Is there a reason we're ignoring the missing stair? -- asilvering (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only an impression of mine. It may not be so, and whether it is or not I have absolutely no evidence that would stand up at ANI or ArbCom, and I have no intention of making what would amount to an unsubstantiated personal attack. JBW (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should really carefully read all the policies and try to memorise their content. I have just discovered that the username policy says the following:
A user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors – especially when made to their own user space or to articles about the company, group, or product – can be blocked from editing Wikipedia...
(Emphasis of "both" and "and" in the policy.)
I have always thought that blocking for an organisational username and no other problem is not only unjustified but so obviously unjustified as to make it bewildering why so many administrators do it. However, I did not know that policy specifically indicates that the username alone is not justification for a block. Will that now justify me in reverting all these unreasonable blocks when I see them? JBW (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: I'm just now seeing this (you've got some fans over at WPO, by the way) It's like you described in advance the exact issues I have been grappling with for the last month or so.
I've been trying to push the idea that we ought to be warning instead of blocking in more cases and that the choice to do so is in fact an admin action that should be respected and the user shouldn't be blocked unless they actually do something else to earn it.
I've also been trying to get admins to be more open to second chances and to reject the idea that a blocking admin always has some special insight that must be heard before unblocking, but for some reason they will not share that insight unless they are explicitly asked to.
And I've been pushing the idea that discussion with blocked users is only helpful if the admin doing the discussing is also willing to actually do something with the unblock request.
The amount of pushback I've gotten from other admins had been, frankly, depressing. I'm not sure when so many admins decided that this authoritarian act was the way to go.
@Beeblebrox: There's a lot more I could say about this. When I first became an administrator, in 2010, one of the admin tasks that I put most time into was reviewing unblock requests, but I found it such a frustrating and unproductive experience that I was largely put off doing it. I have read a statement by another administrator (unfortunately I don't remember which) who had a similar experience, and was totally put off from the task, and has never done it again. I wonder how many more there are. Unfortunately, what happens is that anyone more inclined to unblock gets put off, while those inclined to keep editors blocked remain; that produces positive feedback, ensuring that the block culture is maintained.
Here's another point perhaps worth mentioning. At a very early stage in my admin career, I would often see a new editor who in perfectly good faith had created an account under the name of their business to write an advertisement about that business. I would post them a friendly message explaining that doing so wasn't allowed. One of two things would then happen: (1) Another administrator would then come along and block them, with an appalling block message, very long and intimidating. (The version of the "spam username" templated block message which existed at that time.) Or: (2) Another administrator would then come along and block them, but, probably because the spam username block message was so intimidating, would instead give another one of the templated block notices, which was less intimidating, but which explicitly said "your username is the only reason for the block". So either the editor would request an unblock and rename, and see that request declined, with a response telling them how unacceptable unblocking a spam account would be, or else they would create a new account and continue editing in the same way, only to be blocked. I remember the sense of bewilderment that some of them then expressed: they had been explicitly told by an administrator that the only reason for not being allowed to edit was their username and they were welcome to carry on with a new username, and then they were prevented from doing so by other administrators. Eventually I came to the decision that the only way to avoid this problem was to get in first, by blocking and giving a less stupid block message. Also, if I made the block I could easily accept an unblock request if I judged it suitable, without being up against the culture of not allowing unblocking without the blocker's approval. Thus, for both of those reasons, I found myself bring pushed into blocking editors when I didn't think a block was the best thing to do, because the alternative was likely to be even worse. That is depressing. Things have improved to some extent since then, as the templated block nessages are not so bad, but the situation is still broadly similar.
There are several problems there, but a significant one is the idea, held by many editors, including administrators, that the existence of a set of pre-written templated messages means that one has to choose one of them, and if none of them is appropriate one has to settle for the least inappropriate one. Of course it means nothing of the sort; it just means that someone thought that some messages are sufficiently often appropriate that it's worth having them pre-written to save time on those occasions when they are appropriate, and when they aren't, one needs to write a message which is appropriate.
Up until fairly recently, I was doing the same, but I've come to believe that blocking someone who is obviously just lost and doesn't know how WP works is counterproductive. {{uw-coi-username}} gives the same message without blocking them. If they haven't spammed in article space I've been doing that instead. It is also perhaps a bit intimidating, but it's not a block, so it seems better to my mind.
I remember reviewing unblock requests as being a fairly simple thing, but it seems some admins prefer to make it far more complicated than it needs to be, with long discussions and quizzes. This was what I was trying to push back on nearly fifteen years ago to the day when I wrote WP:ROPE. The struggle continues. BeeblebroxBeebletalks19:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I held off on asking you if we should do additional prep to get End Poem up to FA consideration state, as I'd had one article myself in that pipeline & I'd not wanted to bite off more than I could chew and have two up at once. Now, that one I mentioned earlier didn't go anywhere, so I'm down to do whatever process you'd like to do with End Poem like a peer review, if you wish, knowing the ultimate goal would be getting a shiny gold star. If not, then perhaps another time.
Hope you've been well. "And the game was over and the player woke up from the dream. And the player began a new dream. And the player dreamed again, dreamed better. And the player was the universe. And the player was love. You are the player. Wake up." – Julian GoughThe universe. BarntToust18:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of this, I've made a pass at greatly expanding the whole "creation" sectiont—the highlight being that I wrote about how Gough believed that the universe took control of him during inception and basically wrote the latter half of the poem. I have no idea if there are any guidelines about writing about spiritual content on Wikipedia, lol but I'm sure trying my best. BarntToust20:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm in bed with a fever right now, which means I've got lots of time to stare at a screen but am very scatterbrained in doing so. Might reply to this in like 10 minutes. Might be a few days. We'll see! -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh if you're wanting for something to stare at on a screen, I suggest you check out the movie Inception if you haven't already, or if you have, it's a good film to rewatch since on Netflix along with a bunch of other Christopher Nolan classics. I was just reminded about it because I was just writing about how it compares to the End Poem, and I have to say that it would be the craziest experience to watch it while scatterbrained. Again, my sincerest wishes for your speedy recovery! BarntToust21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a horrible idea, for the exact reason you think it's a good idea—said in the nicest possible way. 🤣 A few years ago, when I had pancreatitis, and spent like a week feverish, in extreme pain, and/or high out of my mind, I sort of found this inner state of perpetual half-dreaming. This was, no doubt, related to my dissociative identity disorder, and since that time the parts of me have coalesced in a way that makes me for most purposes not multiple... but that dreamworld remains, and looms large at a time like this. Maybe that makes no sense, but I think it actually has a lot in common with what Gough says about the End Poem. So yeah, something like Inception sounds like playing with fire haha, tempting the awesome power of whatever strange headspace lurks within me. I do like the movie, though! Old enough to have seen it in theaters when it came out, and I think again at some point since then. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?"
@BarntToust: I really like your idea of talking more about the poet's craft! Our articles on art are often weirdly silent about the actual art part. It's great to get into that. I do worry that this is a lot to source to an interview. Are there any secondary sources that talk about Gough's craft? In either case, I have pared things down a little, just some details that were excessive or repetitive in my view; let me know if you disagree about any of that.As to FAC, hmm. It's not the kind of article that I would personally be bringing there on my own. But if you want to bring it there, I'll do my part. I think our biggest weakness is going to be the amount sourced to Gough (either directly or through the Chatfield interview). So if you can spot any opportunities to reduce our reliance on those primary sources, that would be great. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the concerns you've shared about the primary sourcing are what I've figured, so yep, I think there are a few refs I can use to cut back that. The use of Substack has largely been relegated to the copyright section, so I'll be reading up on all the good sources that cover this.
