User talk:Tamzin

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

{{ds/aware}}

I don't like the idea of getting pings over someone putting a box on my page that says I did nothing wrong while vaguely insinuating that I did, so I'm just parking these here instead. This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style the Balkans or Eastern Europe articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles complementary and alternative medicine climate change discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes COVID-19, broadly construed Falun Gong 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) India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan post-1978 Iranian politics the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the Troubles They should not be given alerts for those areas. {{ds/aware|ap|gg|a-i|blp|mos|tt|ipa}} Update 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC): You know what, screw it. Keeping track of which to list is more trouble than it's worth, and I don't need any one-hit immunity. I'm aware of all of them. Even the weird ones like the Shakespeare authorship question or Waldorf education. If anything, I'm more likely to think something is a DS topic when it isn't, than vice versa.

Archives

Oct. 2020–present: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14 Nov. 2012–Oct. 2020: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

may memories be for a blessing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toki Pona in the wild? Mute olin!! :D Atomic putty? Rien! Atomic putty? Rien! 16:05, 7 August 2023 (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]

@Tamzin omg ur so right, sorry I’m rusty. I love finding ppl who speaks Toki Pona outside of the discord server, it’s like a little linguistics easter egg Atomic putty? Rien! 12:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin P.P.S. Apologies for my English, German’s actually my first language ^-^ Atomic putty? Rien! 12:32, 25 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]

f u delete this or im gonna tell the mods on u. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, @Tamzin, that that statement is in breach of rule 1 of this talkpage listed at the top. If you do not retract the comment, I may need to tell this user about the poor behaviour by yourself. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tsk, really should have discuss[ed] the matter with the editor at [...] the [[:|article's talk page]] — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special talk:Diff/1148616329? Sounds like a good place for settling disputes TheresNoTime ;)

Talk pages for special pages when? /j Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:19, 9 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 phrase who[m]ever edited this page is the object, and that is an independent clause, containing a subject (who[m]ever), a transitive verb (edited ), and an object (the noun phrase, this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in the subjective case (a.k.a., nominative case), thus it must be whoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, like they/them, then it would be whoever edited them). Upshot for this expression: it must be from whoever edited this page. See the first example here, for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "whomsoever." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 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]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus mine might look like

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

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

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

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

Wait, what do I do? You're not my mom/s! El_C 04:56, 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]

Hi Tamzin—hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you would be able to update User:Example male and User:Example female to use Special:GlobalPreferences to set their genders, instead of setting them locally? As an irrelevant aside, as I was writing this note, I realized I would ping both accounts. This made me curious: how many pings are they currently sitting at? Anyways, happy editing! HouseBlaster^talk 22:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: Tamzin put this off for so long that I have gained sentience and done it myself. Example male (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope User:Example female gets possessed by the same spirit! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is as the prophecy foretold. Example female (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2025 (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.com^TWL 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]

I didn't know {{bcc}} existed. I wish there was a list of semi-obscure and occasionally helpful Wikipedia features. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tamzin. I was curious, would it be much effort to modify task 1 of 'zinbot to also mark pages sent to AfD as reviewed? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we all encounter some form of mental illness in our lives, some all encompassing, some apparently trivial. Nothing is trivial, but we can think it is.

I knew all this, but I know it better now I've seen it written down.

I took my own wikibreak a few years ago, and it was for a few years. It coincided with sudden busy-ness in real life, and I think I would not have handled things well had I continued, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A year late, @Timtrent, thanks for appreciating the essay. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 07:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamzin/userboxen/User non-admin someday You finally got there! 😃. JBW (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Sadly I forgot to ask the 'crats to use the userbox. But, for whatever reason I'm back in the saddle now, so maybe next time.

Some say my tenure will end in arbies.
Some say in 'crats.
From what I've tasted of ol' ANNIE.
I hold with those who favor arbies.
But if I had to de-mop twice,
I think I know enough of burnout
To say that for desysop 'crats
Are also great
And would suffice.

(With apologies to Robert Frost.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 16:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, Robert Frost! I read and very much liked his poems back in my youth, but I can scarcely remember anything about them now. The sadness of the passing of time... Sigh... JBW (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sadness of the passing of time ← That's more Proust. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, but I've never read him. JBW (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to talk to you,

And if you forget me,

You will protect us.

I want to smile at you,

And if you remember me,

You will understand me.

I want to sing to you,

And if you will sing with me,

Our harmony will light up our lives.

I want to understand you,

And if only Google would help...

Only it fucking won't.

JBW (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and maybe there's some reason you want all 142 of these conversations here, but if there isn't, maybe do some archiving? They have bots for that, you know. :D Valereee (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Valereee. Your punishment for asking this forbidden question will be getting this whole schpiel in return. Eye (heh) of the beholder as to whether that makes me an agent of the evil eye.

So, when I started to understand my dissociative identity disorder in late 2020, I wound up with a lot of great insights into myself, but also wound up a lot less functional than before. Basically everything I did was on impulse, and it took exceptional energy to plan things out more than a day in advance. In a lot of ways that made life Hell, but that bare-minimum stability meant that I could slowly tug my mental health to where it needed to be, in order for me to be the person my family deserved. And eventually I got to that place, got to create the happy domesticated polycule life I'd dreamt of, but I still was stuck on that 24-hour planning loop.

And so in all that time, about 3 years, responding to messages was the hardest thing. I set a hard rule for myself that any ADMINACCT inquiries got a drop-everything response, because at any slower pace there was no guarantee I'd remember to reply at all. Once something fell off that 24-hour radar, I often forgot about it entirely. Every few months I'd comb through old messages and reply to some, and leave others. But it was always a losing battle.

