User talk:Tamzin/Archive/7

A comment

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

Could you please open this SPI?

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

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

Some example edits would be [1], [2], and [3]. All of these accounts seem to like to go onto the talk pages of prominent users and post long streams of bad fiction text, often with headings consisting of combinations of the letters "a" and "s." One of the users, Sandrero, has had most of their edits revdelled. I believe there is some kind of bizarre sockpuppetry or long-term abuse going on here, and that there is enough evidence to start an WP:SPI. Could you please do so? Thank you. 2601:647:5800:4D2:90D9:7958:A746:75B7 (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emoji Redirects

Hello, Tamzin,

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

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

(talk page stalker) Sorry for butting in here, but I wanted to mention this has come up before. One example is 🚇, which came up at RfD in 2020 and was kept. [4] Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Well we do already have at least 2,393. Looks like the only question at the RfD at this point is correct target. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Upcoming possible vandalism warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding cats

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

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

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

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

Another illicit sockpuppet for "Neurosex?"

Hi Tamzin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cetacean's greetings

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

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

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

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

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive

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

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

User_talk:Dream4206969

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

Aardwolf68 vandal

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

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

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

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

October music

October songs

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

Head's up

Hi, Tamzin,

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

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

Sock help wanted

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

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

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

Belinda Jones (writer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

possible restoration of 2 drafts

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

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

Huygens talk

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

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

Commons discussion

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Janowar

Hi Tamzin, I'm not part of the Copyediting Guild but just thought I'd give it a shot on this article. Full disclosure I can't read Bengali and the plot is really hard to follow but I think I got the gist of it based on these two sources. [[5]][[6]]. Cowlibob (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on God in Abrahamic religions

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

RfU revisions

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

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

Foreign language redirects to Hungary

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

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

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

Aaron Maté

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ProcrastinatingReader I think that language predates me, but I could be wrong. ~Awilley (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: The main purpose of restrictions such as 1RR is to discourage unnecessary back-and-forth edits not only from bad-faith disruptive editors but also from good-faith editors who may mistakenly believe that their edits are non-controversial. So unless your proposed edit falls into one of the narrow exceptions (clear BLP vio, vandalism etc), here's what I would suggest:

1. Post a message at Talk:Aaron Maté along the lines of "I wish to remove lorem ipsum from the article because the source is blah. Any objections?"
2. If, say, in 24h no one objects, post an edit-request or ping me (or, any uninvolved editor) to implement the change.

That is a slower, but less fraught, process to make lasting changes to a controversial page than watching the clock, counting reverts, or trying to judge if the edit would fall under one of the exceptions to 1RR.

@Tamzin: Sorry I wasn't around to share some of the adminning burden at Aaron Maté over the last day. Briefly glanced at some of the drama that has ensued. Hope you are doing okay. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Well, the buck is yours from here on out, if you want it. (If you don't, perhaps I should find someone else to pass it off to.) I guess I'm technically still not INVOLVED with respect to VM, but as I said at AN, the lesson I've learned is that if I'm having to say "I'm not technically INVOLVED", it's probably best to proceed as if I were. So as long as he is interested in editing that article, I'm afraid it's hands-off for me. Anyways, thank you for the kind words. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any technical reasons that you should not admin wrt Aaron Maté, and would miss having you around. Nevertheless, I believe it would be healthy to step back from the page if you believe your actions may be questioned or if staying active there leads to undue stress (feeling "obligated" to edit/admin a page or topic on wikipedia is the quickest route to burn out in my experience; this project is supposed to be volunteering-based hobby!). I'll continue to keep an eye on the article, and perhaps ask for other editors/admins to join in the effort. Take care. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Range block

Hello, Tamzin,

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

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

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

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

Attempted assassination of Imran Khan

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

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

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

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

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

Consolidated Marek threads

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

---

Query on situation

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

Query from Red-tailed hawk in re Volunteer Marek

Moved from User talk:Volunteer Marek § November 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tamzin you were asked not to post on the VM talk page [7]

then you reverted him -->[8], blocked him and withdrew his talk page access. The block and cancellation of talk page access might look like a way to win the edit war on his talk page... you know. It looks like an act of revenge... I'm still trying to wrap my head around all of this. I'll post my thoughts here or on VM's talk page. Please take a look at it later when you get a chance. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marek

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

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

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

• It's peculiar how Only in death's editing is nearly all noticeboard related and sparsely even that. In their past 500 edits quite a bit of it has been crusading for Marek in noticeboards: [9][10][11][12]. That last diff also has an ARBCOM ultimatum against an admin: " If they arnt unblocked with either an apology the next step will be ARBCOM to request Ymblanter's tools are removed.". And odd edit pattern overall in this account. --2A02:3035:805:A178:B197:2A68:7B63:70EA (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Admin_Tamzin's_judgement

Consider yourself notified. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Only in death: Cool, thanks. Special:Random and Wikipedia:Backlog are great places if you'd like to help out sometime, by the way. Building an encyclopedia definitely helps keep in perspective what we're all here for. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

500 quatloos has been deposited in your account at the Bank of Floq

As a relatively new bank, we are still developing mechanisms to withdraw funds, and hope to have a system in place by the end of 2030. Annual service fee of 75 quatloos. Other conditions may apply, see poster in bank lobby for details. Not valid in all jurisdictions. Most definitely not FDIC insured. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this the moment where I find out AN and ANI are basically the arena in The Gamesters of Triskelion? Does this mean I can cue the music next time I make a post there??? Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Intentionally posting this without previewing so I honesty don't know the answers. I wonder where WP:ARENA redirects too? Much less likely, I wonder if there is a WP:TRISKELION? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:TRISKELION was always going to be a long shot, but I'm genuinely surprised there's no WP:ARENA. Oh, and thanks for the music reminder. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam as somebody who often engages in wiki-currency transactions, I'm wondering what the exchange rate is between the AGF and the quatloo? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe a good subject for a future economics dissertation? I was thinking the quatloo might have been the first cryptocurrency, but then remembered Star Trek is actually set in the future, so now I'm confused. In fact, I think there actually *is* a cryptocurrency called the quatloo now, isn't there? I misremembered. I'm thinking of Quatloos.com. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User page moves – this needs an admin, I think

Hi Tamzin, I just discovered that SandeepKumarMeena has tried to change their username by moving their user page + user talk page first to Sk5363 and then from there to Skm5363. To complicate matters, there's a post at User talk:Sk5363, presumably placed there by a tool that just saw the first redirect and ignored the second one, so I think admin tools are needed to fix this! Once it's all back, SKM could be pointed to the change username requests page. Best, --bonadea contributions talk 14:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've reverted the moves, Bonadea, let me know if I missed something. Incidentally, here's more evidence that (as I've said for a while) you need your own mop :) Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, lalala I can't heeear you :-) --bonadea contributions talk 15:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Smart and wise! BusterD (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

A whale kitten for you

	Calf and a Smile award
	For keeping your head above water and staying cool even while floundering a bit, you make a momma grin. Everybody's going to step on a boat hook every once in a while. Putting yourself forward boldly for self-examination, you reveal your true willingness. Make amends, take a breath, and jump back in. The water is fine. BusterD (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: So what you're saying is to block you to show everyone I'm still willing to make tough blocks? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Baby, if you block me, I probably deserve it. BusterD (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It occurred to me on re-reading my last comment, that I've never before referred to anyone as "baby" that wasn't one of my daughters or granddaughters, so I guess the adoption now goes both ways... Hang in there. You are loved and respected. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

The request for arbitration linked above has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 16:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

RFA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Janae Kroc

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

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

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

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

Lee Pace

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

Addressing Editor as "Boy"

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

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

Just being sardonic. Robert McClenon (talk)

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

Pile on

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

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

Again, thank you! Now, the hard part, remembering to use it. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Dianna Agron

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

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

Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film)

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

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I realize you asked this about a month ago, and I didn't respond at the time because there wasn't anything to say, but I should be clear about why: When I become administratively involved with a page, I am very much not there to pass judgment on the merits of any content decisions, other than to make sure that they comply with our core policies and guidelines. (My one edit to that page was to enforce one of those, WP:BANREVERT.) Your edit doesn't violate any core policy or guideline, but you probably knew that; if you'd like peer review beyond that, you should talk to others who've edited the article from a content-oriented perspective. Sorry for the slow resonse. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

diaëresis

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

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

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

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

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

oh, that is hilariöus! by the way, this has turned out to be quite the brainworm for me, to my surprise! i had a hard time refraining myself from including a diaëresis in my vote at the rfa of a fellow diaëresis user. (by the way, congratulations, Extraördinary Writ!) now i am finding myself deliberately misspelling things to get the opportunity to misuse the diaëresis (e.g., "brakeüp"), visualizing it in languages or scripts that generally don't use it (e.g., "Fumiö Kishida" or "Киї̈в"), and just creating havoc in general (e.g., "Briʻïš"). diaëresis users of the world, uniët! dying (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Gud catch indeed! I can't remember the details, but I once came across a politician who had played sport professionally over two decades after his death... Narky Blert (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this was worth noting

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

I reverted your change to the RFC prompt

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rangeblock question

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page under constant attack

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

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

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

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

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

Userboxes

This user has registered rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

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

This user is one of the 47,385,208 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:ANI#RW abuse

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

Pickersgill

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

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

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

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

'zinbot question

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

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

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

Transitioning as a lede-worthy event

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

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

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

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

64?

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

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

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

Gracias

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

ACE2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Marked Frontier Ventures as reviewed"

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

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

Cetacean needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A vandal is disrupting the Geography of Bolivia page

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

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

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

References

New NeuroSex sock?

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

Rev/del?

Does this need rev/del [14] (comment about stepdaughter) at Talk:Musk family. Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Your talk page is semi-protected

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

BLP self-deletion request help

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

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

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

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

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

Redirects to Persona 3

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

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

XNR of sockpuppet

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

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