I'm not as concerned with the Boing Boing interview, as WP:RSPLIST says that besides no consensus for the site's overall reliability, there are stories and pieces done by subject matter experts, and I'd wager that interview conducted by Tom Chatfield falls well within the lines. Before that, I probably should flesh out the part about his personal crisis, reclusion to the Netherlands, shroom trip and subsequent meeting with the universe. I think there's more there for me to write about, so long as it received third party coverage.
Once the overall sourcing concerns are resolved, I think I'll at some point put it up to peer review. Thank you again for all your work with this! BarntToust12:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin, I wanted to let you know that I've recently put together User:KevinClerkBot/ArbCom_word_counts, which is an updated list of word counts at (among other places) AE. It's not fully fleshed out yet, and in particular it still counts hatted words as words, but (a) I'll iron out those out over time and welcome your feedback but (b) hope this will be a useful tool for you. Note also that the bot recognizes extensions given using the template {{ApprovedWordLimit}}. KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 02:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather respond to you in the thread, but it's been closed down. It's meaningless to demand MP make us "sure this won't happen again". It's an impossible condition. Nothing human is certain, save human fallibility. You are demanding the impossible. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I have 0 tolerance for threats of violence, so I think an indefinite block is quite reasonable and necessary. The blocked user for his part does sound contrite and mortified, but what it would take to ensure that such an incident does not recur is not something I'm bright enough to see. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that actually available for (not) posting stuff via computer and cellphone, or does one have to be an EEngineer to craft it? I think Tamzin just wants to hear a bit more, but, yeah, there's not much one can do in the blocked colleague's situation in addition to explaining why it happened and stating that 'it won't happen again'. And I think we all must try not to encroach too much on our fellow editors' habits and psyche. If I were an admin, MinorProphet's reply to all this would have been enough for an unblock, let alone a reduction to "a temporary block of 6 months" as requested by the blockee. ---Sluzzelintalk00:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: I'm not asking them to make this never happen again, which is indeed impossible. I'm asking them to explain why they're confident this won't happen again. There are many possible good answers to that question, and also some bad ones. Might I suggest that you just let MP respond and let's see how things go? I'm not trying to be a hardass here, but I also can't unblock without doing my due diligence. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your words were "I'd still like to hear more from them about how we can be sure this won't happen again". You can't be sure. We can't be sure. It's an impossible condition. There is nothing they can say that would make you or anyone sure it would not happen again. All we have is words on a screen. If MP saying it will never happen again won't convince you, then any other words MP uses to say it won't happen again won't either. DuncanHill (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was a summary of what I'd already said to them, which was Could you elaborate a bit on how you intend to avoid this happening again? I mean on the one hand, it hasn't happened before (I assume?) in 16 years, so you have that going for you. But on the other hand, it did happen this time. So I'm hoping you can speak to that. Like I said, there's any number of good answers to that question. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We all have our shadows. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee this won't happen again. But at least, missteps can make us aware of our shadows. In this case, I'd think that a second chance is warranted, with the provision that if it happens again, there won't be a third chance. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!08:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd unblock right now if it wasn't a threat of violence. A long term user who made a horrible mistake. Could always buck it up to the Community, but . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: "Buck it up to the Community" - It was being discussed by the Community, while that was happening one admin decided to change the block to indef, another decided to close down the discussion. So there we are. DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The extension wasn't the result of a discussion, it shut the discussion down. So a unilateral extension makes a unilateral unblock questionable? Ridiculous. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Polygnotus. I'm recovering from a fever and am pretty out of it. Not sure I've got wiki-politics in me right now. I trust you to find the right approach though. This is definitely something that needs community attention. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-politics is like a fever dream some days. I am constantly confused that I share a planet with people who experience a completely different reality. Get well soon and thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin, I don't think it's possible to delete, but you can simply respond to any follow-ups yourself and probably the blocked editor will forget all about DFO's accidental solidarity. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.
I wanted to support a blurb regarding Marc Garneau's death. I did, and I self-reverted, because I thought this would be a violation of my TBAN (on American politics, but you know how much those two are intertwined now). I made a mistake. What now? LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)23:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU: Unless I'm missing something, there's certain aspects of his bio that would be subject to your AMPOL TBAN, but he is not overall an AMPOL topic. Still, I thank you for being cautious with this. Feel free to restore your edit—again, unless I'm missing something obvious here—although just as a general note I'll caution that calling something "obvious" in a !vote is rarely helpful. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I just created User talk:Tamzin/Archive/16 to get rid of the crap (which I believe is no longer relevant to you) between 2023 and 2024. I'm not sure how much to archive though. (I personally have an archiving schedule of exactly one user talk archive per year, which seems to be about the right frequency for enwiki; not sure whether you have one or not.) Duckmather (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have struck-through the sock's post if I'd noticed you'd hatted already, hope I haven't left confusion. I'm slightly amazed my timing wasn't even worse and I didn't accidentally revert you. NebY (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a quick thought. Do you think it would be okay to set up a separate subpage to review Bbb23's blocks, rather than jamming up WP:AN every time we want to review one? It may take some time to go through them all, and the proportion of blocks that I would have also made is still at least 95%, so it'll be a slow, but hopefully worthwhile trickle. Obviously this is not a grave dance, but just a way of trying to get the right editors back, if we can. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but my concern is interest dropping off, which could both cause efforts to stagnate and call into question the strength of the consensus to reverse blocks by someone who, at least at this moment, remains an admin, and could tomorrow decide he wants to stand for RRfA after all. Last time we did a big review of an admin's blocks, it was with Lourdes. Obviously not an identical situation, but we did a much more comprehensive review, and ran that whole thing through AN. OhanaUnited did have the idea of subsectioning by username there, which might be a good idea here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is more a suggestion for the long term. I'd be inclined to leave it for now, it's possible that a week away leads Bbb23 to have some introspection, has an RRFA, addresses the issues, helps with the unblocking, and passes Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I got a good impression of Bbb23 when I was discussing (or trying to) unblocks of his blockees. Bbb23 is neurodivergent (socially inept to a degree) and likely depressed. I don't expect him to be able to overcome his own sense of futility. Or his inability to accept criticism. Or his wounded spirit. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: I wouldn't want to speculate too much about any editor's psychology, although I'll always put in my plug for User:Tamzin/On mental health, which I recently renamed to emphasize that it's applicable to everyone, regardless of if they've ever been diagnosed with any mental illness.Btw, sent you an email earlier! Let me know if you didn't get it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. No analysis on other's psychology please (and we're unlikely to be professionals to properly diagnose). @Tamzin Funny that I was also involved in Lourdes' review and unblock process. Maybe I found a niche area to focus on? Anyhow, Riteinit was blocked by Lourdes as suspected sock, but you had some reservations on the sock finding. But any discussion was shortcircuited by the sockpuppet block,[2] including subsequent review on Loudres' block.[3] Since you looked into this before, do you think this is another case of bad, old block that deserves another chance? OhanaUnitedTalk page13:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's appetite for a comprehensive review of Bbb's blocks, subsequent to a desysop, I agree that should go on a subpage. It'd be quite an effort, though. Lourdes was fairly careful to only make noncontroversial blocks, most of the time; Bbb, on the other hand, is second on quarry:query/91557 (my best effort at a numerical proxy for "significant" blocks), with a half-again lead over the next-hardest-blocking non-CUs (me & Cullen). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to creating a subpage. It makes it easy to point to discussion and analysis. Your query only shows 27 users with 1000+ edits being blocked by Bbb23 that needs a second look. Shouldn't take too long to go through (and I would have done it myself if I had spare time, but alas not this week). OhanaUnitedTalk page13:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anything I can help with from a non-admin point of view, I am available. I recall at the AN thread that there may be opportunities to help out with regard to good-faith unblock requests. If a subpage were to be made, I would use that to help me navigate potential cases, so I also like the idea of one being created if at all possible. Patient Zerotalk22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Query from someone who has been following the Bbb23 hullabaloo only in the broad strokes: how long does Bbb23 have to decide whether to run an RRfA before he loses his advanced permissions? I can't recall if, during the discussion formalizing the admin recall process, the community established a timeline for how long after a successful petition the impeached admin has to file their RRfA, before removal of the tools becomes automatic? Xtools seems to indicate Bbb is still in the administrator user group, and if we didn't set a deadline in the original admin recall discussion, I would assume that this came up during or subsequent to the petition process? (Bbb23 is our first community de-sysop candidate, I believe?)SnowRise let's rap10:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Snow Rise: 30 days from time of petition certification, plus or minus a bit at the discretion of the bureaucrat team. Bbb's actually the 5th recall; one of the previous four took the interesting approach of prospectively resigning, forward-dated to the 30-day mark, which the 'crats honored. (IMO, under RRfA a forward-dated resignation should be taken as confirming that an RRfA won't be "started within a reasonable time frame" and should lead to speedy desysop, but there also isn't much harm in just letting the clock play out, so I get why the 'crats chose to honor that request.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Five already? Shows how out of touch I've been this last year. I have to admit that, after giving full-throated support to the need for a community recall process for years, seeing that figure is a sobering reminder of the downside of having it, during an admin retention crisis. I'm glad you re-adopted the bit, Tamzin. Thank you both for bringing me up to speed. SnowRise let's rap10:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the article under partial A-I CTOP due to her attempt to help Gaza. This is attracting a lot of new editors and II am struggling to keep up. Thanks. Doug Wellertalk08:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have said that you are available for advice on bringing cases at AE. What do you suggest I should do about this edit summary: [4]? The background is this discussion [5] where I have now been called a liar:[6] . Sweet6970 (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a thread at AE including this editor, they're one of the edit-warriors attacking YFNS who has been repeatedly cautioned about making claims that are not backed up by the diffs they post. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now been accused of (1) bad faith template abuse (2) anti-trans POV-pushing (3) lying (4) being an edit warrior [above]. There has been no retraction, and I see no sign of an intent to make a formal complaint against me. What should be the next step? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin. The official name of DC is seen here, which inspires me to add the full form of the region's name (as used by the federal government in constitutionally binding documents) for information purposes on the corresponding Wikipedia entry. Could you please help me with this? Thank you. Cfls (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cfls: That is a document saying that Trump issued the pardon at the City of Washington (which is no longer a legal entity, but persists as a geographical name) in the District of Columbia (a legal entity). It doesn't establish that the formal name of D.C. is "the City of Washington in the District of Columbia". The formal name of D.C., used in documents of the D.C. government, is "the District of Columbia"; the only exceptions I've seen are some things that just say "Washington, D.C.", like driver's licenses. If you can show evidence of "the City of Washington in the District of Columbia" being used in things like the names of agencies, on letterheads, or other contexts where it's not just a geographical reference, you should post that to the article's talkpage, and we can discuss the matter farther. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin, while I see what you're getting at and respectfully have some disagreements, I want to ask if you may want to specify "early pediatric" to better convey your point? Pediatric is <18, and while there's nuanced debate on ages ~10-~14 (pre-puberty - early adolescence), late adolescence and adult trans healthcare are packed together (gender dysphoria and gender incongruence each have 2 subdiagnoses, the normal one for adolescents and adults and with an "in childhood" specifier for prepubertal youth). The nuanced MEDRS debates that do exist rarely seem to focus on those around 16-17 because medically speaking, there isn't a real difference between a 17 and 18 year old, and most CPG's benchmark competence for medical decision making at around 16.
Letting you know here to keep my wordcount low. I might be wrong and you may have meant everyone under 18, but thought I should raise it in case. Hope you've been doing well, this was not on my bingo-card for our next interaction! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's accurate to say that there is not a global scientific consensus about pediatric transgender healthcare, even if there are some aspects of it that are in relative terms less controversial than others. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Tamzin, is there anything I can do to avoid the topic ban? I understand that the second AE report was wrong and I shouldn't have done it so soon after one previously closed nor followed M.Bitton on that full Western Sahara rabbit hole or follow editors to unrelated topics in general, even if I think there is a policy violation. Furthermore, I understand that sentence was WP:WEASEL and I will attribute controversial claims to their supporters instead of merely saying they are a common position without qualification. I'm a relatively new editor and I've got a lot to learn so please advise me. Thanks! Closetside (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Closetside: I'm afraid I don't have much to say. ArbCom gave the AE admins a clear mandate to be very aggressive in moderating ARBPIA disputes, and so that's what we do. Topic bans don't last forever; appeals after 6 months of good behavior often have good odds. I don't think you're a bad person or necessarily trying to do anything wrong here. But you do seem to have gotten in over your head, and an enforced break from a topic area often does an editor a lot of good in that regard. I'm sure that's small solace from where you stand right now, but it's all I can say. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan: Honestly I just took that comment as a less than lucid remark, rather than trying to guess what on Earth they meant. If their response to the block is to more clearly make a threat of any kind, I'd have no objection to an indef. But I'd rather let this play out, rather than indef them till they take back something they might not have actually said. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For your thorough response at RfD, and lots of other good work you do. I'm not always sure if it's worth the time to provide this level of detail on every occasion, but it sets a high standard for the quality of remarks in Wikipedia discussions and helps educate other editors to become better contributors.
I know that editing Wikipedia can be challenging and thankless at times, so I wanted you to hear it from me: Thanks for all your work! Daask (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ViraAndhini has an account since October 2021, but made their first edit today on Shubhanshu Shukla, a reversion of a statement, that has seen some heated arguments and number of reversions and cross-revertions from various editors, myself included. Their second edit correctly identified that the user they reverted ... is currently reported at WP:ARE, which is not a venue an editor making their second edit should know about. A similar revert came moments earlier from an IP with no prior edit history in the /24 range in over a decade, but aware that I have asked for 3rd opinions on the dispute. What do you think could be done here? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})10:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles
Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this editor, who we've had to deal with on and off for the last years regarding the removal of 'long-running' and other claimed 'POV edits' in articles, has gone back to it again, thinking our memories are short and that the concept of watchlists don't exist; I've reverted and warned them once again. Also pinging in @Premeditated Chaos: and TheSandDoctor (talk·contribs). Nathannah • 📮23:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you are well (fuck covid). Either I have gone insane and all this is fine, or it is a massive BLP violation to accuse non-notable Wikipedia editors of antisemitism, even indirectly, without them identifying as antisemites or evidence in reliable sources. Can you please take a look here and swing your cluebat around? I also found Draft:Antisemitism in social work which is not much better. You'd hope that articles about such a topic would be better. Polygnotus (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tamzin. Thanks for your help with the SCOTUS redirects. I just noticed that the query you did to tally all of them missed the earliest volumes, which have a different name structure because the volumes included cases from courts other than SCOTUS. Volume 1 didn't even have any SCOTUS cases.
I think the redirects to here made by Pickle should be speedy deleted based on the big RFD. Could you do that? I'd tally them myself except that it seems like you had a way to do it procedurally. lethargilistic (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I actually thought of that edge case! And then forgot to include it in my query. 🤦 Yeah, I'll handle this, although maybe not this week. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We Conservatives win many debates, we've effectively won it right now on the Trans LGBTQ+ Woke issue, with many now admitting Sexuality/Gender is Real, and we will eventually win it on this Gospel Issue too. Not because we're such excellent debaters or anything, but simply because we're Armed with the Truth.