So, that's the "maybe ... some reason": I've left a lot of messages up because I'd rather respond late than never (and, for ones I've already responded to, or that don't need no response, the same phenomenon's always made it hard to remember to archive/remove). Now, for all my willingness to speak about mental health in the abstract, I generally dislike explaining on-wiki issues with "because mental illness". The reason I'm answering this now is because all of this stopped being true about two weeks ago! And I'm excited about that and wanted to take a moment (at the expense of your reading patience, no doubt) to commemorate it. After three years of figuring out my DID, it turned out that if certain parts of me merged with certain other parts, the result was a combined part with an actual working memory, healthy sleep schedule, and much better disposition. It's pretty awesome! I've spent a lot of the past two weeks doing things like place important phone calls and then get really excited about how I just totally placed that phone call without forgetting for 6 months. On-wiki, I've been working on my "white whale" draft, which I'd wandered away from for the third time in July. (I shan't link. 🪬) And so, this is a fortuitous time for you to remind me about these back messages. I'll try and get to them this week. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, T! Well, first, I'm so happy for you that whatever strategy you've found is working so well that you're feeling a true sense of delight with it! That's great. And second, I get it about needing to keep messages "live" (for want of a better term) in order to prevent yourself from forgetting them. I use my email inbox the same way -- if a message needs responding to but I'm not ready to respond, I remark it as unread. It's not a great solution -- I have messages months old that need responding to. Oops, including an invoice that's probably at least that old, yow. :D At any rate, third, I intended more gentle ribbing than anything else, and apologies for getting into mental health territory with that, it hadn't occurred to me that might be what I was doing. Valereee (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I take no offense, @Valereee. I just enjoyed the chance to give a brief^{[dubious – discuss]} update on where I'm at, since I don't think I've said much on-wiki about that since August. Also thank you for reminding me I need to pay an invoice. (Got to pay for the new solar panels! Very exciting. We'll see if they pay for themselves before '44 repeats itself.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to read this, especially the part about the benefits of your internal M&A. (Who says they're all bad?) You were a great person to chat with when I was regularly in the Discord VC, and I miss those days. Come by WP:WMNYC sometime if you feel up to it! <3 SWinxy (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just assume those with long user/user talk pages are in a contest with @EEng: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have any interest in vetting the History section at User:Valereee/ Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender to remove any stupidity or ignorance on my part? (Any TPS also invited to edit.) Valereee (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I absolutely would have interest, which is why I haven't removed this section for nine months, because I keep expecting to want to look. Empirically, however, it seems I don't have interest. Sorry. Maybe Pretzelles? -- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} 05:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I went ahead and moved it and added the LGBTQ+ studies WikiProject. Someone who knows more than I do will no doubt happen along! Valereee (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please self-revert your latest edit to the MfD or I will be bringing this matter to the ANI for violating WP:NPA. Thank you Durchbruchmüller 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol fuck off. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, would you like to go to ANI and dance that dance, or shall I just block them? Drmies (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sock, Doc? Such a shock. Good block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was fun. Nice alliteration. Do you want to go to that MfD and strike out all their comments? Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have a previously scheduled trepanation that seems much more pleasant. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I'm sorry to hear that. What's for dinner? Drmies (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me, if they do it wrong. Got a 100% discount for agreeing to that. But I trust Fat Sal and his whole team at the auto body shop. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your interesting Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-06-08/Opinion

May I suggest linking your work from PubPeer entry on the academic article in question, to give it more visibility? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I don't have the fight in me for all that, but if you'd like to, by all means! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin Done (I left a comment linking to your piece). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 21 September 2024 (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]

[1] Drmies (talk) 15:40, 19 November 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'd love to work on that cleanup project or start it! pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 14:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin. I came here after seeing your post at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to respond there, so I'm posting here instead. I just listened to your audio essay from when you resigned your admin rights. I was so impressed with it. I thought your reasoning was considered, concise and insightful. The part about the computer game, big circles eating up smaller circles especially hit home with me. Social capital does seem to be prevalent here at Wikipedia, a tiny microcosm of life in general, distilled down to a couple of noticeboards. I'm glad you've decided to go back to admin duties and I hope you can return making the changes we need, no matter how big or small.

If you ever need a change of career, you should think about audio books. Probably inappropriate to say this but what the hell, your voice is so soothing lol.

Good luck, Knitsey (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Knitsey! At some point I'd like to do a whole treatise on the social economics of Wikipedia—for instance, how opposing at RfA is essentially a ritual sacrifice of social capital, while closing a discussion is a gamble, since more social capital lowers the risk of challenge, but a successful challenge costs you a multiple of what you spent. But for now I'm glad the essay gets the general point across.

And I get that a lot about my voice. The secret is that, just like half-baked cookies taste better, doing only half of transfeminine voice training sounds better. :D It's funny you bring that up, though: Yesterday I woke up with a sore throat, and then toward the end of the day found myself suddenly having to console a stranger who was crying, and doing that without my normal voice was like fighting with a hand tied behind my back. Usually I can just say anything and it'll calm someone down. So, uh, if you know anyone looking for audiobook narration with a soothing androgynous voice, sure, hit me up. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social economics and how we calculate trading is definitely something that might interest quite a few people on here. I think a lot of people do it without realising (I include myself somewhat in that) and recognising that trade could help in a change of some behaviours. Or at least give pause for thought.

Transfeminine voice training - I never even thought about that! Now I've gone down the YouTube rabbit hole of voice training when transitioning. I honestly never knew that was a 'thing' but it make complete sense as part of the transitioning process. The thing is, many decades ago whe I started my career it was male dominated and I found that over the first few years, my voice changed so that I didn't stand out as female. I haven't thought about that in years. Knitsey (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mother experienced the same thing as a TV news producer in the '80s. She's naturally a soprano but learned to be a low alto to differentiate herself from the secretaries. That's actually one of a number of masculine traits she picked up in that line of work, which led to the funny situation that if I ever think "What would Mom do?" in a situation and try to act like her, that's literally the only time anyone reads me as a "sir". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably shouldn't have laughed at your 'sir' comment...but I did. The amount of times I would turn up to a job and the look of disappointment because I wasn't the 'hunk' they assumed I was going to be. Much eyerolling and pretending it was still funny to hear that for the umpteenth time. Knitsey (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if any talkpage watchers want an impossible sourcing challenge: A while ago someone made a Wikidata item for my mom. I was going to ask someone to add the fact that she co-won an Emmy in 1990 for CBS' coverage of Hurricane Hugo, but this has proven shockingly difficult to find a source for, even though I've seen the damn statuette. The closest I've come is this article that at least verifies that CBS won for its Hugo coverage, but says neither the name of the category nor the producers who were honored. Searching is complicated by the fact that there are five kinds of Emmy award, awarded by three different academies, and the relevant one here, NATAS, doesn't list old winners on its site, while the ATAS' search engine optimization scoops up a lot of search terms even when they explicitly mention the news Emmys. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Few sourcing challenges are impossible when a procrastinating Wikipedian is on the case: official verification here (bottom of page 1); secondary verification here (bottom of page 446). Very glad to see the BN request, by the way! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll be damned! Ping @AntiCompositeNumber, who's been editing the item. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to blame the Internet Archive outage for me not finding that, even thought it had been mostly fixed by the time Tamzin asked me. Bunch of Wikidata edits done, plus a few added citations here too. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayy, and just like that a 14-year-old {{cn}} vanishes at Kathleen Sullivan (journalist). @AntiCompositeNumber: I'm not even sure it'd be a COI for me to do it since I've never met Sullivan, but at least to avoid an appearance of impropriety, at her article could you change to [[Emmy Award for Outstanding Live Coverage of a Breaking News Event|Outstanding Live Coverage of a Breaking News Event]] to [[Emmy Award for Outstanding General Coverage of a Single Breaking News Story|Outstanding Live Coverage of a Breaking News Event]] per source? The former seems to be something Wikipedia just made up (or more likely, someone wrote out from memory and then someone else "helpfully" linked—haven't checked). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Went with [[Emmy Award for Outstanding General Coverage of a Single Breaking News Story|Outstanding General Coverage of a Single Breaking News Story]]. Maybe in another 14 years someone will decide to write about the News Emmys. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Reading the stuff above about trans voice training and related issues brought to mind four memories from a very long time ago. Of the first two trans women that I knew, back in the 1970s (which will give you some idea as to how old I must be) one of them just spoke in a very deep masculine voice. I got the impression that she hated doing that, but wasn't able to overcome the problem. She very likely had no idea how to; there was, of course, far less information and support available for trans people then than there is now, though already far more than there had been just a few years earlier. The other one spoke in a really forced and artificial falsetto voice, which sounded totally weird. Very likely she too suffered from the same lack of information and support, but dealt with it in a different way. The third and fourth memories that it brought back were being mistaken as female myself, once in my late teens and once in my early twenties. I was not generally regarded as feminine. If anything, the opposite; for example once at school (an all-boys school) a teacher thought that I was unsuited to take a female part in reading a play, because my voice was too masculine. Nevertheless, twice I was misidentified. The first time, the woman who made the mistake realised pretty quickly, and almost died of embarrassment. She apologised repeatedly, evidently thinking what she had done must be really offensive and insulting to me. I tried to explain to her that I wasn't offended at all, but I couldn't persuade her; evidently she just couldn't conceive of a male person who didn't regard being being thought to be female as insulting. However, I had no problem at all in being taken for a girl; there's nothing wrong with being one, so what's wrong with being thought to be one? The second time it happened, I had a conversation for several minutes with a bank clerk who thought I was a woman. I kept expecting her to realise any minute, but she never did. The strange thing is that she was dealing with my bank account, in my name, and my first name is one of the commonest English male first names. I guess she just hadn't noticed it; she just called me. "Mrs" + my surname. Why didn't I correct her? I'm not sure, after all these years, but I rather think it was just because I found it rather amusing.