@Joshua Jonathan: There's something funny about someone saying conservatives made people admit "sexuality/gender is real", which seems to be confusing conservative/GC talking points ("sex is real") with progressive ones (gender and sexuality studies etc.). That would almost make me think trolling if the rest of the tone didn't seem sincere. Anyways, there's a few reasons I'm not going to touch this one, including that immediate scope here isn't a CTOP so a simple TBAN isn't an option, but I'll toss pings to @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Valereee as people who are good with cases like these. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coming in too late to help, but just as an aside when I read that paragraph I first assumed it was a post from Trump's social media feed. The IIM has a lot to answer for if that's how they're teaching English capitalization. Valereee (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This CSD tagging and content blanking at the Allies at war article is harassment bordering on vandalism.
It is clearly not G11, it is a major release and best seller by Random House (Crown imprint).
I am clearly not a paid or promotional editor, and this is an area I edit in often.
This book has at least 4 reviews in major international newspapers including one by Andrew Roberts. It is clearly notable.
The idea that Penguin Random House would enlist me (an old retired tech worker with one foot in a nursing home and the other in Hollywood Forever Cemetery) to promote their already hugely successful book when authors like Andrew Roberts praising it in international newspapers is absurd.
Given the above your marking it as needing review is insulting and obviously unnecessary.
I understand I am disliked because of my work at AFD and NPP, but this needs to stop. I've quit ANI, AFD and NPP, quit vandalism patrol, quit trying to help new editors, and quit working on articles I did not create or have significant interest in. There is no reason for this to continue, but I know it will and that is the reason Wikipedia is losing experienced editors and harassing those that remain until they tire and leave only accelerates the process.
For what its worth, I have two bibliographies, one book series, and two Outlines I am working on; after that I will home again and be leaving Wikipedia again. There is no reason for this to continue. // Timothy :: talk13:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: I have no opinion on the content of the article, or any broader dispute. A report was made to AIV (which was inappropriate, and which I thus declined), and I saw an admin issue in need of resolution (namely, a G11 tag which was incorrect but also removed out-of-process), so I resolved that. As to unreviewing, the autopatrolling process is based on an assumption that there will be no dispute as to the propriety of a page created by that user, and if I find a case where there is such a dispute, I tend to unreview; it's not a slight against the creator, just an acknowledgment that some formal review is necessary.It sounds like this is a complex dispute that would do well from consideration by uninvolved editors who have more time than I to dive deep. I hesitate to tell anyone to go to ANI, but, that does seem the logical place here, if you feel you're being harassed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted to their talk page (Sumanuil has made no response to my talk page comment) and requested this be taken to ANI ([7]) even though I loath ANI. The request was ignored, instead they went to AIV which is obviously just harassment. I was also never informed of the AIV report as required.
So Sumanuil is (1) content blanking, (2) creating spurious CSDs, (3) refusing to discuss, and (4) making an obviously false vandalism report, (5) creating a stealth AIV post, probably so I wouldn't be able to reply, all this was ignored by admins, but yes I have been warned and understand this is unfortunately headed for ANI and a Wikibeating followed by a ban (I know I will be shredded at ANI).
Before this does go to ANI, can you explain why I was warned about being banned but you made no attempt to discuss let alone warn Sumanuil over the items I mention above? I would think at least one of the five problems would merit at least a timid vanilla reply; but at least radio silence is illuminating.
@TimothyBlue: I warned you because you had done something straightforwardly blockable (removing CSD tags from an article you created) and didn't warn Sumanuil because they hadn't. That doesn't mean that what they did is okay, just that it's not a bright-line issue. I did decline both the AIV report and the G11, so it's not like I took no action against them. As to your five items above: I did in fact address #5; I obviously agree with you on #1; and the rest are content questions to be discussed with the article's contributors.Please do also note you are now at 3RR on the article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why was my subpage about my micronation deleted? I understand Wikipedia has rules against having things that are "contrary" to Wikipedia's norms and policies but I wanna show people what I do and what even is it that I am doing in my real life. (And yes I am back but on mobile) EditorShane3456 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorShane3456: I deleted it under CSD G3 as a hoax/misinformation. While not all coverage of micronations is a hoax, they are clear about what claims are real (e.g. the Principality of Sealand's de facto control of Fort Roughs) and false (e.g. most made by the Aerican Empire). Your userspace page included the claims that Wallenderte is "a trans-continental micronation" (false, it exists on 0 continents), that it holds Bir Tawil (false, Bir Tawil is not held by any government), and that it holds "an area of Silesia" (false, Silesia is held by Poland, Germany, and Czechia). The subsequent statement that it claims "Marie Byrd-land and some carribean islands" actually makes this worse, because it emphasizes that the foregoing are not mere claims, but actual control of Bir Tawil and Silesia (again, false).The question then, for an admin, is whether there is anything salvageable in a page. All other statements in the draft were unverifiable at best and still verge on hoaxing. Since there were no statements of fact that didn't fall under G3's scope of "blatant and obvious misinformation [or a] blatant hoax[ ]", I found deletion to be the appropriate remedy.Zooming out a bit from the granular wording of G3, as both Giraffer and I have mentioned to you, the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. That means we don't have much interest in "what [you] do and what even is it that [you are] doing in [your] real life". A little bit of info on someone's userpage is a nice way to get to know the human behind the account, but Wikipedia is not a social network and userspace is not a webhost. Please just focus on building the encyclopedia. Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but as someone who's spent a lot of time (longer than some users' lifetimes!) following our internal processes, I think you are greatly overestimating how much patience the community has for these kinds of antics from someone who is not contributing content. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin Most of these claims, myself I do not own, my friend and Governor of Magvia, Mateo claims these territories, so in turn, the Empire claims those territories. I should have reworded it, yes, but the empire claims to be, although only holding Alagevo (a silesian micronation), Magvia (a hoosier/indiana micronation) and the Republic of Berlandia (a pennsylvanian micronation, which myself I hold the presidential office) 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:8134:B283:4BF4:5C7D (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to re-draft while avoiding false claims, I guess I can't stop you, but I'll warn you that such a page would be likely to be deleted if someone brought it to WP:MFD. Again, I would encourage you to focus on contributing to the encyclopedia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Raladic has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I hope you like cookies. I just wanted to drop a note of thanks. I thought I could come back from my wikibreak and have the mental fortitude to resume active editing while waiting for the ArbCom case, but the current hostile atmosphere is just not sustainable for me, so I'll step on the break until the Arc case is open. Just wanted to thank you for your essay, which I read a while before my break and has gotten a special place is my head/heart/collection of stuff and your recording from last year. I meant to message you earlier, but alas only remembered just now.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Hi @Femke! Fortunately this move is several orders of magnitude simpler than my last one. Just gotta pack together a 40L backpack and take a couple trains and a plane and a car. Which leaves me with enough time to at least briefly look at this before I head to sleep. The IP appears to be proxying, which is suspicious but not in itself a violation of policy. The writing style at a glance doesn't read the same as DFW. Notably they exclusively use straight apostrophes and quotes, whereas DFW almost always uses curly. And is this actually the same POV? Honest question, as I'm not intimately familiar with the case; but my understanding is that DFW's whole claim is that dust-based pollution is a greater ill than people realize? So wouldn't he favor this DYK? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint about my editing style (IP calls it hasty, despite taking half a year to rewrite the article) is similar as DFW (see this talk complaint), which makes me most suspicious. For a random IP to form an opinion on what I've been doing to that article is odd, I'd say. I've removed most of DFWs edits around construction dust from the article, so I don't think he'd be that happy with this on the mainpage. Possibly weak sauce, but both IP and DFW overuse slashes, e.g. [9], [10]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've looked a lot more. Here's where I come down, @Femke: It would make a lot of sense for this to be DFW. However, try as I might, I can't find satisfactory evidence that it is. The main evidence in favor is the use of proxies, interest in pollution, and dislike of you. The main argument against is different writing tells (quotation mark type, emphasis with *asterisks* for DFW, unusual ping style for the proxyer) and possibly not having the same POV. Furthermore, having heterodox or fringe views on pollution and coming into conflict with you cannot be treated as independent probabilities. (This is a compliment.)Do I think this is someone evading scrutiny at best and a block or ban at worst? Absolutely. Would I be shocked if this is DFW? No, not at all. Am I comfortable extending to indef over it? Also no. This is the kind of case that falls in the gap between our desire to prevent socking and our desire to not wrongly block anyone. I've gotta go pack, but feel free to request a second opinion at SPI and drop a link to this comment. Maybe someone will see something I missed. Maybe DFW will mysteriously wind up CUblocked without on-wiki elaboration. Who knows. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking! Oh well, I'll extend some good faith to the IP for now, and see if they're happy if I make some minor improvements to air pollution article.. If there's more disruption or clearer socking later, I'll go SPI/ANI. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi you recently added a Extended confirmed restriction on my article even though it’s not published, can you please remove it until my article gets accepted. Thanks @TamzinTeenX808 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TeenX808: The extended confirmed restriction applies to all pages (with a limited exception for talkpages). Please edit on other topics until you eventually become extended confirmed. (Please do not just make a bunch of tiny edits or anything like that; actually build up some experience.) Once you are extended confirmed, you will be able to edit the draft and other pages in the topic area. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tamzin! Hope you've been doing well since last we crossed paths on Wikipedia: the reason I'm reaching out now is because of another time we spoke about getting the End Poem maybe up at FAC; big concerns were mainly primary sources. I recently tried messing around with {{Primary sources reflist}}, but could not for the life of me get that template working in list-defined reference format (would be Gough's two references, Rosenfeld's music reference, and Persson's tweet reference, the four primary sources in the article)—like the rest of the sources in the article. I'm not sure if I'm just a clueless goof as I often am, or if using list defined reference format with that template does not work for whatever reason?—I would not know who to go to to see about altering that template to fix that if so. Admittedly, I think that using that template would probably bring some semblance of help adding a fancy legitimacy to the sources were it ever to be set up at FAC, if that makes sense. "You can't really question the use of primary sources since we've taken the time to separate them out in their own special little column, which exists in tandem with the fact that they are totally okay to use", or something like that. Best wishes to you—BarntToust03:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I didn't make you regret pinging me to you-know-where recently. Like I said there, bringing visibility to sexual minorities from the past is important, and that goal is hurt, not advanced, by dragging in sloppy sources in order to make heroes out of people who don't deserve it. EEng19:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: I don't regret pinging you. You're... yourself, as always, and I do hope we can keep tempers cool, but I agree on what you're saying here. I wrote an essay recently, User:Tamzin/Vicarious misgendering, that discusses some of the forces that I think are at play in cases like this. I scoped it more around contemporary figures, but I should probably add a bit about historic figures. I completely understand people's temptation to look at some figure from the past and, seeing themself in them, project a particular gender identity. As a private matter, I don't see a problem with it; for instance, I see a lot of myself in Thomas(ine) Hall, and not just because of the name. Likewise for artistic works; interpretations of Joan of Arc as transmasculine, as an empowered proto-feminist woman, and as a conservative Catholic woman all have their merits. And scholarly interpretations in the same vein also have their place, but they have a tendency to be misconstrued by laypeople as statements of fact rather than revisionist analyses using intentionally anachronistic language.Where it becomes an issue, then, is the claim that there's some objective truth about a historical person's gender. In a lot of ways, regardless of the merits of a case, I think that represents misunderstanding of both historiography and cultural relativism. You see this on all sorts of labels. I've met a lot of people who insist that "gay" is an objective term that can describe any man who is exclusively attracted to men, regardless of whether the word "gay" existed in their era, which is a fascinating misconception given that that's not even true today. For some reason it seems that, to some people, labels like "gay" and "trans" are these nuanced, complicated things when we apply them to ourselves, but easy litmus tests when we apply them to anyone else.The real loss in this is that, as you say, there's a wealth of knowledge in the nuances of life for historical gender-nonconforming figures. The fact that someone like Sewally/Jones can't be easily categorized as a trans woman, transfeminine nonbinary person, cross-dressing gay man, or cis straight man who only departed from that for money, is a really important historical lesson, and one that can teach us a thing or two about the present day. For instance, the kathoey article currently defines them as "people ... whose identities in English may be best translated as transgender women in some cases, or effeminate gay men in other cases", which is about as systemically biased a statement I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia's partly to blame on this. Maybe with ledes like "A trans woman or transgender woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth", we promote a false sense of certainty in what that label means, belying the ambiguity known to scholars and individual trans people alike. Or maybe some people will just always want things to fit into neat buckets. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the sensitive yet firm way you've handled the FtT block, I'm genuinely impressed by your thoughtfulness. I'm going to stay out of the unblocking conversation, but since you'll need to make that call at some point, I'll share a couple of observations:
They have not answered your request to comment on "what the issue was with what you did to Asamboi"
They continue to characterize our interactions as "fight with each other"
Their "what I've learned" page has this odd qualification: "Except in the case of obvious harassment, assume that administrators are right."
It's hard for me to interpret this in any other way than them thinking that their Wikivoyage TBAN was "harassment" by an admin (me) and their spectacularly backfired attempt to return the favor was thus a justified continuation of "fighting each other". I feel genuinely sorry for them, but as far as I can tell they're still just not getting it. Asamboi (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can only accept the request or do nothing; any decline will have to be another admin's call. I do agree that FtT still isn't getting it. They're not the first editor I've seen with this kind of editing trajectory to be undone by an inability to consider that what they did was wrong. I've tried prodding them a bit further. We'll see if it goes anywhere. Frankly I just hope they'll take my 3-year block offer. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you already know I am over the limit so cannot respond there. You initially made the allegation of "policing" when this diff wasn't considered as a violation by you. Now that Rosguill has made it clear that it was a violation, I don't think the "policing" allegation is correct. There is no policy or Arbcom ruling which frowns upon reporting of topic ban violations (which happened even during this ARE report), especially when the reported editor has already been warned about the topic ban violations before.
Should we really ask editors every single time not to make the topic ban violations before reporting them? In general, one warning is carried out which was already done by someone else.[11] How the report was not warranted?
Wikipedia hasn't differentiated between "minor" or "major" topic ban violations. They treat them equally. I recall reading WP:BMB which enforces that.
I shouldn't be informally warned about something I did as per standard procedures. Dont you think it would be better to file an ARCA for deciding these concerns about "major" Vs "minor" topic ban violations or that how often should we ask the said editor to self-revert their topic ban violations?
Would it be wise to file one during the AE report? It would seem forum shopping. Arbitrator ScottishFinnishRadish had told CharlesWain to file an ARE report against AlvaKedak over his initial topic ban violations.[12] Reading your proposal and the comments from Ealdgyth, one would think that ScottishFinnishRadish was wrong with his suggestion to file ARE report, but I am sure he wasn't wrong. In the the light of these contrasting views about how to handle the topic ban violations, I think you should comment on the current ARE report itself that we should defer to ARCA about the handling of the topic ban violations and what constitutes as actionable topic ban violation. Alternatively, you can limit the proposal to AlvaKedak and after that I will file ARCA. I hope that will work. Orientls (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orientls: I'll be honest, I was less concerned with you filing the report, and more with your zeal in pursuing it once it became clear that I and the other admins were unconvinced there was a serious violation. Dispassionately reporting what you believe to be a violation is one thing. Arguing with multiple admins about whether there's been a violation really gives the impression that you just want to see the person blocked regardless of whether that's the equitable outcome. So no, I would not say it's a good idea to take it to ARCA; I'm just saying that you have the option if you really want. I've already made clear what I think you should do: Go focus on something other than policing a colleague's edits for minor violations. You can follow that advice or not. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tamzin,
Thank you for your response. I truly appreciate your time and the opportunity to clarify.