A bit more on topic for this section, I read your audio essay shortly after your desysopping, and found it very interesting. I was also glad to see your return to the fold. Welcome back. JBW (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: You're sort of scratching the surface of what I wrote at User:Tamzin/Gender—an approach to gender that isn't at all unique to nonbinary or trans people, and in fact was partly inspired by what the cisgender linguist Taylor Jones says in this video essay. For me, if gender is a social construct, then who am I to decide how others construct me? I can do things to my presentation that push the needle in one direction or the other‚ but it's up to another person how to process that raw data. I have an androgynous-to-fem voice and facial features and almost always wear dresses (not because I'm under any impression that most women only wear dresses; I just like dresses), and that means ~100% of people say "she" or occasionally "they", but if someone comes from some cultural background where those things are all coded masculine, and they see me as a "he", very well. Similarly, I've had a few times ever where I was speaking in a particularly assertive way, and someone went with "he", even though everyone else to gender me that day had gone with "she"—and that tells me something interesting about how people see gender. So all I really care is that people are honest with themselves about how they see me, y'know? I know not all nonbinary/trans people see it that way, but that's sorta my galaxy-brain take after a few years of transition. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Something which I intended to mention when I wrote that message, but which somehow got left out, is that now, in a culture where such ideas as "non binary" are fairly well known, I'm sure that it would be far less surprising to encounter a teenage boy who's happy to be taken for a girl than it was then, when probably many people, like the woman I mentioned, would not have been able to conceive of it. However, there must have been a lot of us around, but mostly invisible. JBW (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, my note about pronouns on my user page is vaguely related to this. JBW (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great wording on this. "Low profile" is just the term I was looking for. "Non-notable" (my previous go-to) sounds mean in that context. Joyous! Noise! 23:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joyous!: Thanks! Taken from the wording of WP:BLPNAME and WP:LPI (an imperfect essay that works well enough here). I'm trying to do a cleanup of needless kid-naming in bios... 9 down so far, thousands more to go. See § Interesting for backstory on this. Feel free to join me! I'm starting with the results of this search. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am highly confident that 178.218.129.106 is a VPN server being abused by WP:LTA/BMN123, but before taking the somewhat intrusive step of reverts edits on a user talk page followed by a friendly advisement, I'd prefer someone else double check; frankly it might be better for a sysop to leave the advisement anyway.

As background, BMN123 has a habit of archiving talk page discussions that don't go their way which is to say all of them, and then placing NOINDEX tags on them. As just one example these discussions did not reach the result they wanted so they have been attempting to NOINDEX that page for some time, I suppose so that people are less likely to notice their slow motion edit warring against consensus. This is easily viewable in the page history. All of this is also documented on their LTA page. One of the more recent edits mentions the same user that 178.218.129.106 is attempting to influence. 103.115.17.30 also tried to NOINDEX one of the usual targets, and subsequently created the section 178.218.129.106 added to. The only slightly oddball thing is that 178.218.129.106 has been reused over a longer period than is typical of their non-mainspace use of proxies/VPNs, but that's not enough to cause me to doubt this one.

I think that's enough, but if you have some extra time you can feel free to review the LTA page in full. It's not as compact as say WP:LTA/TVFT, but the detail does serve a purpose and it even got excerpted in the signpost, so there's that. There's actually a lot more that was left off for various reasons, some of which is linked on the LTA talk page (e.g. [2], [3], [4]) along with many pieces that like this old AN discussion, there's other stuff on the LTA talk page too which I've used as a notebook of sorts until there's an edit request worth making, but it's a pretty deep rabbit hole, and I don't think you need to good down all of it to make the connection here.

Sorry to trouble you with this. Sideswipe9th was always the best at sniffing them out and is the first person I would think to ask, but their currently on wikibreak. Softlemonades and GeneralNotability were also at least as good as me, but they're not active either. I know you've managed to follow some incredible faint and confusing scent trails before so I trust your judgement on this.

If you need to follow-up I might be able too, but I really need to put my nose back to the grindstone soon, and the best way to avoid Wikipedia distraction is to go cold turkey, so we'll see. Thanks for any assistance you can render. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:07, 30 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]

(talk page watcher) @JBW: I'd be interested in reading those thoughts. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 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: MY BROTHER! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 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]

Some of us are much more approachable than others. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 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.

So it's nice to see someone expressing the same ideas and others agreeing with them. It gives me a little more hope. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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.

Well, there's a few more samples of my thoughts on this. Sigh... 😕 JBW (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure when you picked up the tools again, and you probably remember my initial reservations. But noticing the change, I just want to say thank you for what you do, and welcome back. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 I wish you will soon return to SPI too. Maliner (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Hamsa for you
	I am very happy to see you back. This Hamsa from Morocco will protect you from evil's eye. 👀 Maliner (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For awesome, saint-like patience above and beyond the call of awesomeness in dealing with Butternutsquash911 bruh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the latest request . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's sure... somethin'. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never a clerk around when you need one.😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like being Southron. You get to say things a little bit different. Though living down here amongst all these Yankees, I've lost my accent. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I've been thinking a lot lately about Southernness. I've never lived in what most people think of as the South, but I would say I'm culturally southern—Dad was from a D.C.-based Louisiana Creole family, Mom grew up in New York but moved to Atlanta at 17. I've been realizing just how much my adherence to pretty basic parts of Southern etiquette causes unSouthern people to read me very differently than how I come across to Southerners. For instance, I never hesitate to offer someone a few nights to a week in my guest room, and to me this is just good manners, like the sort of thing you'd literally offer a stranger, but to Northerners it's apparently a whole thing. My mom ran into a similar problem trying to cook red beans and rice for 40 people, who couldn't fathom someone just doing that like it was nothing.