I want to respectfully say that I did not mean to claim that I have created Wikipedia articles since the page block was imposed. What I meant was that I have contributed in the past — before the sanction — and I was simply trying to express how deeply hurt I felt when I lost access, especially after putting in time and effort into creating and improving pages such as Aryan Valley, Shamskat, Darchik, Ganokh, Tsewang Namgail, Chulichan, and others.
I understand the seriousness of the rules, and I’m not trying to mislead anyone. I only wanted to show that I have a genuine interest in contributing to topics that are underrepresented or culturally important.
Also, I hope you can please be a little more respectful in your tone. I’m not here to argue — I’m just trying to find a fair chance to appeal and be part of the editing community again, this time with a better understanding of the guidelines.
Thank you again for your time and understanding.
Kind regard ~ Minaro123 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not just using AI to correct your grammar. You're using AI to write messages, and it is hallucinating things like you being topic-banned (it's a pageblock) or you having created articles since you were blocked. This is what happens when you outsource your appeal to an AI. Like I said, you can start your appeal over, this time using your own words and the correct template. Admins want to hear from you, not what ChatGPT thinks sounds good. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the question. Hello stranger, hope all is going well. The DC disamb page only has one mention of D.C., a media presentation D.C.. Would adding that one entry to Washington, D.C.'s hatnote surfice for adding the entire disamb page? Thanks. Have been having a discussion about the use of DC for Washington, D.C., which is what brought me to that page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: I think that even if there's only one other entry on the DAB that uses "D.C.", it's still a plausible spelling for any other "DC", so it's better navigationally to point people toward the DAB. For instance, it's entirely plausible that someone could search "D.C." while intending direct current. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I wish there were a bot to change all the non-period DC to D.C. when appearing as 'Washington DC' (one of the most widespread errors on Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that the page **User:GravityInfo/sandbox** was deleted under G15 (LLM-generated content). I understand the reason, but I would like to kindly request a copy of the draft so I can edit it properly, add reliable references, and resubmit it in line with Wikipedia's standards.
This is for The Modern English High School, and as this is my first wikipedia article contribution so I am a beginner, so I took a idea from the LLM but I was going to edit all the content with facts and Reference. I was just using it like a template for better understanding. As I have started a initiative to write articles on that institution which are serving needy people for a long period of time with no Media coverage and appreciation and serving the society with humble framework, as you will see the school is located in slum of mumbai, India where there is no future of education there this school is serving student with low cost but good service from 2006. Please help me with this initiative.
I would appreciate it if you could restore the draft to my user sandbox for revision.
 I don't have any financial relations but my many friends are alumini of this school. So, they highlighted this school to start with. I am a student right now and i use Wikipedia for educational purpose not like a income tool and Wikipedia in known to spread free knowledge that we have about any topic. GravityInfo (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GravityInfo: Thanks for answering. The reason I asked is that the draft frankly looked like it was written to promote the school. With LLM-generated content, it's often difficult to tell whether someone is promoting an entity or whether the LLM has just taken that tone. Because of the promotional tone of the draft, I don't think it's appropriate to restore it. If you'd like to start over again, by all means, feel free. I would strongly recommend doing the work yourself, though, and not relying on an LLM. LLM-written articles are rarely approved. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That thread was prompted by encounters with an experienced user who refuses to notify those he considers unworthy. He ain't gotta, and he ain't gonna. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It's actually stranger than that! There isn't just a "Tamsin Amanda" who's used for AfC scams; there's also a "Tamsin Kelly". (Which is even how I spelled my name for a few months in 2019!) When I first learned this I was a bit surprised, because I wasn't that active an editor at the time, and I didn't see why anyone would bother impersonating me. Well I looked into it and... "she" has been using the name for longer than I have. Two people in the Wikipedia ecosystem with essentially the same name, one a scammer and one an admin, neither referencing the other. Not sure if this is better compared to Dennis the Menace or Richard Parker.Weirder still, not the only thing like this that's happened to me. A while back I noticed that the username for the first place I ever worked is registered. And that it was registered by an LTA, while I was working there, possibly during my shift. Scary harassment, right? Nope! Also has the timeline backwards; I didn't start editing Wikipedia (as more than a driveby IP) until a year after that. I still wonder if the LTA and I were coincidentally in the same room (even if I rang him up), or if he was just fucking around on Google Earth and picked the most distal business on the peninsula.Incidentally, a loved one of mine, who is in the category of "notable, but may never have an article, and is okay with that" recently got an unsolicited offer from a "Matthew Caday, Wikipedia Admin" to write an article for her. I sort of wish she'd let it play out to see which of the scam varieties it was (given that she's a GNG+SNG pass it's possible it was just straightforward UPE), but I think she couldn't resist getting to say "An actual Wikipedia admin says you're not a real admin". Or, something much more polite than that, she assured me, but words to that effect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take our disagreement to arbitration, but I don't know where to post anything here about this kind of process. Wikipedia behind the curtains is an incredibly labyrinthine place. I'd appreciate guidance in this regard. Rafe87 (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What madness is this. Two of my wisest talkpage watchers, both wrong! I guess two working clocks are simultaneously wrong... uh... twice a year? Rafe, please disregard the above. As I explained on your talkpage, appeal in this case is only to WP:ARCA, not under the normal standard theleekycauldron mentions, but using the standard used at the administrators' noticeboard instead. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Rafe87: You can appeal your topic ban and/or the underlying balanced editing restriction at WP:ARCA using this form. My understanding, based on a previous appeal, is that if you do that, you should set |decision={{slink|User talk:Rafe87#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction}} and |title=Rafe87 BER. Don't use the |case= or |clause= parameters. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you double check that I didn't drop the ball somewhere in my closure of Mikewem's topic ban? I think I followed all the directions... Ealdgyth (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Mostly looks fine! I think you may have wanted to put your signature with |reason=, rather than your name in |2=, though? (I didn't actually know {{hat}} had a |2=, but it seems to set a subheading of some sort.) I'd also recommend mentioning the ARCA-only clause in the AE hat and in AELOG, not just on Mikewem's talk. Since PIA is the only topic area with an alternate appeals process, it's very easy for people to miss that detail, as you can actually see two sections up here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Giraffer. I don't think my position's changed since last time. If he wants to again refuse the terms of the CONDUNBLOCK offered, I mean, up to you. Generally I'd say that if someone would sooner stay blocked than be TBANned from a conflict area, that's further evidence they need a break from that area. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left a template on the essay stating that we should probably come up with a section talking about a way to tell editors how to find the pronouns of users who take multiple. For example, I use she/they pronouns, but in Wikipedia's settings I have it set to "use feminine terms" (so {{they}} would say "she" and "her" and "hers") and people may only use she instead of rotating she and they. I personally don't mind as I don't care which one uses, just that they use one of the two. However, say we have another person who uses he/they pronouns. Say he also wants their pronouns to be rotated in speech. If his settings are set to "he" or "they", it is likely that they'll be referred to as the one he selected in Wikipedia settings with the solutions provided in the essay (the gender symbols or the navigation popups).