I feel like there's some connection to your and my adminning style here, but it's left as an exercise to the reader. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gentility. aka good manners. aka proper upbringing. Our moms should be proud -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could he have been Joe-jobbed? Meh? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

told 'm to email the checkusers -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin. I saw your edit summary for declining my U5 nom for the userpage of Elle.Campbell. I did it because it's a copy of the mainspace article Prachin Buri radiation incident, so I believed it qualified because of WP:COPIES. Otherwise I would have draftified it - was I too quick to pull the trigger? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Drm310: They might have copied it there to work on it. Maybe sandboxing it would have been better. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one's tough because it had already been moved back to the userpage, so technically speaking draftifying wouldn't have been the usual deletion-avoiding mercy but actually a redraftification. I wouldn't have U5'd it either, but I guess I'd have been stuck with moving it to a user subpage to try to keep future U5-taggers away. -- asilvering (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310: If I'd realized, at time of declining, that the page was a copy, I probably wouldn't have declined with such strong language, but I still would have declined, because a copy of an article is still generally a plausible draft for the purposes of WP:U5. The solution I took in the end of blanking was actually probably not correct either, since I'd missed that the userpage-copying came after the mainspace edit, not before, but it's still there in the history if the user wants to restore, so I'll leave as is for now.

@Asilvering: As to draftifying, you may be interested in a new template I made the other day, {{Draftified userpage}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I like it. I will probably forget about it unless it's integrated into the draftify script I use, because I am lazy like that. Probably needs an informational link in "user subpage", since I doubt most people drafting on their userpage have any idea what that means. Not sure a link would help that sort of editor either, but at least we could say we'd done due diligence. -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked "subpage" to WP:SUB. I could've linked to WP:UP instead, but I think SUB is the more relevant page. --rchard2scout (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best unblock request ever -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well uh. For their sake, I'm hoping that's an impostor. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Lavish_Looks_Salon
• User talk:Lavish Looks
• @JBW:

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I mean, there's a good chance they wanted to do something G11able, but they didn't get the chance to, and there's no such thing as inchoate G11, so, I'd decline. As to the block, I would've softblocked, as there don't appear to be promotional edits (CC Rsjaffe). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking, too. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"without form and void". -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn’t see that draft as being anything other than the start of a promo page, which was my thought when doing the hard block. On the other hand, I can see your reasoning behind doing a soft block instead, particularly with their COI statement. Probably the best course of action would have been to do nothing until their edits more clearly defined their intentions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe My usual approach for promotional usernames is:

1. Edits comply with WP:COI or at least make a good-faith effort to do so: Warn, monitor, block later if necessary
2. Edits violate WP:COI, but aren't outright spam: Softblock
3. Overt promotion/spam: Hardblock

(There's also a zeroth category here of "Username looks promotional but there's no COI edits", to which the answer is "do nothing".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, I’m going to use your {{Draftified userpage}} template, if that’s ok. I’ve been rescuing U5’d userpages that are misplaced apparent attempts at articles and this’ll help. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, that's why I made it! I've been meaning to advertise it more but hadn't gotten around to it yet. May also be of interest to @Deepfriedokra, @Rsjaffe, and @Clovermoss. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This brings up several opinions of mine about administrators' approaches to people who come here to promote their businesses. If any of you don't like this wall of text, then don't blame me, blame Deepfriedokra: he's the one who pinged me here. Also ping Rsjaffe.

1. Suppose that we decide that an editor's username is unacceptable because it's the name of a business, but we don't see their editing as problematic, so we choose to let them continue editing under a new username. I have never been able to understand the thinking behind achieving that aim by blocking and telling the editor they can create a new account. We are obviously dealing with someone who has created an account with an unacceptable username in perfectly good faith, unaware of the username policy. Therefore, if we intend to let them continue editing, why not just explain to them, in a friendly way, that their username isn't acceptable, and they can edit with a new one? Why BITE them by throwing a block in their face without any warning? There are administrators who refuse at AIV to block unambiguous bad faith vandals because they haven't been warned, or even because they've only been warned once or twice, but who will throw an immediate block, without warning, at a good faith editor who had no reason to think there was anything wrong with what they were doing, when all that us needed is to ask them to change their username. Why? Why?
2. Now let's add a further feature to that situation. Although their editing has not so far been problematic, we think it looks as though there may be problems to come. To me, it seems obvious that it makes sense to keep a watch on their editing, so that if there are problems we can step in, whether in the form of giving a gentle warning, or a stern warning, or a block, as the circumstances warrant. If we either give a warning about the user name and suggest a change of username, or block without the option of creating a new account but with the option of a rename and unblock, then it's easy to keep a watch on their editing. If, however, we block with a message suggesting they create a new account, then keeping a watch on their editing will be more difficult, or even impossible, because we have no way of knowing what new username they choose. So why do so many administrators so often go for the one option which makes it difficult to monitor the situation? As I see it, either of the other two options is arguably a reasonable possibility, but that one isn't.
3. If you have read the two paragraphs above, you will realise that I am not keen on immediate blocks of good faith editors who have unwittingly violated the "spamusername" requirements. Nevertheless, I frequently do it. That is because in my early time as an administrator I found that if I gave a friendly warning, much more often than not another administrator would soon be along with an inappropriate block and often a totally inappropriate block message, so I decided, very reluctantly, that a less unreasonable block was the lesser of two evils. Some of the blocks were, in my opinion, much worse than those I have already mentioned. The following situation was really common. A new account would appear, named "BlenkinsopWidgetCompany", and would create a user page or a draft telling us in glowing terms how the Blenkinsop Widget Company provides its clients with unique solutions by leveraging their skills... etc etc. So an administrator would block the account, telling them that "the only reason for the block is your username." Please note the word "only". So the editor would request and receive an unblock and would then carry on editing in the same way as before, only to be blocked again. Alternatively an administrator with more sense than the one who placed the block would decline the unblock request because of the promotional editing. Either way, the editor was now blocked for something which a Wikipedia administrator had explicitly told them was not a reason for being being blocked, but which obviously was. I'm sure there are even worse ways of biting a new editor, but that one is pretty high up the scale. That particular type of idiocy is much less common than it was, but it illustrates the kind of reasons why I decided that a less bad block is often a better choice than sitting back and letting someone else make a worse block.
4. I have never been a fan of the interpretation of the policy on promotional editing that even if it's obvious that a page has been created for promotional purposes, we can't treat it as promotional unless it reads totally like blatant marketing copy. Wikipedia's policy on promotional editing is, basically, "don't edit for promotion", not "don't edit for promotion in ways which immediately hit the reader in the eye as promotional". I would not have deleted the page in this case, but that's because I'm a wimp, and find it very stressful and unpleasant to be the subject of concerted criticism from a whole bunch of people who hold to a different intetpretation. If someone else, with a more robust personality than mine, is willing to go ahead and delete a page on the grounds that it obviously exists only for promotional purposes, then I totally applaud them for doing so.

My conclusion from all this is that there is no perfect way of dealing with this situation, but there is no alternative to what was done which would have been unambiguously better, and several other possibilities would have been unambiguoisly worse. JBW (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the koan of promotional user names. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I have in the past, left them a COIUSERNAME warning. For the most part, I get no response. In the past, they would sometimes be blocked despite my attempt to discuss. Perhaps, due to recent events, it will be less of a problem -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel @Just Step Sideways: might be able to contricute to discussion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point I resonate with the most here is that our treatment of potentially promotional editors is based too much on appearances and not enough on whether their edits tend to improve the encyclopedia. I declined G11 on a userdraft the other day that had a fair bit of puffery about how important some guy was—but also was clearly a reasonable attempt at an encyclopedia article on someone marginally notable, where the puffery was more like what you put in a college paper to show why your chosen topic is important, rather than trying to sell anything someone. So I cleaned it up a bit, and someone from WikiEd (no surprise there) cleaned it up a bit more, and now we have an encyclopedia article that we didn't before.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have very little patience for anyone being paid to edit who can't do their job well. If I'm having to hold someone's hand through the disclosure steps, while they churn out poorly-written and/or AI-generated SEO garbage, well, I care a lot more about the fact that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia than the fact that their articles might not meet G11. Not that I'll delete the article out of process. My point is just we AGF in all the wrong places. User:AcmeWidgets gets blocked for updating the new CEO; User:GenericUsername gets to make several articles about nobody businessmen before someone finally acknowledges the obvious that no unpaid editor joins Wikipedia to write about the CFO of an obscure tech startup. We just need to think more about why a person is editing, and whether it is going to get us net-positive encyclopedic content. That involves being more lenient in some places and stricter in others. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see Jimfbleak has deleted the draft that started this conversation. Procedurally that's incorrect, since I'd already declined it, but it doesn't benefit Wikipedia in any way to contest that, so I won't. I don't entirely disagree with you, @JBW, in your positive view of deleting in such a situation, but I wish we as a community would handle cases like this by adapting the CSD policy, not by having admins push or exceed the limits of what's canon. In a case like this, I think a CSD D1 for something like "Drafts for a topic that would be covered by CSD A7, A9, or A11 in mainspace, with no prose content other than a statement that the subject exists" would fill a significant gap and avoid this tug-of-war between "Not G11 so don't delete" and "Unencyclopedic and likely meant to be promotional, so delete". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working around these issues long enough to have gone ahead and developed a rough guide to how I determine what to do. If the wind is indeed shifting on no-warning ORGNAME blocks I'd certainly be willing to alter my approach as well. I do think that more often than not, these are just people who don't really get what WP is and how it works, as opposed to malicious spammers. As you can see from the guide I do draw a distinction between drafting a spammy article and actually spamming in article space, one is obviously more harmful than the other. And I have also had the past experience of certain admins coming in later and blocking anyway, which may have had some impact on how I tend to do it now. It's kind of a shame that that was allowed to go on for so long.

However I would also note the history here, what we used to do in some cases was drop the discussion template on their talk pages, and then move the report to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Holding pen, hypothetically each report there would be re-reviewed a week later, but in practice they were not. There were times when I was the only admin working on it at all. About six years ago we went ahead and closed it [5].

When I reply to a report that it is worth watching their edits, I intend that to mean that the reporting user should do so. There's way too many reports to realistically watch them all. I just cleaned up my watchlist and the bulk of it was names I put on there back before times watchlisting was a thing, just hundreds and hundreds of them, and they never popped up on my actual watchlist because they never edited again.

When was the last time we had a thorough review of the username policy and how we interpret it? It may have been Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC which was just over a decade ago. Maybe it's time? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Since this sort of thing was already under discussion, thought I'd alert those still watching this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"a fucking bad look" could become a catchphrase after that close, good work. CNC (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it is also a "bad look" to inject passion and supervoting into closes. I would have preferred a factual summary of the discussion with a less emotional tone. I won't close challenge this, but this is not the style of closing I am used to for RFCs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: There is a really bleak irony in an admin complaining about an observation that there is a disconnect between admins and non-admins on admin accountability, in response to a non-admin's positive reaction. I expected to get that kind of pushback from somebody or other, but not from someone who's generally a good, down-to-Earth admin, which you are, so this is at once surprising and disheartening. You're much more the sort of person I'd expect to take this close as a charge to go forth and work on bridging that gap, getting both sides of the divide to better understand the institutional perspectives of the other.

If you do have any questions about the merits of the close, feel free to ask. I always have more to say than I put in a close. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just would have preferred a close that didn't rebuke the other side so much, since I think the position I took in that RFC (of wanting to reduce toxicity in admin areas, which I'd argue is in alignment with the goals of WP:RFA2024) is reasonable. I think the usual advice for RFC closing is that passionate statements should go in RFC comments rather than RFC closes. But I think I've gotten my point across, so I will keep this short. It's nothing personal, but I did want to (hopefully gently) plant this seed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Random unsolicited opinion: I think if a closer wants to give their opinion on some related matter at the end of a closing statement, that's fine, as long as it's clear what they are doing. Closers are often in a good position to give fresh insights; I've done that many times before, and I know I'm not the only one. That said, I agree that it's odd for a closer to chide a group of participants in a discussion for something that's not a behavioral problem. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of your biggest fans, and I thought the expletive was unnecessary, and certainly undercut the seriousness and relative precision of your close. BusterD (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, you made this comment at ANI. I noticed Special:Contributions/Onüç Kahraman yesterday too. That user did turn out to be socking, but your initial {{uw-softerblock}} didn't really make sense, as Onüç Kahraman is a film that came out in 1943, not something subject to any ongoing promotion.

I'm replying here because this seems peripheral to the main issue there regarding my obvious misblock. The account wasn't promoting, so no grounds for a hard block, but I've assumed until now that any account that is the name of a business or product (like a film) should be soft blocked. So if there's an account User:Bloggs Widgets Ltd, I would soft block even if the company had ceased trading. Doesn't happen often, doesn't stop the editor creating a new account, and I've not been challenged on defunct companies/products before, so I'd welcome clarification on why you think it's against policy. I'm not making an issue of this, just asking, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: WP:ORGNAME applies to the name of a company, organization, website, product, musical group or band, team, club, creative group, or organized event. I guess you could call a film a product, but it's quite a stretch if you ask me. If the account were representing itself as the film's production company or rightsholder, that would fall under company or organization; and if it were trying to sell DVDs then that's film-qua-product; but by default, I would think of a reference to a film's name as being about a creative work. I'm happy to request clarification at WT:UPOL, but I feel like, if ORGNAME included creative works, it would say "creative work". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, makes sense, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events have brought me to return to an idea I've tinkered with on and off since last September: completely overhauling the unblock system. I'm now ready to unveil User:Tamzin/wild ideas/Unsucking unblocks and begin workshopping it. Pings to @Deepfriedokra, JBW, Beeblebrox, Elli, theleekycauldron, Asilvering, Significa liberdade, Chaotic Enby, and MJL. Feedback welcome on the draft's talk page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for alerting me of the problem with my mass importation yesterday. I'm quite new to this whole importing thing and probably would not have learned this quite basic fact without your help. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello yestarday i oublished an article about my gradnfather. who was a shipowner and you deleted it. And they told me to speak to you. Cmadq12 (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmadq12: Your userpage was about Nikos Sakellariou (born 1924)[,] a Greek shipowner and maritime entrepreneur who rose to prominence in the mid-20th century. I cannot find anything on Google about a shipowner of that name. I tried adding search terms related to his year of birth, his place of business, and his wife, and still could not find anything. And I cannot find a single result for "Sakellariou Shipping Lines". If I was wrong, and this is a real person, I'll restore the draft with sincere apologies, but could you please show me some source that verifies that the person you wrote about exists? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of you, thanks for everything this year. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

★Trekker (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Tamzin, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tamzin: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tamzin: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy holidays!
	Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article End Poem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:End Poem for comments about the article, and Talk:End Poem/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pokelego999 -- Pokelego999 (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a chain in the U.S. Aren't we trying to be encyclopedic and current? thanks Shelter3 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). 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) 00:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, since you seem to be around, would you (or one of your talk page watchers) mind quickly undeleting Greek language/Lexicon for me? Just for the page move history of a very old page indeed. I'll fix the redirect if you want. And also Talk:List of Greek words with English derivatives., since the article history has been undeleted. Similar deletions around that time are probably not so critical. Graham87 (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Done. I see there's still 2,800 deleted revisions of List of Greek words with English derivatives · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions], but also see 400 were restored in the past, so I'm not sure what the deal is there. (Might check later, but doing other things right now.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know only part of the article history was restored ... I imagine there were replication lag issues and the rest can safely be restored several hundred revisions at a time. Graham87 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't see any pattern to what was restored and what wasn't, so I'm assuming a software issue, but I wouldn't want to restore it all and find out there's some nuance I'm missing. @BD2412, is there any reason for the selective restore there, or is it just a glitch? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly have no memory of this, as it was over six years ago, but I think that given the size it would not have been possible to restore the history all at once, so I suspect that I was doing it piecemeal and gave up due to the arduousness of the task. BD2412 T 05:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, think I've got that sorted. :) Thanks! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks, sounds good! Yeah that relatively new feature of paging by 500 deleted revisions is handy in this case ... Graham87 (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you'd be interested in reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans? I've worked on like three articles that are orca-adjacent and it's made me wish the wikiproject was active. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: That's a lovely idea, and I'd love to work on some cetacean-related content someday. Cetacean Community v. Bush is on my todo list, but I think I've put it off because it makes me sad. But I'm afraid I've never been much of a WikiProject person. If you do get it off the ground, happy to add my name, but not sure I'd be of much other use. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My approach to wikiprojects has mostly been talk about them and everybody works on what interests them. I've managed to coax WP:JW into a more semi-active state so if the cetaceans one becomes "semi-active" instead of inactive, I'd be happy. All you really need is at least two people who watch the talk pages and edit stuff in the topic area sometimes. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking up the mop again. I knew you had your reasons for resigning the tools, and I didn't question them, but at the same time I hoped that one day you would come back to the admin corps, because you are in my opinion an unqualified asset to it. Only recently did I see that that day had come and I had somehow missed it. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a plural system (We do NOT have DID/OSDD, rather due to events there were splits). We have severe MDD, level 1 autism, and anxiety. We are also Jewish and LGBTQ+ as well! Anyway, we read your essay on editors with mental illness. You are what every editor should strive to be. The compassion you showed is unmatched- and Wikipedia needs a lot of that! We just wanted to give you a BIG thanks- you are truly awesome. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 20:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @3OpenEyes! I try. :) It's interesting, in the past few months I've gotten... Well, "less plural" sounds wrong to say, because that's sort of a binary attribute, and I'm definitely still plural in some sense... But I guess, no longer meaningfully multiple (from within the framework where multiplicity is a subset of plurality rather than a synonym), and that's been a strange thing to adjust to. I've thought about adjusting the tenses on any of the userspace pages I have that reference multiplicity, but I don't want it to seem like I'm turning my back on that community, or disavowing what was a really important part of my past and still remains, to a degree, a part of my present. So if my writings are still speaking to people, great!

The psychiatric establishment's fixation on normativity causes it to blur the lines between things that are fundamental parts of ourselves, and things that are problems we should fix. I've learned a lot, in the past few years but especially since system ~merger, about the difference between those two things. To me, victory is when one can stop saying things in terms of diagnostic codes, and instead in terms of "This is the way I am", even if it's a strange way. I wish you the best of luck in finding that. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence hit hard. We have been mistreated by psychiatric practitioners (which cannot be stated on Wikipedia) and we have been trying to accomplish that. You have contributed so much, at this point Wikipedia owes you. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 20:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly concerned at the potential dragging of the OP and typed that up very quickly. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 07:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for sure. I just didn't want to waste the joke now that I had it written out. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the joke, good humor. You made my day great. Cheers. :) ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That joke was good indeed, but you should be blocked because jokes have no place on Wikipedia.<ref>you</ref> The AP (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because jokes have no place on wikipedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Six months in the content mines for you! whip crack theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, @Claudia, you have no idea what you've just done. It's just now become set: The first person to block me on enwiki was Coren. Very shortly thereafter, he was elected to ArbCom. The next person to block me (on my alt that time) was HJ Mitchell. He ran for ArbCom a year or two later, and was elected. So that's a 100% correlation. Now, I know that on January 6 of your first term, the idea of a guaranteed reelection sounds like a blessing, not a curse, but... well let's check in in a year. Or after PIA5 closes. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

noted! 'scuse me while i snag intadmin perms so i can make you go block yourself theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that one hundred percent of people who conflate correlation and causation eventually die? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 08:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a match doesn't have a record attendance, it's not a reasonable link. And yeah, I'm not a fan of the user, but I also think their edits suck. Kingsif (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reliable sources that the match had record attendance, no? It is mentioned in the linked list, fourth entry in List of women's association football attendance records § Intracontinental tournaments. I don't know what's going on with you right now, @Kingsif, but you're being extremely hostile to two new users over what seems to be, at worst, a good-faith effort at writing about a not-quite-notable-enough topic. WP:BITE is a guideline. WP:OVERTAG is an established principle. Not reverting CSD declines is policy. WP:NPA is policy. And yet you're acting as if you're above all of these. You've done your bit here, which is to AfD the article and let the community either improve it or delete it. I would suggest stepping back now. And if you can't interact with these new users without being hostile, levying unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry, and questioning their English proficiency (for someone who writes in fluent, idiomatic English), then you should not interact with them at all. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know me, I have near endless patience for users of any experience who want to contribute and just need a bit of direction, but I have near zero patience for apparent newbies (though that article creator has had myriad problems for over a year, they're not a new user and haven't bothered to learn) whose combination of attitude and skills is suspicious to the point that, at best, we've gained a new editor who thinks they know everything and don't want to collaborate. Yeah, at that point I will criticise everything that can be criticised. Kingsif (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't clear enough, I was being less hostile to the newbie than they were to me, so message received on my part as an experienced editor, but I got my resolution to not be a doormat in early. If I'm getting unprovoked scathing messages, I'm not gonna handle them with kid gloves. Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boneghazi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one Tumblr user cursed another for stealing bones for use in curses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boneghazi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Boneghazi), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,921 views (660.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

story · music · places

Thank you! Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had it). My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Heritage_Foundation_intending_to_"identify_and_target"_editors might be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Reviewer's NPP Barnstar Award
		This award is given in recognition to Tamzin for conducting 302 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did??? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Okay, this has been nagging at me. How? Like, this is a glitch, right? But what? The number is too high for this to be my actual count, but too low for it to be the count of pages reviewed by 'zinbot and since deleted such that their redir/article status is unclear. Is it maybe all redirs reviewed by 'zinbot that have since been turned into articles or DABs? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, I should have been more thorough in my review before handing this out. I looked over the quarry query and this number matches 'zinbot. I had specified aimed to exclude bots, but it seems like I only did so for the redirects portion. As I'm sure you've noticed, when redirects are marked with an RfD tag they're no longer considered articles, and the reviews count as article reviews. I believe this ended up, possibly, counting all the redirects that were reviewed and actually resulted in deletion. Interesting... Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that template has not been invested with the arcane power to actually make someone aware of CTOPs (yet). I'm hoping to address that after arbpia5 is wrapped up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I think you missed the bit at the bottom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sure did! I wonder what the Arbcom consensus on collapsed alerts would be? That's good enough for me at this point, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boneghazi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin! Just wanted to start off saying I don't want this message to come off in a combative way, because whenever I've seen you around I've appreciated your inputs and thoughts on topics. I've been mulling over whether to even send this message, and I've redrafted it a few times, because from your last message on the AN/I post, I feel like my actions annoyed you, and I want to make sure that I don't do that again, because I value your views on these kinds of areas (which is why I attempted to go you directly first, instead of AN/I!). I originally posted a similar message on Liz's talk page to get a third party view, but as an arbcom member I appreciate her time is likely better used elsewhere and so is unlikely to reply, so I've come to talk to you, somewhat anxiously, about this instead. I'm genuinely trying to discuss the close of the AN/I, and I hope this isn't interpreted as the kind of personal attack described at the AN/I filing closure. I think the difference in interpretation about the SPI comment has come from a misunderstanding, that I'm trying to (hopefully?) make clearer here.

I have been thinking about your recent closure of the AN/I I filed, and while I understand your stand point, I think it may have come from a point where one (or maybe both?) of us misinterpreted a not very clear comment from Sro23. From my view, I'm fairly certain that the comment from Sro23 ("StrexcorpEmployee behaves differently from previous sockpuppets, and this sockmaster has a known history of joe jobs") is a reference to the preceding clerk notice about merging the SPI about StrexcorpEmployee with the SPI about Heres The Dealio - not about clearing any connection between the two accounts I mentioned at ANI. The comment I linked (which was the basis for saying "likely sock puppet") shows evidence that one account created United Rapes, Bush Dick Incident, voted in a CTOP discussion and made POV edits on Reunification Day, while the other created American Rapes, Bush dick fiasco, voted in the same CTOP discussion and also made similar POV edits on Reunification Day. I understand that making false claims about sockpuppetry can be a personal attack, and agree with the principle, but I think in this case saying "likely" sockpuppet, given the evidence, is well within the remit of WP:DUCK, especially at WP:ANI which is specifically the area to discuss editor conduct. If a CU had said explicitly that these two accounts weren't connected, I wouldn't have mentioned it - I read Sro23's comment and interpreted it (possibly incorrectly, but definitely in good faith) that they were not weighing in on the connection between those specific accounts.

I understand if you don't want to, and won't pursue it further if you disagree, but I was hoping that you could reconsider the formal warning included in the ANI closure, as I don't think my comments amounted to personal attacks, they were just intended to be reasonable further detail to a standard ANI filing. I'll defer to your judgement on this, and won't bug you further about this, and will take your comments in the ANI closure on board either way. Apologies for the long message, and thanks for reading it through. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bugghost: I have no doubt that this was a good-faith error, but I don't think it was a reasonable error, nor one that made sense to repeat so many times (continuing even now). Let's break this down:

• 2022-10-05:
  • Thryduulf files an SPI against SE, citing two users' creation of Bush Dick Affair and Bush Dick Happening, after SE's creating of Bush Dick Incident
  • RoySmith connects the two sox to each other, but not to SE
  • Spicy ties them back to HTD and requests a case merge, concurring that SE is unrelated
• 2024-06-12: 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00::/64 files a second SPI against SE, based on Special:PageHistory/Occupied Korea and a shared distinctive phrase
• 2024-06-23: JJMC89 merges the case to HTD on a request from Bbb23
• 2024-07-24: The IP mentions Smackarea as another possible sock
• 2024-07-25: Sro writes "StrexcorpEmployee behaves differently from previous sockpuppets, and this sockmaster has a known history of joe jobs", in closing the case without any action.

It occurs to me that maybe you are unfamiliar with the concept of joe-jobbing? Joe job explains the general usage, but in wikispeak, it refers to creating a sock who is meant to look like the sock of some third party. For instance, if I wanted to joe-job you, I could look through your contribs for some times that you've been reverted, and then restore those edits, with edit summaries containing words that you distinctively use. You can imagine how frustrating that would be, especially if it led you to be falsely accused of sockpuppetry twice... You might even be tempted to call the person doing it a creep or a stalker, no? Anyways, once someone is known to be a joe-jobber's target, no sock will ever be a DUCK as theirs; there will always be two suspects. And an SPI clerk pointing to a history of joe jobs when closing without action is absolutely, 100% them saying that the person was not socking with any of the alleged accounts. Even if Sro hadn't said that, the close would have still been more or less an exoneration: If for some reason an SPI clerk chooses to close a case without action while still harboring suspicions of sockpuppetry, they will generally note this.

I'll readily believe that you misread some part of this sequence of events, or didn't know what joe-jobbing is, or didn't understand what it means for an SPI clerk to close without action. I don't intend to rescind my warning, though. Sockpuppetry accusations are a serious thing, and I have seen people get blocked before because an admin fell for a joe-job. (To be clear, not saying that's what happened here, because Beebs' block was for something unrelated; just explaining why I take this so seriously.) You have a duty, when making a sockpuppetry accusation, to get the facts right. Yes, reasonable mistakes of fact can happen. I do not see this as one of them; Sro's meaning was quite clear, even if you misunderstood it for one reason or another.

I appreciate you reaching out to me over this, though, Bugghost. I get that you don't want to be in this situation again. I hope I've given you some guidance on how to avoid this specific mistake, and maybe also on the general importance of being willing to back down when someone who has more experience at something says you're misunderstanding. (And yes, of course, sometimes the more experienced person has it wrong. But it's good to at least stop and reconsider from first principles in such a case.) And I'm not annoyed with you. I take a somewhat severe tone in warnings because that's sort of how you have to write warnings... Actually, if you see me writing a chattier or friendlier warning, that's usually a bad sign for the person on the receiving end, because I really only do that as a "cards on the table" thing when I'm inches away from blocking someone. No, I just care about people not making false accusations of sockpuppetry. I was an SPI clerk for three years and made hundreds of sockblocks; I understand the great deference most of this community gives SPI when it comes to blocking decisions, and in my view the flipside of that is that we need to be very strict about reckless or negligent accusations of socking, or else that social contract is broken. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin - thanks for the detailed reply, I really appreciate it. You're right that I was unfamiliar with the concept of Joe-jobs, and with that in mind it puts the whole thing into a different perspective and can now see where the confusion came from, sorry about that (to both you and StrexcorpEmployee). I'll take the warning on the chin and will take your comments on board. Thanks again for clarifying here, because I was confused about your responses at ANI and this now makes much more sense. BugGhost 🦗👻 10:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's indeed spelled "lede." The AP (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what the heck is the "evil eye"? Much wikieditor (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayin hara. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear Much wikieditor (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and I do sincerely respect you a lot, I don’t really like or get your argument that I am a bad user because I have controversial opinions on conlang projects, which I have stopped pushing because I know there’s no point. I also don’t like your assertion that I was in the wrong for removing a user blatantly insulting me. Basically it seems like everyone else gets to ignore all rules, except me; everyone else gets edgy opinions that break longstanding consensus, except me; and everyone else can get away with incivility, except me. Dronebogus (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: I'm sure you're a lovely person IRL. The hard truth is I don't think you're a good fit for this collaborative project. There isn't really a way to sugarcoat that. I'm not going to be the one to propose a CBAN, but that's where I'm at personally. I get that that's probably an unsatisfying answer from where you stand, but it's all I've got. (N.B.: Feverish and sleepy, maybe not at my most eloquent.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it’s because I’m on the autistic spectrum and don’t get the fact that half the “rules” of Wikimedia are unwritten. But I also think that’s dust a problem in general, the “Schrödinger’s rules” doublethink. That and the inconsistent application of WP:CIVIL Dronebogus (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is a relatively high-context culture created by a bunch of people whose neurotypes largely don't function well in high-context culture, who thus created a lattice of rules that provides a low-context mirage, amounting to something comparable to sending a person through England armed with only English as She Is Spoke. A good observation, and also one I can't proffer any solution for. I'll say that if I ever get tokwiki approved, my goal is for it to have only one policy page, o pona ('be good'). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But my problem is Toki Pona is a relatively high-context language. The interpretation of O pona probably carries quite a lot of nuance itself! Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) To editor Tamzin: "Ah! I will not buy this tobacconist. It is scratched." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) "I am afraid we are out of badgers. Would you accept a woolvereene in its place?" Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Oh for sure. My thinking is that an approach like that would at least be honest with people that they're in a high-context community. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:40, 24 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 Gough The universe. BarntToust 18:32, 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. BarntToust 20:35, 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 my. Hoping you recover swiftly. BarntToust 21:38, 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! BarntToust 21:46, 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?"

— Edgar Allan Poe, "A Dream Within a Dream" (1849) BarntToust 00:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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! BarntToust 12:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a case where filter 1199 probably should have been stricter: Close to 100 edits on the same page in eight minutes, only about a third of them were blocked by the filter. (Disclaimer: I'm a software developer, but I know nothing about Wikipedia filters. I guess it's not easy to tune this filter. Just wanted to let you know of this case.) — Chrisahn (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chrisahn. Thanks for inquiring. That's a log-only filter, apart from the period of a few hours in 2023 that I set it to block edits due to an emergency. By design, it only flags edits past the 10th in a 300-second span, which means essentially 10 "free" unflagged edits after any lull. This works fine in practice, because as long as some of them are lighting up the filter hits, that lets patrollers and admins know to do something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought the filter blocked edits. I guess I overlooked the words "Actions taken: none" in the filter log, although they're quite clear. :-) Thanks for the explanation! — Chrisahn (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article LGBTQ synagogue, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that LGBTQ synagogues helped shape the American Jewish response to AIDS in the 1980s, even as the disease killed many of their members? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/LGBTQ synagogue. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, LGBTQ synagogue), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tamzin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Washingtonian, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My question was only answered by Kusma (they provided the "something key" I was missing), while it would have been great for it to be answered earlier it wasn't... So the characterization of wikilawyering is just not accurate. Please revise, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna ask you something. If an admin, having closed a thread with a note to you to find something better to do, sees the orange bar of doom and thinks, "Sigh... I know what that's going to be", is that a reputation you want to have as an editor? Definitely not a reputation I'd want. You're... arguing the semantics of whether what you did was wikilawyering? Seriously, man? Think about that for a second. You shouldn't need four admins' help to read the policy that you're citing. I'll say it again: Go do something useful.

I've clarified WP:ISU, though, to bring it in line with what ORGNAME already says—although I'd argue that it should always have been read as a back-reference to that section. Either way, hopefully that will avoid future misunderstandings. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This just feels bitey, maybe this was obvious if you've been around forever and know the context but I didn't (for example I've never heard that called an "orange bar of doom" before, it literally sparked nothing in me besides "Oh Tamzin misunderstands what happened but is normally super nice, let me drop them a line"). Thank you for clarifying ISU, if that was the wording originally I wouldn't have asked the question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor a point but I even misunderstood what you meant by "orange bar of doom" as it seems to have gone out of style in 2013 or so[6]. I thought you were referencing the color of the closure bar because it is literally gibberish to someone who doesn't have experience with archaic versions of wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's still an orange bar in Echo. It's just smaller. But I apologize if my meaning was unclear. Anyways. WP:BITE is about newbies. I try very hard to follow it. I make no promise not to tell experienced users when they're being obnoxious. That was sort of my deal with myself when I came back to adminship. No more playing the game of social capital. Just shooting straight, and if people like what they hear, good, and if they don't like what they hear, fine. You haven't liked what you heard here. That's your right. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell you that you need to listen to my criticism because I'm definitely right. Maybe I'm the one being obnoxious. I dunno. All I can do—all I will do—is call 'em as I see 'em. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever had a red bell and a blue inbox (neither of which I think of as negative, its almost always a good thing), newbie is relative when it comes to stuff that happened 10-20 years ago... Anyways glad to see that other people also think that the changes you made to ISU are an improvement, a concrete positive refinement to policy ironically makes this whole discussion very productive. Imagine that, we were doing something useful all along. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin, I've taken your invitation to your talk page as being broadly constructed, so here I am. As the mastermind behind the balanced editing sceheme (excuse the crude language, I'll refer to it as a scheme until put into use) is it possible to see any data on balanced and unbalanced editors, more generally? I don't know if this would need to be discussed elsewhere prior to making public etc, but a list of the most active users and how balanced or unbalanced their editing is in certain CTOPs would be interesting/useful if I'm honest. Even if only for personal interest based on my own editing habits for example. Maybe even just a search function integrated somewhere, somehow? At least if I remember correctly, you had some form of prototype in action, but I cba to find it again tbh. CNC (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I think this might have something to with one of my recent post, thank you for your clarification, it's most appreciated. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Boneghazi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boneghazi for comments about the article, and Talk:Boneghazi/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is Scorpions1325/6 commenting. I am the one who brought up your comment about Trump supporters at the Vami IV RFA. Had I known what Trump would have done in less than a month of his second term, I would have never opposed you at your RFA. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One time I voted almost the opposite. Polygnotus (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]