So what do you think is the best solution here? Ask people to look at talk pages? Rely on people to say "this is how I would like my pronouns to be used" and look at signatures? Or maybe change something in the Wikipedia backend so that multiple pronouns could be selectable and thus allow Navigation Popups to pull that info? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks,thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechie: There's an open task on Phab on implementing more flexibility in gender pronouns. Feel free to share your thoughts there. As to your hypothetical, well, I think we have to be realistic about the constraints of a multicultural, multigenerational, volunteer-run site when it comes to how much brainpower anyone is going to devote to getting pronouns right. Asking people to check a user's pronouns before gendering them is reasonable. Encouraging people to look at other places they might have indicated a preference is also reasonable. (Currently in the essay: Some editors may not have selected a gender in their preferences (they/them is the default) but may nonetheless have a preference. This may be reflected on their userpage, or by how they refer to themselves in discussions.) Someone can totally use their signature or userpage to indicate a preference to rotate between signatures, but I'm not sure we can really ask others to comply with that (a task some people find rather cognitively taxing) with the same force as with the baseline request of not misgendering. At its core, the point of the essay is not that you need to refer to someone exactly what they ask to be called, but that you should not call them something they do not wish to be called. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wish! I was very excited to go to a WCNA so close to home, but then I moved away. Sadly I'm not sure when I'll next be able to go to a WCNA. I'm aiming to catch Wikimania '26 in Paris though!As to Smith, I might be able to take a look later, but my availability is a bit sporadic as I sort out what is hopefully the end of the beginning of my move. (Visa interview in 5 days! Exciting.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you look at editor
I'ingénieur? This account is several years old but they made around 500 very minor edits at the start of August so they could vote in the RFC at Gaza genocide. They have also edited the arricke itself. It's the only voter I found with such blatant gaming but I don't think it should be allowed. Cheers 81.143.238.12 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a comment on the arbitration page but am not clear it is in the right part of the discussion. I think I am within the word limit, but if it is in the wrong place can you advise or move it? Thanks!
PS I saw some dolphins last year but they barely broke the surface so I don't have a picture
The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews
Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.
In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).
Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges – Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs), Epicgenius (talk·contribs), Frostly (talk·contribs), Guerillero (talk·contribs) and Lee Vilenski (talk·contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!
Hi @Tamzin, I am leaving this message to ask you to reconsider the pblock you have placed on myself either wholesale or at least the duration of it:
-In regards to the suggestion it was to "enforce an arbitration decision" no specific restrictions regarding CTOP had actually been placed on the article at this time such as limitations on reversions.[13] I had also seen that another revert had occurred related to the ongoing talk discussions around the game's commercial performance[14] so as a result I did not consider any need to act outside of standard practices (or as I understand them) for editing which meant that reversions were still acceptable.
- As to the item of "edit-warring even while subject to an arbitration enforcement request", I was engaged in removing unsourced claims (which are explicitly disproven by sources within the article) that should not have been re-added by anyone per WP:BURDEN and was in contravention of what I believe to be a provably established consensus on the talk page as well as core policies of WP:OR and WP:V so had believed that what I was doing was within accepted practice and it wasn't in breach of the letter or spirit of norms such as WP:3RR and would not be be understood as "edit-warring". However I accept in hindsight the reversion to what I believed to be the status quo before the most recent restarting of this issue could be considered edit-warring from another person's point of view.
- Beyond this though I would like to say that I didn't have awareness or reason to believe that the presence of an open AE request (given they can be filed by anyone for any reason at any time) would itself have a bearing as to ongoing editing actions at the article or that in practice it would see closer scrutiny on editor actions until such a time the "case" had been decided and any measures (if decided upon) announced and implemented. If I had been made aware that this subsequent revert of mine was inappropriate given the AE request by yourself or another uninvolved admin prior to implementing a block I would have happily reversed it and refrained from further editing on the article until the closing of the request (and if this pblock is removed would also undertake likewise).
Finally I would like to add I have only attempted to act in good faith in resolving an issue of WP:OR/WP:V at the article in question, including initiating and engaging in constructive attempts at the article's talk page with the aims of resolving this issue, and therefore I can only apologise for having engaged in behaviour that you felt required a block in the first place. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler: If the AE request doesn't end in a stricter sanction against you or an endorsement of the p-block as a consensus-of-admins restriction, I'm open to reducing its length. Until then, this seems like the right thing to do to interrupt an edit war that has been running for a month. You are still welcome to participate on the article's talk page, so if there really is consensus for your version this should not be much of a burden. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TamzinYou are still welcome to participate on the article's talk page, so if there really is consensus for your version this should not be much of a burden
I hope this'll be understandable, but I don't really want to do that as the stuff that's fallen out the woodwork from this week's blow up suggests to me I've stumbled into some existing bitter dispute between most of the other editors involved that's been going on for some months now and I don't really want to be party to that. I've already picked up one persistent stalker in recent months after stumbling into a different ongoing dispute involving pages to do with certain Trotskyist groups, and don't fancy getting dragged into whatever off-wiki battle appears to going on with "controversial" video game articles.
My not inconsequential autism presents itself as the focus on "the rules as clearly written" and "this needs to be dealt with now" that's probably obvious to see in my edits, and Wikipedia's habit of writing some policy and practices explicitly in black and white but then having contradictory policy/practice, vague policy/practice and then just a reliance on unwritten practice is bad enough to deal with at times without the extra-strain of whatever's causing a difference of seven words to be this incendiary. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always impressed with how you approach working with other editors, and the humility you show in the process when expressing your own imperfect approach. Cheers to you Tamzin! TiggerJay(talk)15:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there somewhere I can find more information about your statement re: "Basically there's been someone going around taking over old accounts and using them to get around the extendedconfirmed rules."(From User talk:BePrepared1907#Balanced editing restriction)?
Hello Tamzin, question for you – I would like to file an AE case for violation of multiple rules and with diffs it exceeds the 500 word limit, so I'd like to pre-emptively request an extension to 1000. It's a case of everything from battleground to verifiability and the usual smattering of rs/npov/due/blp issues. If there's a better place to ask this please let me know. Thanks much! Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet: I've looked at what you've emailed, and I'm not seeing anything in there that justifies as large an extension as you're requesting. The main reason the request is so long is because you've added a lot of editorialization, giving your impression of what each diff conveys. Part of the purpose of the word limit at AE is to discourage editors from doing that. We don't need a blow-by-blow of every moment in a content dispute; say "User engages in behavior X" and then give some number of diffs, "User engages in behavior Y" and then some number of diffs, etc., plus maybe a paragraph synthesizing it all to explain the overall pattern of behavior you see. If doing it that way doesn't leave you with an actionable complaint, then it's unlikely that there's something to be done at all. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin thank you for the feedback! I agree that the editorialising is taking up unnecessary space and have edited the draft and re-sent. Did you have the chance to take a look at the latest version? If that's good to go I'll go ahead with it. Thanks in advance. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet: First, sorry for the delay. I was taking a class this past week, and it didn't leave much brainpower left over for the kind of Wikipedia work involving sitting down and reading through a filing. Now that I look at what you emailed... by my count it's 307 words?? So obviously that'd be fine. I'm not sure where you got the "~1,064 words" you mention; to be clear, you should be counting the words in the parsed version of the "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" section, not anything else.Anyways, what you do need is a diff extension, and I'm fine granting that given that most of these are clusters of related diffs, which is less of a brain drain for admins to read through than 45 related diffs. Extension granted to, let's say, 55. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tamzin! No worries, I hope the class is going well. Appreciate your time! I was counting words from a slightly older draft 🤦 thank you for catching that and thank you for the diff extension. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly anything urgent, but rather an interesting story about article titles and the priorities of the public.
There's a short story about a trans woman called Unknown Number that almost won one of the top science fiction awards a few years ago. It was written by a trans person on Twitter (not sure exactly how the author identifies, as I can't seem to find any online presence for them anymore, and the original Twitter account was deleted).
A few weeks ago, Netflix released a true crime documentary with the same title as the short story. The short story's article then seemed to explode in views, peaking at about 7k per day in early September. This likely has little to do with the story and more with readers attempting to find information about the documentary. The search term "unknown number Wikipedia" is actually trending right now, further proving this theory. An article about the documentary was only published in mainspace yesterday, and I expect that article to trend further in the coming days.
I know that titles of media aren't exactly unique, but art by a trans person being overshadowed by the public's neverending obsession with true crime feels like peak 2025 to me. It just kind of rubs me the wrong way to see a company as big as Netflix use a similar title to media by a small, queer creator. wizzito | say hello!22:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a number of posts you've made over the past 24 hours and realize you are burned out from sorting out disputes on this platform. But after reviewing noticeboard discussions and SPI reports, I still don't see a relationship between NutmegCoffeeTea and this whole sockpuppetry business involving Symphony Regalia and company that warrants an indefinite block. I'm missing the connection between these worlds. You don't have to reply to me tonight (it's night where I'm at) or even tomorrow but it would be helpful on some noticeboard or user talk page or project page if you could make this link clearer, I'd appreciate it.
And if I was a doctor, I'd give you a prescription for a 48-time out from being an administrator on Wikipedia. Go outside, talk to friends, shop, whatever makes you happy! Thanks. LizRead!Talk!03:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin (second from right) getting lunch with a few friends@Liz: Well, only just replying to this now because I and a friend were having a long chat over tea in the market near my home, same as we do most days, so, I think that counts as all three things in your prescription. :)I didn't block NCT for sockpuppetry. I blocked her because she made a flailing, retaliatory accusation of sockpuppetry, after I'd previously warned her for similar behavior, and after picking up a TBAN for battleground editing in the intervening time. I do think there's something strange going on involving the accounts that Nicholas Needleham identified, including NCT, but not to the extent I'd be comfortable hanging a sockblock on it. In other words, at least some of those involved must be meatpuppeting, but it's hard to figure out who. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who you informed was topic banned from editing articles regarding "American politics post-1992, broadly construed and explicitly including political activists, political commentators, and events that are of political significance (e.g. mass shootings)" created this article which appears to fall under that topic. Sincere apologies if this was not the correct way to note a potential breach of this. Raskuly (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understand my frustration about editors rushing to create articles that are then kept at AFD because people obviously flock to the AFD of a recent thing to !vote keep without any basis on policy.
Understand my frustration about the current climate on Wikipedia, where everything is all politics all the time no matter what.
Understand my frustration about the fact that a podcaster being killed gets seven articles because he happened to be involved in American politics.
Yes, I made canvassing accusations, but the fact that multiple news organizations linked to an AFD in progress is basically what it is, right? I don't think it's an unreasonable position to have.
Don't consider this vent post as anything yet. I'm asking questions about the reasoning behind my TBAN. I may or may not appeal it eventually, but I also don't want to be restricted away from such a broad topic with so many unrelated articles getting the AMPOL tag for whatever reason. There's a reason I barely come on Wikipedia anymore, and it's because the website is filled with people who can get away with anything as long as they're civil about it, but as soon as those civil POV pushers rile you up, you get the banhammer. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)02:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU: I don't see any CPOV-pushers provoking you here. I see you having a strong emotional reaction to certain articles exist, and a tendency to see a battleground surrounding those articles. And that's a thing that happens to some people. Some people have a blind spot for one topic area, where they're less able to self-govern and contribute constructively. And these tend to be the topic areas in which it's most important to avoid needless discord. That's why we have CTOPs and why we do TBANs, so editors can continue editing constructively in areas where they don't run into the same issues. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I congratulate you on closing that thread on Mandruss's user page as you did. Nor surprisingly I think it's the right decision. My long history at the English wikipedia makes me doubt it's going to be the right decision for the community in the end as I sort of think it's going to lead to requests to reopen due to lack of clear consensus which if you don't acquiesce to will lead to a long debate somewhere eventually leading to the thread being reopened (or which will at least be as disruptive as allowing that thread to prolong would have), but we'll see. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nil Einne. I wouldn't have closed the thread if I didn't see a clear consensus. Arguments that policy should not be enforced, without a good explanation of why WP:IAR would apply, are generally given no weight in closing discussions, and so consensus was quite clear here. And even just counting heads, the ratio was past 2:1 and rising. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin. I know the censuses pertain to the Noblitts we're looking for because I know they were living in San Francisco at the time. I also know that James Noblitt died in 1913 in California in San Francisco.
and is buried in San Francisco National Cemetery. That's why he's not on the 1920 Census with Irene and her mother, Katie. They are living with Anna (née Noblitt) Wilkerson and her husband. Lastly, the city directory (for phone numbers) in 1918 San Francisco lists an Irene J. Noblitt, actress. That's not a common name nor is it a common occupation.
Actors changed the spellings of their names all the time. Sometimes they went by a different name altogether. I'm not understanding why the news articles are having such a hold when her parents and sister were all Noblitt. Her parents wouldn't assign her a different surname at birth. Men and woman weren't even hyphenating their surnames in 1902. Everybody had the same surname; the husband's. If this was a discussion trying to determine when a name was changed or a marriage took place, it would be harder. But it's not. It's her name at birth. We aren't questioning her parents' names, and one would think one should if we're questioning her name. We have government and city documentation. Clarawolfe (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tazmin, hope you're doing well. Fascinated by your N95: A Filter Hit Rate Checker, I was wondering if you had documentation for other CTOP codes that can be used as Filter ID? I did check GitLab but didn't find any. I also understand that for a dev documentation is quite lot down on the list of priorities, but thought I'd ask at least. Regards,
, CNC (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for info. I mistook it for a type of CTOP code, I see that's not what is is at all now. This is the sort of information that you'd expect in documentation. It tells me I should create a pull request for README for the next person, but also last time I was faffing around on gits they were hub-based which shows how out of touch I am. CNC (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant :) Being able to see the change in % over say X days, or even a year, looks more than sufficient here. No need for change % really. CNC (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin, regarding your post at AN, can any autopatrolled editor unpatrol their own page? I don't recall ever seeing the page curation bar before getting the NPP reviewer right, and I'm not sure you can get access without the right. CMD (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have NPP and autopatrolled you see the typical complete NPP toolbar (and you can unpatrol/repatrol using that), if you only have autopatrolled (and not NPP), you only see the link/button which should allow you to unpatrol only your own pages! Sohom (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The button is still there if NPP with autopatrolled, just not if the page remains in the NPP feed. So when the curation tool is unavailable the add button appears but no before (regardless of author notably). CNC (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed decision for Transgender healthcare and people posted
Hello, I'm Czarking0. 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)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Special:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: I'm investigating this, and hope to make a decision soon. JBW (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC) while I'm checking a report. There are reasons why I've never actually done that, but they aren't really compelling reasons. Probably the main reason is that far more than 90% of cases just don't need it. I don't know whether you ever look at UTRS, Tamzin, but that does have a button to click for an administrator to click to reserve a report that they are dealing with. (Since Deepfriedokra has taken part in this discussion, I will mention that he knows all about that, being one of the most active administrators on UTRS, maybe even the most active one.) JBW (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles
Arconning (submissions) with 1,090 round points, mainly from articles about athletes and politicians, including a featured article on Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics, 9 good articles, 28 did you know articles, and a wide assortment of featured and good article reviews
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews
