User talk:Tamzin/Archive/10

A few questions

Hi there :) While I admit I was not conciliatory in the discussion, I think it is kinda odd that the verdict is almost an instant indefinite tban, for a couple of reasons I would like to have your opinion on. I feel like I've expressed a lot of my concerns, but nobody has directly addressed them. I'm really only trying to learn.

• To start with, it's a luxury these days to be treated in a civil manner around ARBPIA matters. As an example, I pointed out several of Nishidani's comments that were directed at me. They weren't just rude; in my opinion they also involved making WP:personal attacks and are also in violation of WP:POV railroad. Do you agree? If not, what am I failing to see?
• I have never asked for the suspension of an entire group of editors. But I do believe that the evidence I offered reveals that Wikipedia now has a serious balance issue with ARBPIA-related pages (that goes far beyond anti-Israel, but often denies the Jewish connection and heritage in the Land of Israel). It wasn't one editor's point of view that made it unbalanced; rather, nearly every element described in WP:ACTIVISM has been included in this play, provided by a significant proportion of people holding the same opinion. You said that both Zionists and Pro-Palestinians are welcome, but for some reason, the former group has a very small number of active editors while the latter predominates the discourse. What exactly are the tools Wikipedia gives me as an editor when that is the case?
• I think that Onceinawhile's recent articles and DYK's patterns definitely highlight an issue of activism, but you seem to disagree. What evidence is required to prove someone is acting in an activist manner?
• You state that I am free to appeal the TBAN once I am able to demonstrate that it is no longer essential to avoid disruption. What, in your opinion, is necessary to demonstrate that?

Tombah (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Point by point:

• I felt that Nishidani's comments were at times mildly to moderately incivil, but were not personal attacks. The bar for sanctioning for non-PA incivility is higher than for personal attacks. In general, tense topic areas will have a certain amount of incivility, and that's not a good thing, but also not something we can easily fix with the blunt instruments of blocks and TBANs. And Nishidani's accusations that your edits push a Zionist POV is within the realm of acceptable discourse. (Note that, of the things I faulted you for, accusing others of having a pro-Palestinian POV was not one of them.)
• I'll remind you that WP:BANEX does not generally extend to repeating the comments you were banned for. As to why there are more pro-Palestinian editors than Zionist editors... Well, I don't know that to be the case, but if it is, ultimately, the editorship of that topic area is determined by who shows up, sticks around, and behaves themself. (And as to the last, only a few editors a year are banned from the area, so it's not like we're banning Zionists by the dozen.)
• Again, this comment does not fall under WP:BANEX. But to answer briefly, some third party could file an AE request, although "activism" is not per se a reason to sanction; rather, they would have to show significant departure from the core content policies. There is no policy or guideline against valid content edits that happen to favor an editor's political views. (If there were, most ARBPIA content wouldn't exist.)
• Better understanding the dynamics in the topic area and what is necessary to avoid conflict. Harmonious editing in other topic areas is also a plus.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again!

I want to start by saying thank you for your thorough response. It's been really interesting to see how you look into things, and I now have a better understanding of the rationale behind my tban.

I still firmly believe that Wikipedia's current treatment of matters pertaining to Israel is deeply biased. In this case, I have two worries: (1) Over time, it might damage Wikipedia's reputation, making readers turn to other sources for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (2) If we continue along that path, spreading false information using WP:Voice could encourage hate speech and other negative behaviors, with people citing Wikipedia articles to support their positions.

I fully trust the work of the admins here, and I completely believe you when you tell that you don't ban Zionist editors by the dozen as part of a policy etc. Anyway, with things looking as they are now, I don't think the standard processes are also appropriate for ARBPIA-related articles. I'm not totally sure that depending on <who shows up, sticks around, and behaves themself> is enough, as this approach always makes one side, the pro-Israeli side, the minority, and this is certainly not a good practice for those when building a reliable encyclopedia. In my opinion, administrators here should look for additional ways to the obvious 500/30 ratio to maintain balance; otherwise Wikipedia becomes yet another platform for propogating BDS material (see, for example, how the article Israel and apartheid kinda tries to convince readers that Israel is committing apartheid; it is written like an essay, which offers limited material to counter that argument. Recent attempts by Nableezy to achieve better neutrality are a welcome change, but many of them are constantly being pushed back).

By the way, I'd like to bring something else to your attention. Looking at the AE record for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also reveals an intriguing difference: the one pro-Palestinian editor who was banned this year (Dan Palraz) received a six-month ban, whereas the two "Zionist" editors banned received an indefinite one. There is apparently another Israeli editor, whose ability to revert changes was rather constrained. Although I don't believe any of this is on purpose, the issue has gotten worse as a result.

That leads me to another question: when a ban is imposed, how do you decide how long it should last? Why do some editors get a limited tban, and others get an indefinite ban? Perhaps maintaining balance should be another factor to consider before barring editors from either side.

Lastly, given the majority of my editing themes include Jewish history and the history of the Land of Israel, the Tban, at least as it is now stated, sort of rules out any potential for me to exhibit a behavior that could help me challenge my ban in the future. The fact that, as it currently seems, I now have a team of editors who watch everything I do so they can report it makes things much more challenging. What actions would you advise doing in response to that? What steps should I take to file an appeal to have my ban lifted in the future, in your opinion? Tombah (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: So I'll start with the two in-an-admin-capacity things.

First, there's no strict rule as to who gets temporarily or indefinitely banned. It's based on the impressions of the admins involved, and I will admit may depend on which admins happen to be working AE that month. Some admins categorically refuse to impose temporary TBANs; others prefer it. Personally I tend toward indefs, but sometimes support or impose tempbans either for new users who just need to learn the ropes, or for editors with overall positive track records in an area who seem to be having a bad month.

Second, so like... Definitely not all of Jewish history or Israeli/Palestinian history fall under an ARBPIA topic ban. For instance, to pick some random examples, I don't think Solomon's Temple, Siege of Masada, or Siege of Jerusalem (1099) would, at least not in most cases. Same goes for contemporary Israeli figures with no connection to politics or the military. The problem that arises, though, is that, on any article with even the slightest connection to a topic, it's possible to say something that would still essentially be a "proxy war" for that topic. So, some Palestinian communities claiming folkloric roots, that's an ARBPIA issue because the origins of the Palestinian people are a key point of dispute in rhetoric over the conflict. Doesn't matter if the implications of the content you added were positive, negative, or neutral toward Palestinians, it's still an issue. Likewise if someone were to go the Solomon's Temple article I gave as an example and add content about (re)rebuilding the temple, that could be an ARBPIA TBAN violation, since proposals for a Third Temple figure into the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And for me it's easy to look at a particular edit to an ARBPIA-tangential page and say whether that would or wouldn't be a violation, but the same issues that lead people to get topic-banned also, frankly, lead them to be bad judges of what would be a violation of the topic ban at the margins, which is why admins often say to act like you're topic-banned from a much larger area than you are, which I have my own version of with the "safety valves, not loopholes" line. But at the same time, I don't like telling someone they shouldn't edit something that's beyond the scope of what they're actually banned from. So one solution here is that if there's a particular thing in an ARBPIA-adjacent area you'd like to edit about, you can ask me whether that would be a violation. I know that, in the past, Nableezy has advised people similarly, although I won't voluntell him for that. I'm not saying that you need to preclear every edit you want to make by any means, but it might be a good way to get your sea legs.

The rest of this is a very long ramble about ARBPIA and neutrality. I'm speaking partly about my experience as an admin in the topic area, but not speaking in an admin capacity, if that makes sense. Feel free to not read this. I talk about your TBAN a bit, but none of this is "required reading" for compliance.

So, some context about my own perspective here. I'm Jewish, grew up in a very Zionist community, and have been to Israel twice, the second of which was a two-month sojourn living there, overlapping with the 2014 Gaza War. Traveling through France on my way to Israel, I was in The Marais and downtown Marseille for the start of that war and saw protests in both. My roommate in Israel was a translator for pro-peace Palestinian groups. The circles I run in these days skew anti-Zionist. This month marks a decade since I left home at 17, and in that decade I've discussed the Arab-Israeli conflict with people whose opinions range from "throw all the Arabs out" to "throw all the Jews out" and everything in between, on three continents. I have, of course, my own opinions on the conflict—one of the reasons that it's one of our toughest topic areas is because it's basically impossible to know anything about it and not have an opinion—but I'll keep those to myself, other than to say I don't think anyone should genocide anyone else. Because the main thing I'm trying to emphasize here is that I've been exposed to a very diverse, international set of opinions on Israel and Palestine. And I try to use that to my advantage as an admin, because many admins will only have been exposed to one particular Overton window—either the American one, which runs from radical Zionist to mildly Zionist, or the European one, which runs from radical anti-Zionist to mildly Zionist. Another thing to know about me is I believe no one should ever be disqualified from editing based on their personal views. I believe this so much that I wrote an alternate essay to resolve my disagreement with the idea that we should block people who privately hold neo-Nazi views. So when I say Zionists are welcome, pro-Palestinian editors are welcome, etc., I really do mean it, even to the extremes—at least in terms of what's in their hearts. All I care about is what comes through in people's edits. Not to be self-centered, but another thing about me, because it's a good lens to look at something through: At my RfA, where I gained a number of opposes broadly relating to political radicalism, a few people went as far as to say that my having strong political views violated WP:NPOV. This interpretation was generally rejected, because fundamentally NPOV doesn't apply to people. If it did, then I'd have to block you and basically everyone else in the ARBPIA area, except actually I wouldn't block because I'd have been blocked for being a leftist, and this whole site would be edited and adminned exclusively by people who are either centrists or politically clueless. It's very good that things don't work that way, I hope you and I can both agree, both out of self-interest and love for this project. Editors are allowed to be personally non-neutral, and they're allowed to edit in ways that overall promote a non-neutral agenda, if their edits are consistent with our content policies and guidelines. When making this point before, I have literally given the example that it's entirely permissible to only edit about bad things Israelis do, or only edit about bad things Palestinians do, so long as one doesn't give undue weight. And there's plenty of people who do just that. There's this essay, WP:INSCRUTABLE, and in trying to argue for that fallacy of "individual NPOV", it does a great job illustrating how terrible an idea that would be. It literally describes four reasonable edits and then says that this is a bad thing because the editor's motives were corrupt. It's an appeal for moral purity masquerading as an editing best practice. No, when admins look at POV in a topic area, the edits are all that matter. Either they comply with content P&Gs or they don't. And this is the core problem for ARBPIA: Fundamentally, the academic consensus skews pro-Palestinian. And Wikipedia follows the academic consensus. If someone can find 20 academic citations that something Israel did is bad, and 0 that it's good, then, it may or may not be the case that that's because of an unfair bias in academia, but that's sort of beyond our purview as encyclopedists. So, even if you're unbanned from ARBPIA, you're probably not going to be able to "fix" the "problem" of lots of articles that reflect poorly on Israel. If that's what the reliable sources say, that's what we print. And I know that's an unpleasant thing to accept. There is one particular topic in the social sciences where, in my view, scholarship is massively biased toward a particular view in a manner inconsistent with the scientific method. The reliable sources get it wrong on that topic, and so Wikipedia gets it wrong on that topic. And me? I stay far, far away from it. ~0 edits to the topic area. Because my only two choices would be to comply with sources I know to be wrong, or go on some RGW tirade and get myself topic-banned. In summation—and thanks for reading this far if you have—I don't want to give anyone the impression I'm saying "Wikipedia has an anti-Zionist bias because Zionism is bad". Different parts of the ARBPIA topic area reflect positively or negatively on different POVs to varying degrees. In some cases that's because of legitimate NPOV issues, in both directions. In others that's because the "neutral" POV, in the term-of-art way we use "neutral" on Wikipedia, is not actually neutral ideologically. (Maybe if I could magically make one change in early policy decisions, it would be naming it "consensus point of view", which is what we really mean.) And none of that necessarily has any correlation with who's actually in the right. It is what it is. We're an encyclopedia, and we're a wiki, no more no less.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: When you say things like "I now have a team of editors who watch everything I do", it really feels like you have not got the memo about WP:battleground. There are always lots of editors watching pages for disruptive editing (of which ban/block evasion is a variant). That is a normal Tuesday, and that's just editors doing their voluntary job. When I was topic banned in this area, I believe I was temporarily blocked for editing some food articles that strayed too close to the topic area. (Although in that case, it was actually ironically pointed out by some socks, so imagine the later sense of injustice there!) But the takeaway from this should not be a siege mentality. Many editors in this topic area have been banned at some point; it's a common part of the learning curve. Taking a step back can be a healthy thing, if you let it. I would suggest that labelling other editors less, and focusing on good sourcing and strict NPOV more, will make for a smoother, less anxious journey. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: As an addendum to this slightly sorry saga, I'd point out that most editors only turned up at AE to call for civility and provide gently reminders AGF. Initially, only a warning was on the table, and if you had not commented at all, even that might not have been on the table. Then you sort of dug your own hole with this WP: ACTIVISM business. It is worth noting that this page is just an essay, and WP:ESSAYs have "no official status"; they are just advice or opinions. Nevertheless, you didn't actually follow the advice on WP:ACTIVISM, which says: "A cautionary note: Never accuse any specific editor of being an activist, lest they charge you with violating no personal attacks" - and that is what it comes back to, because WP:NPA is policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: for the record, I consider you a well-meaning and good faith editor, and have always enjoyed working with you (until this recent spate of accusations). That is why I have never raised anything against you despite your having broken 1RR many times.

I also think it is crucially important that editors with different pre-conceptions work together in this topic area, and that we don’t lose committed and good faith editors. This is why I have been actively in favor of editors that I don’t share many views with returning to the topic area (eg [1] and [2]).

At the recent AE I had expected a quick apology to the community for having gone too far, following which I was intending to advocate for no consequences, not even a formal warning. I am unhappy about the outcome because I think these things can increase levels of distrust. It was that distrust that I suspect meant you did not listen to the advice you had been given by many people around (which advice I summarize as “those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” and also just “stop throwing stones”).

As to your wider point, I set my view out recently here.[3] You might step back and look at the recent discussions on the topics you highlight, and put aside your view on “who is on what side” for a moment, and instead assess:

• who is bringing and interpreting what amount of scholarly sources
• for which editors do sources seem to carry more weight than pre-conceptions, and for which editors is the opposite true.

All the articles you highlight roughly represent the reliable sources that have been brought and reviewed. That leaves only two options: (1) that the articles represent a fair and balanced view; or (2) there are some missing sources that have not been brought or interpreted. It would be much better for the project for well-meaning editors to spend energy only on assessing point 2. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Maxaxax possible sleeper account?

Hi, Tamzin. Hope all is well. I would like to show you some diffs from 021120x. I think they may be related to Maxaxax.

See this edit from 021120x, which matches very closely with Maxaxax's work you're already familiar with:

• [4]

The editor interaction analyzer shows that these two accounts made edits at an improbable number of obscure articles, including Philosophers Behaving Badly, Human penis size, American exceptionalism, Anglosphere and Neanderthal:

[5]

(Please ignore the third account analyzed in the link, for now.)

In some instances the areas of focus within the article are very similar, see for example their knowledge of Neanderthal neurocraniums:

• [6]
• [7]

There is also a general similarity in their edits at Race (human categorization), where they both stress the importance of comparing modern notions of color-coded racial classifications to those from the ancient past, especially with regards to "black" people:

• [8] Maxaxax wrote: In conclusion, he shifted the focus from the question whether a specimen display features of a distinct race to flawed socially constructed racial concepts, such as "Black" race:

• [9] 021120x wrote: "Author Rebecca F. Kennedy argues that the Greeks and Romans would have found such concepts confusing in relation to their own systems of classification" the edit summary: "Assyrians, Egyptians, Arabs, and other Middle Eastern cultures did in fact have color labels for various groups of people. The Vikings referred to African slaves as "blue men". The cited author herself only mentions Greeks and Romans."

There are other similarities not captured by the editor interaction analyzer, but I don't have the energy to spend on that right now. What I would like to know is if you think this is actionable for a checkuser. I'm refraining from using SPI these days unless absolutely necessary, since the team is so overwhelmed over there. Thank you for your time. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: I'm not immediately seeing evidence beyond potential ideological overlap. The editor interaction report is about what I'd expect given their edit counts, and doesn't show any tag-teaming or such. If you see 021120x (or any other user) making POV edits about race and intelligence in the future, feel free to let me know or to report to WP:AE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear Tamzin, Thank you for your recent edit/help. Academician.NYAS (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Academician.NYAS: Do you know why that article gets so much disruption like that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Tamzin, I am sorry for any disruption and hardship. The article was created by the Deputy Director of the Institute Igor Janev,and because of widespread believe that he is User:Operahome no one treat this Institute seriously, despite the fact that it is a government institution of the Republic of Serbia. It is my understanding that Igor Janev was framed by people with different political views. Sincerely, Academician.NYAS (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

He was/is double diplomat, rather unique case in the history of diplomacy (Macedonian and Serbian), with two diplomatic passports and among other things he was a founder of the Intelligence Agency of North Macedonia with Macedonian politician Ljubomir Frčkoski in 1995.79.143.107.97 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible large undo

In light of your indef of Maxaxax, what do you think about undoing this lengthy set of edits, most of which he performed? It appears repetitive, and while thoroughly sourced, strikes me almost as more suited to an academic paper than a Wikipedia article. There was already a large chunk of it removed here by another editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_monarchy&diff=1152343307&oldid=1112340025 --130.111.39.47 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If you feel the edits make the article worse and there is no consensus in favor of them, WP:BRD applies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Omitting crucial facts

Hello. What crucial facts were omitted from the ANI report? I was unsure of whether to give a summary of the prior dispute as I didn't believe this was "crucial" (they were important, but could have clogged up the report). It wasn't my intention to hide anything. I just don't know to what level of detail I should describe things in an ANI report. I just took the advice at the top of ANI to "be brief". Willbb234 19:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234: While yes, it is very good to be brief at AN/I, you omitted the fact that Kingsif attempted to walk back some of the incivility, and that you reverted to reinstate that incivility. These are crucial details. Much as in the legal system, parties at AN/I must not withhold evidence that favors the other side. That principle flows from WP:NPA: If you accuse someone of something, without mentioning that they did something to mitigate it, that's misrepresentation and thus a personal attack. (Consider: You accidentally cross your 1RR and then immediately self-revert, and someone reports you for the 1RR violation without mentioning the self-revert. That would be wrong, right?) I hope that makes sense. Happy to elaborate in the close if you would like. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, Tamzin. I published a comment after your close, unintentionally. I started it before the close but it always takes me a few minutes to look over my comment before publishing. I only found that my initial post was published after the close when I went to thank you for your closing statement. If it would be best to remove it then I will. --ARoseWolf 20:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be fine. We've all been there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, on, the same topic Tamzin, I hope I did not step on your toes with this. I didn't see the harm insofar as Kingsif, with their response, seemed to substantially acknowledge (aside from some understandable caveats) the nature of the warning, before you could decide whether it was necessary to formally make it. So, given the potential for the concessions from both parties to be undermined if the nitty gritty ended up debated, I thought it was a good time to wrap matters up while everyone was in a relatively positive frame of mind.

But after doing so, and re-reading your close, I felt a little that I had interrupted your train of thought/administrative prerogative. So I hope you agree with my reasoning for doing so and don't mind. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, Snow Rise, you posted this while I was overwriting that close; if I'd noticed I would have given a lengthier edit summary or replied here first. I don't at all mind the close. It preserved the deëscalatory flow I was trying to maintain. The only reason that that flow was interrupted is that I was called away for a household emergency around the same time as Kingsif's reply. (Everyone's fine, just a quick trip to urgent care.) In turn, I hope you don't mind my replacing your close with mine. What you said was quite eloquent, and true, and I hope both parties see/saw it. But I wanted a clear, balanced close at the top of the thread that would cover everything. I hope that makes sense. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you--that's very kind! And no, I don't mind whatsoever: I understand the need to complete the close with clear guidance for Kingsif, and enclosing the entire discussion at the same time, in one template, accomplishes the same goal I was attempting with the NAC below, so it's all the same to me. :) Most importantly, I'm glad to hear everyone is alright in the household, in light of the emergency! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to say this but you and Snow Rise are probably two of my favorite people in this community. I can empathize with others well, sometimes too well, and so I can "feel" the frustration of both parties in their comments. The reason why that AN/I discussion closed the way it did was because you both defused the situation, spoke plainly and though I'm sure neither side got exactly what they wanted out of it, they both were given something they could agree with. There was no sugar coating but both parties in the discussion were handled with dignity and respect and even the community members/admins involved in the discussion were open to changes in the interpretation of the events that occurred based on facts presented and observed. It did help that both parties were very accepting of what missteps they did which lead to the filing but a large portion of that was made so because both were allowed to communicate their grievances and were heard. Again, I read a lot and I see you both on this project. You are amazing and I just wanted to let you know that. --ARoseWolf 17:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

ARoseWolf: Wow--what an incredibly nice thing to say! I don't blush that easily these days, but you're putting me to the test! I don't know that I did anything exceptional there, but even so, it is very nice to have one's ethos for approaching such matters recognized and to be told so expressly by another community member that it is valued--so I want to thank you for this very much!

And I'm going to take the opportunity to say that I agree with everything you said as it pertains to Tamzin. A few months ago I didn't even know her, and when we did first meet it was in a flurry of rhetorical riposte: by sheer coincidence we ended up on the opposite sides of several policy debates, one after the other, over a period of a few weeks and in different project spaces. And though we disagreed only slightly on some of those subject and quite fundamentally on others, the main thing I recall at this point is that she never got heated, or indignant, or disrespectful, keeping an even temper no matter how many rounds she went with myself or someone else on some subtle point of policy, consensus, or pragmatics. So, one of those situations where you come to appreciate someone first by virtue of their being an adversary (if only in the superficial rhetorical sense). I think I met her just after she got the mop, but if she were running today, she'd definitely have my support. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, @Snow Rise, I'm happy to tell you all the things I thought but didn't say... ;) But no, seriously, as much as I disagreed with you in those discussions (and, I think, philosophically disagree with you on some broad questions of Wikipedia policymaking), I've never had any doubt that you're participating in good faith and out of a desire to make Wikipedia the best it can be, which is honestly better than I can say for a lot of projectspace regulars. And that's what matters more to the project's long-term health than anything else.

I do have one quibble, though. Given how often your comments tend to run, uh, into the two-to-a-hundred-paragraph range /lh, might you consider following MOS:LISTGAP / WP:*: § Multi-paragraph replies? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"And that's what matters more to the project's long-term health than anything else."

I could not agree more. I do think we have very fundamental differences in perspective on some policy questions--but then also, I've seen indications that we probably align on a lot more: we just haven't been fortunate enough to have those be the focii of our first few interactions--and of course, there's a robust human cognitive bias towards emphasizing the points of contention in our memories, as well. Because our first two interactions both involved me being the first person to make a major objection to a large-scale community proposal you had made, I honestly was feeling very self-concsious in subsequent discussions, not wanting to make a pattern of always being on opposite ends of an issue; I'm glad for the fact that we have sense been able to find common ground and particularly grateful to Asareel for creating a situation that prompted me to more expressly voice my appreciation for your dedication here.

"Given how often your comments tend to run, uh, into the two-to-a-hundred-paragraph range /lh, might you consider following MOS:LISTGAP / WP:*: § Multi-paragraph replies?"SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You know what, I've had misgivings about this per comments here I'm just deleting to preserve my pride, because when I've tried to apply that policy, I think I've been consistently using {{br}} rather than {{pb}}, which seems to achieve the effect I'm after. A little embarrassing. Will do from here forward: thanks for broaching the subject! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your help related to the Institute of Political Studies in Belgrade. Your help is greatly appreciated!

Academician.NYAS (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Resumption by sock IP of Lil Pablo 2007

I recognised some edits by User:190.110.48.42 as being of the style and geolocation of WP:BE User:Lil Pablo 2007. Sure enough, the log indicates you had the IP on a 6 month blog, now expired, for that very reason. Happy to reimpose? Mutt Lunker (talk)

Also 181.199.63.238. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Good eye! Got the first for a year, second for a week. I'll be responding slowly to pings till Monday, but do feel free to drop any others you see here, and I'll get to them when I can, or a TPW will. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

They're now at 181.199.42.238 . Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. I'll keep an eye on Special:Contribs/181.199.42.0/24; looks rangeblockable if disruption continues. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

kindly enter the Dynastyn

shalom

I've seen that they always do very good edits in Morocco. unfortunately we (we are a group of 6 people) tried desperately to enter the dynasties in the Wikipedia morocco under "establishment". Unfortunately it didn't work even though we have the sources for it. So we're wondering if you could kindly try to enter the Dynastyn for us. That would be super nice of you. :)))

Kindom of Mauretania-400BC

Idrisid dynasty-788

Almoravid dynasty-1050

Almohad dynasty-1121

Marinid Sultanate-1244

Saadi Sultanate-1510

Alawi dynasty (current dynasty)-c. 1668

Protectorate established 30 March 1912

Independence 7 April 1956

source for this copied from other Wikipedia. So these are sources in which other Wikipedia work with them: Source from Wikipedia France:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13629380108718436

https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cia.gov%2Flibrary%2Fpublications%2Fthe-world-factbook%2Fgeos%2Fmo.html#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url

https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amb-maroc.fr%2F_maroc%2Fhistoire.html#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url

https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amb-maroc.fr%2F_maroc%2Fhistoire.html#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url

https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telquel-online.com%2Farchives%2F247%2Fmaroc4_247.shtml#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url

https://www.qantara-med.org/public/show_document.php?do_id=600

https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.memoarts.com%2Fdocumentation%2Falmohades.asp#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url

https://www.yabiladi.com/articles/details/60152/histoire-chiisme-maroc-quand-almoravides.html

https://www.shadesmtw.com/moors3.html

https://zamane.ma/langleterre-na-jamais-ete-menacee-par-le-maroc/

https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cosmovisions.com%2FChronoMarocMerinide.htm#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url

https://books.google.de/books?id=F-8uAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

dynasty dynasty Sultanate Sultanate Ossas1787 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Your thoughts welcome... Either as to content or if this, y'know, rings any bells. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. This is another unmistakable sock of Bahironga, trying to circumvent their block (just like they did using Hotjewish). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, M.Bitton.  Blocked and tagged. Pings @Blablubbs and RoySmith if they wish to confirm / check for sleepers. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ossas1787, Hotjewish, and Thomas162354 are  Confirmed to each other. I don't see anybody else, but only took a cursory look. RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Redirect query

Hello, Tamzin,

Wow, it's hard to follow the message above this one. But I'll try. This is a redirect question because you know so much about the ins and outs of redirects. According to WP:R3, redirects that are the product of a move can't be speedy deleted using this criteria. But an editor just corrected a ton of misnamed files, like ones title File:Tamzinjpg.jpg and here's an actual example File:Valourandthehorror.jpg (1).jpg. These are page title errors so I would think that they'd be eligible for R3 but they are the result of a move so they are not eligible? Could they be deleted as CSD G6 as error pages? Let me know because I run into these things all of the time. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Flattered to be the one you ask. I don't think R3 would apply there, for the reason you cite, but I think G6 as clearly erroneous should be reasonable, as long as all backlinks have been bypassed and there's no other reason to think deleting the old title would break something. I've never worked with file redirects, but at least on first impression it seems comparable to the well-established practice of deleting redirects left over from mistakes in publishing drafts (e.g. "User:Liz/Article" getting moved to "Liz/Article" instead of "Article"). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Liz: probably shouldn't be speedied, as this sort of redirect tends to be kept at RfD and per WP:FILEREDIRECT. J947 † ^edits 23:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah. I'll defer to you, then, J. As I said, I don't work with file redirects much; guess I shouldn't have assumed mainspace norms would be mirrored in filespace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 83#Does G6 apply to redirects created via page move in the file namespace? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank God for talk page stalkers. I learn so much from y'all.

Would R3 prevent deletion of redirects from page move vandalism? Like if Golden State Warriors was moved to Warriors suck!!!, that redirect could be deleted as an error or I suppose just as G3 vandalism, right? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The "unless the moved page was also recently created" meta-exception covers those in most cases and makes them R3-able ("the moved page" being the vandalism title). If that somehow isn't recently created (which I would think is impossible, but I've seen stranger things), then R3 doesn't apply. G3 is the better criterion to use in any case. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wait, I've always thought "the moved page" was Golden State Warriors rather than Warriors suck!!!. That's the only way it seems to make sense – there's already a provision that the redirect must be recently-created. Stranger things, sure, but I doubt that sort of edge-case would be carved out in CSD. J947 † ^edits 05:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. "Warriors suck!!!" would be covered under G3 but not R3. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here's another example. An editor created an article and on the way to the right page title, Business collaboration with Nazi Hermany was created. Obviously an error, a misspelling but because a page move was involved, it can't be tagged CSD R3? I run across pages like this all of the time. Thanks, I hope you are having a pleasant weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Liz That one, yes, that's definitely a db-error G6 in my book, just making sure to resolve any backlinks (on mobile, haven't checked). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the confirmation. Typically, redirects like this are the first move out of User space (I run into frequent bad namespace article moves) and the only link is back to an editor's sandbox. But if enough time has passed (24 hours?), then the bots have already corrected the double redirect and the User space page is redirected to the correct article title page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I promise I'm only here because you were top of the recently active admins

Not merely out of a desire to give you more work :P

By all means feel free not to act, I'm just posting (rather than doing) because I'm about to jump off for either a brief period or a day, and didn't want to escalate straight to ANI. If it's not been handled when I;m back I'll try to do it then Nosebagbear (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Breaking Laces has some issues going on the article, then a legal threat, possible faking of position, see User talk:JoeTolle1987 Nosebagbear (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ugh this is a mess. Tolle indeffed for apparent hoaxing, cf. Special:Contribs/172.101.125.210. Will handle Aramis in a sec. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so, @Aramis23875: I appreciate that your edits to Breaking Laces are in good faith, but there's a reason we strongly discourage people from editing about topics they're affiliated with. It's one thing if it's a small uncontroversial detail (say, if your band updated its website, or your recent reverts of the hoax edits by JoeTolle1987), but many of the edits you've made to the Breaking Laces have been unsupported by the existing sources, without adding any new sources. For instance, this article says that the band has done 500 shows, and you changed that to 2,000 without giving a new source. The number may well be true, but you need to show that it's true. If you're going to make any changes to the article, they need to be clearly established by cited sources, but again, really it's better to not edit it directly at all. Continued edits in contravention of our conflict-of-interest and verifiability guidelines may lead to administrative action.

As to the matter at hand, please retract your legal threat against JoeTolle1987. Simply removing the relevant text from your comment on their talk page should suffice. We can't stop you from pursuing legal action on your own time, but if you again use Wikipedia to threaten to do so (or fail to retract this threat), I or another administrator will have to block your account. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood and my sincere apologies. I thanked you in a separate message. I'm trying to find the legal threat, but believe it may have already been retracted. I appreciate your help and the help of all who banned the hoaxer and fixed the page. Aramis23875 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I have been trying to do everything as instructed, including removing a perceived legal threat, but my account has been banned. Aramis23875 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Breaking Laces

Greetings Tamzin, I received your message and appreciate your help. Please know I'm just a humble band member without much editing experience trying to save the page from being hoaxed. It looks it was hoaxed again and then someone fixed it. I now understand about needing to cite sources. We had an amazing internet publicist who handled all of this.

Everything written is true and accurate, including the 2000 shows. I apologize about any threats of legal action or outing of the hoaxer re a message on talk. I simply meant we were referring this to our entertainment lawyers as they are more adept at handling this and can have someone who wouldn't be seen as a conflicting interest post and update sources and articles.

I believe the hoaxer has been banned at this point. I'm working on the talk message that seemed to threaten legal action. Kindly understand how frustrating it to have someone with malicious intent insert themselves into page. Thank you so much for your time. Aramis23875 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Jack

Tamzin, I am profoundly disappointed with Jack. Frankly I believe he is well beyond deserving of further admin or editor time. He is the epitome of IDONTHEARTHAT and Wikilawyering. We can forgive someone who accidentally deletes the main page. We can coach someone not to copyvio. We cannot teach people how to listen or work as a team. Therefore it’s probably best that sooner rather than later a discussion is raised at ANI to see if community consensus for an indef block can be made. I for one am totally done. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see this diff. He took it as I expected (by dismissing it and calling me patronising) and then blanked his TP except for the block. In my view, proving my point entirely. He is incapable of taking any advice or criticism. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Just came across Jack now. I saw he had requested to undelete an article Francoforte that was "soft deleted" at AfD. It caught my eye because he didn't edit it afterwards, just seemed happy to get it undeleted. I noticed he had done this previously too with Yugen (restaurant) - requested to restore a "soft deleted" article and then didn't edit it after. I think this conduct is also disruptive and goes against the spirit and purpose of a "restore" request after a soft delete decision. Also just seems to be a strategy to prevent his articles from being deleted. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Lurking... I agree with the assessment. I've taken to draftifying when a soft del restore is requested as a low impact approach to handling the situation. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Good block, Tamzin. Perhaps too generous. BusterD (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't edit it afterwards because a soft delete is the equivalent to a PROD, and as such due to the lack of participation does not represent a consensus decision. That is my understanding of how consensus works.

If a consensus regarding Francoforte was reached, I would have respected that consensus. I always respect decisions that are reached by consensus.

I don't see how this approach is disruptive, nor does it go against the spirit of the the 'restore' guidelines. Happy to hear and follow an alternative viewpoint if I'm mistaken about this. Jack4576 (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. Just a friendly reminder to reïnstate Jack4576's earlier partial block, per your block comment here. (Would do it myself, but I seem to have gotten myself INVOLVED.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding Billboard and other sources to song articles

Would adding Billboard and other music publications be against copyright on Wikipedia? 2600:100C:A112:99FE:F992:40D2:A0A3:1BD4 (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question, 2600. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocking my IP address

Ive never heard of you in my life and you blocked my IP address last November so I can't set up an account....please explain ...thank you 2A04:CEC0:F01B:FF13:886A:E541:5D2D:5433 (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Your IP adddress range is partially blocked from the draft namespace to due long-term disruption by someone on your range. This does not affect your ability to edit any other page, only those starting with "Draft:". Were you intending to edit drafts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about edit filters

Hi Tamzin, my question is, if an editor hasn't edited because they have tripped an edit filter such as article blanking, abuse etc, is it usual to warn them? I've come across a few new users that have not edited as such because of filters. I have reported a few as vandalism only when they have edited but also tripped the filters, but not one that hasn't edited but tripped the filters. (I'm not sure if this makes sense even to me lol). No rush on answering. Knitsey (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Knitsey: So I'd say, usually if it's a single warning or disallow (especially if it's just a warning and they heeded it), no talkpage warning is needed. Now, if it's something really bad, like the sort where you'd be jumping to a level-3 or level-4im warning (say, an IP tripped a profanity filter but the profanity was targeted harassment of another editor), then yeah, a manual warning's probably merited. If someone's triggering the filter repeatedly (assuming true positives of course), then you should warn manually, and if it's malicious you should treat past warnings/disallows as if they were escalating usertalk warnings. (So if someone has 3 disallows for page blanking, starting with a level-3 or -4im is reasonable.) However, be aware that there can be multiple filter hits for the same edit, so it may look like someone has made more filter-triggering edits than they have. Also, note that most bad-faith-oriented filters do report automatically to WP:AIV after enough hits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise they could trigger multiple times with one edit. So if they are trying to blank an article and use profanities in the same single edit then it will trigger multiple filters? Thank you for your answer. That clears up a lot. Knitsey (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

A plea to you, oh most recently active AE admin

Can I get 250 extra words so I don't have to trim this, please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: *O. But, hmm, tbh I'm not seeing why that needs to run so long? Just that this is a relatively simple dispute, and if I say yes to you I have to say yes to everyone and then next thing you know we AN/I now. But I'm also not gonna be the one to make you trim it, so 🤷. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Close enough! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Page moving

Hi Tamzin. I think I messed up a page move. Specifically in regards to Twitter verification. If you look at my recent contributions maybe you can figure out what I'm talking about? If it's enough of a mistake to revoke the permission you recently gave me, I'd understand. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: So, your goal was for X Verification to redirect to Twitter verification, right? If so, looks like you got almost all of it sorted in the end. All that you'd missed was fixing the self-redirects that get created as the result of a pageswap, which I've taken care of. I don't see anything stranded in talkspace, nor any stranded talkpages. The correctly-capitalized X verification should probably exist as a redirect, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking to basically un-do someone else's page move in the NPP queue and then I think there was an in-between move where I messed up and I couldn't figure out if I broke things? The intent was definitely to change Zoomheroxdpro's page move back to its original title per all the discussions about moving Twitter on Talk:Twitter. Something that definitely confused me were the self-redirects... I didn't realize that could even happen. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that startling me when I first used pageswap too. It might make more sense for it to correct the self-redirects automatically, but then again there are occasionally times where you want to do some other thing with the swapped-out page. I've forgotten to fix the self-redirs once or twice myself. So, no worries, and thanks for coming to me. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There is Ahecht's pageswap script, which does fix its self-redirs. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late here, but thank you for the suggestion. I'll use that script to avoid the self-redirects. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15

Would you have time to take care of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15#02 August 2023? Looks like they're back. TompaDompa (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

199.119.235.173

Hi, Tamzin! I noticed that you've blocked 199.119.235.173 as an LTA. Would you, perchance, be able to point me to anything (LTA page, SPI, etc.) for this user that I could reference in the future? I seem to have been recently added to the user's set of harassment targets, and it's getting to be a bit tedious to keep track of the IPs when requesting a block (to demonstrate block evasion and cross-wiki harassment). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tol: WP:LTA/SGK. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Emergencies

Hi Tamzin, I'm writing here rather than ANI as I think the troll has had quite enough satisfaction there. Can I suggest we remove the word "Emergency" from anything to do with the emergency Capcha thing, and the other actions taken during big attacks like the one that just happened? My rationale is that trolls like to feel important. They are at war. They want to see their attacks as having an impact. Being able to force Wikipedia into an "Emergency" state is a big win for them, an achievement. They are less likely to get gratification if they feel that the outcome of their actions is just another dull blip in the dullness of routine petty vandalism. But thank you for your calm and sane approach to sorting out the mess. Elemimele (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele: You could suggest this to the devs on Phabricator, but I'm not sure how much interest there would be. DENY is an important objective, but it's also important that anyone pressing buttons knows the severity of what they're doing, and I think "emergency" hits that home. (Consider: The sysadmin who flipped the switch the first time had been awake only a few minutes when they saw my request. "Emergency" made clear to take things seriously. Imagine a more junior sysadmin, and a local admin with more nefarious goals, and a name without "emergency" in it...) I have some limited background in emergency medicine, where the distinction between emergent, urgent, and non-urgent is both critical and objective. E.g. you're allowed to do certain things in an emergency that would be considered unduly risky for the patient in a merely urgent situation—for instance, throwing them over your shoulder and running. I think something roughly analogous holds here. But again, you're welcome to start a task on Phabricator, or maybe test the waters by finding a suitable discussion page on MWwiki to float the idea. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my point seriously and answering so thoroughly - but I trust your judgement on that one. I hadn't thought of the formal meaning of emergency in permitting unusual situations. All the best, Elemimele (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

This isn’t related to Wikipedia but you were the last blocking admin to LooneyTunerIan’s sock. They’re still harassing me on Fandom today because I blocked them on 2 of the wikis there. Good call to keep that user blocked. Even 12 years later they still don’t learn. Orange Mo (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Projects LTA page

For what it's worth, I originally added that "users familiar" section per the "Hints on useful info" section on WP:LTA: Consider providing just a summary of the behaviors and nature of disruption, key case pages (SPI/ANI/RFAR), and the names of current experienced users familiar with the abuser (with their "giveaways", history, behavior traits, etc.) That being said, I completely agree with why you removed it. --Ferien (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Closure of ANI which was moved to Archive?

Hello Tamzin,

I was one of the editors involved in an ANI at the end of July which has now moved to the archives section. What is necessary to bring the matter to a closure at this juncture?

Thanks for your time. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: I warned the reporting user for BLP violations. No one seemed to feel that you did anything wrong, nor do I. So I would consider the matter closed, at least with respect to yourself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Hello Tamzin,

Are you planning to reopen WP:ANI#Wiki Ed instructor not engaging with community concerns? Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Done. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Slovak football league system

Is at AfD, which the now banned editor User:Michael21107 sent, should it be closed down? I am also not sure if the article had disruptive editing or not per the last edit. Govvy (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's on

Oh, it's on. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Careful, Val, I've got a whole other (much larger) GA collab to mine from, plus two other collaborations. There's only one way to win. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Like I know how to even...what was that dark magic? Valereee (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Uther sits back and grabs his large bowl of popcorn.... - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, do you want to tangle with someone who can put you one accidental "confirm" away from blocking an arb for reason "I'm blocking Arbies"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

THAT'S ENTRAPMENT Valereee (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ban The Table. I imagine they probably have tables at Arby's, and I never liked their sandwiches anyway. casualdejekyll 20:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Proxy abuse

This sock[10] which was recently blocked for abusing proxies happened to abuse this IP as well:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.134.10.138

Can you range block this proxy?

I saw you had reverted a malformed SPI this sock had filed here but I hope you will do the same with his recent SPI (alleging an account editing since 2018 to be mine) per WP:DENY. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

And to answer your question

No, I don't think I've bumped into you here before. It looks like you were getting started at Wikipedia when I was on an extended break due to a job that completely swallowed my life. (Middle-school teaching. OMG.) Blissfully (and my still-working friends would say "smugly") retired now, though. Thank you for your assistance with the REVDEL question. Have a lovely day! Joyous! Noise! 22:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Joyous!: I spent a year working in a middle school with AmeriCorps (City Year), doing a mix of teacher's aide duties, behavioral interventions, and actual teaching. I learned more from that about handling user conduct disputes on Wikipedia than I've learned from actually editing Wikipedia. I also learned to hugely admire anyone who can handle that line of work, let alone make it to retirement. So, my hat's off to you, and I look forward to seeing you around the wiki. I'm sure you're enjoying only having to deal with vandals, harassers, nationalists, racists, and hostile state actors, compared to the Hell that is middle schoolers and their parents. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Responding on A/RE

I know I’m over 20 diffs 500 words, but I’d like to respond on the A/RE discussion page to a claim that Nishidani had "misunderstood" when he called my edit "insidious". Nishidani had asked me to please clarify and explain my usage of the phrase. I clarified to Nishidani that my usage was "I interpret conflict of interest in this context to mean related to an interest in the article and not personal at all.".There was no "misunderstanding" (unless Nishidani missed my response in the mess that is that talk page). It was only after I had clarified that Nishidani elsewhere accused my edit of being "insidious".

There are other new inaccuracies as well, Nishidani claiming that I was "repeating" a claim to Pharos and "bludgeoning" here, when in fact I was pinging Pharos to ask if he'd like to respond to Nishidani. Nishidani: "Pharos never showed where in the text it was asserted...There is no evidence, no diff, no analysis, merely an inference or an impression, whose nasty subtext seems to be that Israel is being singled out." My response was to ping Pharos "Pharos in case you’d like to respond Drsmoo (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

'zinbot reviews

I don't know if have some kind of weird filter on, but almost every single one of 'zinbot's recent reviews is either at RfD or has been deleted. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow: That's the idea! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ohhh... silly me, I thought it was making erroneous reviews. My apologies. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

tlc

Literally had to stop myself from texting her at 5am her time this morning to suggest theleekyclaudian. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Re:mental health

Thank you for your advice, but I think it’s too-little-too-late at this point. You yourself suggested a siteban (and weren’t the only one), and the near-unanimous extreme negative response to my behavior (including from at least 4(!) admins, including you) means that, as I said, most people want me gone. I’ll be lucky if I only get an XfD ban. The only reason I haven’t retired (or at least semi-retired) is because I’m worried that will get me in trouble too. Dronebogus (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: To be clear, the siteban is not a suggestion I make happily, just one I feel resigned to. I appreciate what you bring to this community. But the longer I've been an admin, the more I realize how fragile the community's patience is, and how much we give up to keep revisiting the same issues.

There have been long periods since I started editing in 2012 where I felt I was not of adequate health to edit. Most dramatically, I was warned for edit-warring in 2018, and didn't edit again for 20 months, and only participated minimally for another 13 months after that. My return to frequent editing, in April 2021, coincided almost to the day with me feeling ready to participate in this project responsibly. (Not that, at every point in the preceding 33 months, I had been unable to; it was more that I wanted to do it right or not do it at all.) Even since returning, I've taken one break from editing and three breaks from admin work, the first three relating to stress/burnout, the last of them due to an acute—although not clinically concerning—DID-related issue.

All that is to say, if you feel that what is best for you and/or the project is to walk away for a while, then you should. A CBAN looks unlikely to pass at this moment. I think people would appreciate you deciding to take some time to focus on yourself. I know I would. If it's any help, I do have a standing offer for cases such as this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not want to be blocked Dronebogus (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry Rasmekonnen4334

Hello Mx, I'm Ras mekonnen4334, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to me even if you haven't unblocked me. For my usernames, I did not think more than that, I only took the names of historical characters that I like. For example, one of my accounts is called "Arnauld d'Abbadie" because I wanted to edit the page of the historical figure in question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arnauld_d%27abbadie

I didn't really think about the names of my accounts and reading you I think it would have been better if I just put "Rasmekonnen1" "Rasmekonnen2" and "RasMekonnen3", because I wouldn't have had any problems.

I just wanted to respond to the points you raised, I'll check out the link you sent me.

Thank you again for your answer. 2A02:842A:80AC:AD01:B8:B254:B584:7743 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

AE question

Hi Tamzin, I have a side question that came up at the Leyo AE, though I don't want to fork that main discussion over here except to say I'm perfectly fine with a warning for battleground, I just mostly want to get back to editing without having to be on edge about Leyo in the future on the non-admin side.

My separate question though is about your comment This is a rarer topic area to see at AE, and I don't entirely know its discussion norms. We used to actually deal with aspersions stuff in the GMO topic a lot pre-COVID back when GMOs were a hugely contentious area rather than occasional flare-ups. Did the additional background and list of AEs I gave you help related to your comment?

Back when we dealt with this much more frequently in this topic, sometimes admins weren't aware of how much of a problem toxic accusations where in the subject. Usually they ranged from direct accusations of being a shill for a agricultural company to just bludgeoning about someone having an agenda on talk pages related to pesticides etc. Normally obvious WP:TPNO and pot-stirring textbook WP:RUNAWAY stuff, but it comes along with battleground attitudes in the topic often unfortunately. At the ArbCom case back in 2015, editors and arbs recognized this and decided to craft this specific principle to address what frequently showed up in the topic and nail down that yes, it is a problem. That was to tamp down obvious violations but also under the radar sniping or veiled comments like mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive241#Petrarchan47 as an example of how it escalated after repeated attempts to tamp it down. The challenge though is that sometimes admins didn't realize how problematic occasional comments like that were over the long-term, even with the Arb principle for explanation. Occasionally at AE, we've had to spend a lot of text on this background explaining just why there's such a low tolerance for it in the topic, and sometimes that gets into long drawn out discussions.

So since it sounds like you were fresh a set of eyes coming into this topic's sanctions, is there anything you would suggest that would help to briefly highlight this background better in AE filings? Obviously I hope the aspersions stuff just no longer becomes a need, as just giving someone the GMO CT alert and mentioning the aspersions principle the first time (sometimes) gets them to knock it off. Instances like this recent block have me thinking the background will likely have to be explained to other admins new to this area like you were. Thanks! KoA (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Curious

I'm curious about several IPs' abuse of your talk page. Are they only silly imitators or sockpuppets? Some of them vandalize other talk pages as well. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, the editor created a thread at WP:ANI#Absurd forms of vandalism partly about this supposed "abuse".--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Gaming?

Hey Tamzin, I just noticed this editor making several small, unnecessary edits to random articles, mostly within the AA topic. I suspect some WP:GAMING might be going on, with the user trying to reach 500 edits to become extended-confirmed and able to edit protected articles. Chiswick Chap also seems to have noticed something weird. Despite creating their account only a week ago, they seem to know how to archive discussions, are aware of previous discussions, and know about 3RR. Thoughts? — Golden ^talk 19:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Their editing looked a bit uncontrolled, perhaps over-enthusiastic, to me, which is why I commented on their talk page. If it is more than that, it's obviously beyond my knowledge or ability to investigate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, in theory this all violates WP:GS/AA, but I literally just proposed (like, as you were posting this) an amendment to that regime because of how overbroad it is. So I'm loath to enforce it at the moment. Anyways, I'm seeing potential issues here, but I don't think it's gaming. I would take a wait-and-see approach here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

AE/Nishidani 2

Hi Tamzin, hope you're well. I saw this report at AE yesterday, and couldn't find the time to respond before a couple of hours ago, when I saw you had already closed it. I recognize the need for the warning you left after the first AE report, but I struggle to see Nishidani's subsequent conduct as an example of what he was warned about. Furthermore, given the text he was responding to (no offence to whoever wrote it, but as written it was coming close to endorsing pseudoscience) it was a pretty mild reaction. I know, AE doesn't adjudicate conduct; but a mealy-mouthed sentence about race and intelligence is something I would consider worse provocation than a direct insult. This was an AE call, and as such completely within your discretion; but I think you could do a lot worse than rescinding the page ban. Be well, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I appreciate your feedback. As I said at AE, I'm not happy with the sanction, even though I thought and still think it was the right thing to do. It made me genuinely upset to issue, and I've thought it through several times since and each time concluded that there is no point in giving warnings if they're not going to be enforced. The comment was hotter than necessary, and Nishidani dismissed Tryptofish' concern when the latter asked them to walk it back. I didn't see a way to not enforce that warning, under those circumstances, without having the warning be meaningless. My goal here, in three consecutive AE threads about that talkpage, has been to push it back in the direction of productive discourse, and I didn't see another option here. A two-week pageban, without enforcement by pageblock, is one of the lightest sanctions one can give—and, for what it's worth, was influenced partly by a recognition that Nishidani's objection to Tryptofish' edit was, in its substance, entirely reasonable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely disagree that the comment was particularly "hot". It was concise and explanatory, and it discussed article content, not editor behaviour. Nobody in my timezone, including uninvolved admins, had any real chance to comment, with the request open for a mere nine hours. But then all the people who did protest were ignored, so as far as your (very quickly placed) sanction goes, it probably didn't matter. I would have liked to be on the record, though. Bishonen | tålk 20:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC).

If someone's already on a warning, I tend to sanction promptly if I see the criteria for sanctioning as having been met. I didn't close the thread; that would be Callanecc. I have no objection to reopening, nor to the sanction being critiqued at AE—and while a formal appeal has to be first-party, I'm fine with it being overturned if there's a rough consensus at AE against. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's a light sanction, and for that reason hope Nishidani feels able to move past it. But I think I've recognized after a while at AE that not every rule is worth being enforced in every circumstance, simply because we have a cadre of committed POV pushers (not referring to anyone involved in the most recent AE) who are willing to leverage the simple conduct rules to distract from their own violations of much more complex ones. In this case, I see the violation as minor at best (referring to this comment, for the avoidance of doubt) in response to this content, which we've both agreed was terrible. I would honestly take no action at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I seem to have to chase this issue all over the project, but I feel the need to come here and express my belief that Tamzin did the right thing. Vanamonde93, you and I have had very good interactions in the past, but I feel strongly that I need to correct some things that you have said here, that are wrong and unfair to me. The diff you give above, of my supposedly terrible content, is actually a diff of me adding blue links with no change in wording. Here's the actual diff: [11]. Please pay attention to what I was changing it from. It was content created by the sanctioned editor, and it said: "Late 19th century science affirmed the idea that humanity was divided into a hierarchy of races." I didn't introduce that to the page. "Science affirmed" that? In real life, I'm a scientist, and that's a very strong claim. Science accumulates all kinds of evidence all the time, without necessarily concluding that something has been affirmed. When I changed it to "provided evidence", that was watering it down, albeit not enough, in hindsight. "A hierarchy of races"? As in some races are ranked above or below others? That's what a hierarchy is. I changed that to genetic differences between races. There are all kinds of genetic differences between people, but that doesn't put them into a hierarchy. Again, that wasn't, in hindsight, a good enough fix, and I recognize that there are problems with the wording I came up with. But there were fewer problems than the wording I replaced had. I was trying to move it away from endorsing pseudoscience. I did a mediocre job of it, and I said many times that subsequently other editors improved a lot on what I had done.

But to claim that I had created some objectionable language when it had been alright before is nonsense. And I didn't make a stink about what I found. I just made an edit to try to improve it, and supported and even thanked other editors for fixing what I had done. I didn't go to the talk page to clutch pearls over the language while ignoring the language that preceded it in order to make someone else look bad. I've been active at the talk page, in a way that has been courteous and collaborative with the other editors there. The two editors who got logged warnings in the AE thread that came just before this one have been repeatedly making the discussions difficult. And one of them did it again, right after being formally warned. And I only went to AE after he refused to acknowledge anything about my concerns. You, Vanamonde93, see the violation as "minor at best", and Tamzin agrees that it was a borderline violation, but one that was just far enough over the border that it would have rendered the logged warning meaningless if it had been ignored. And Tamzin thoughtfully issued a very limited restriction, by AE standards (heck, not even a page block). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Yes, we've only had positive interactions that I can think of, so if you would please read carefully over what I'm saying here. At no point did I call you out over the content, and this was very intentional: I ascribe you no responsibility for the awful sentence you tried to fix. That said, the fix wasn't a huge improvement, as you've acknowledged yourself; and while we have a sentence supporting scientific racism in the lead of a prominent article, I'm willing to condone considerably sharp language on behalf of those who are fixing it, because reading that content would create a far stronger chilling effect on the vast body of potential editors than reading borderline aspersions on the talk page. I wouldn't have used the language Nishidani used. But given the totality of the circumstances, I don't see the sanction as helping that situation. AE is not a legal system: it exists to facilitate the writing of an encyclopedia. I don't see how this sanction does so, even though (as I've said) it was within admin discretion as an enforcement of a previous warning. In that same spirit, I'd like to ask you to recalibrate a little. I believe Nishidani has gotten under your skin here; given that you only have so many words you can type in a given day, do you really believe focusing on that comment was preferable to adjusting the wording of the lead? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But as I tried to make clear in what I'm saying here, what you just called "considerably sharp language on behalf of those who are fixing it" was spoken by the person who created the worse version that I was trying to fix. So: Nishidani created the worse version, a version that was worse in terms of those potential chilling effects. I tried to fix it, then Nishidani posted on the talk page in a way that demonized the attempt to fix it, even though it was a fix of what Nishidani himself had written. Was he acting "on behalf of those who are trying to fix it", or was he the editor who created the problem in the first place, and was engaging in the kind of temperature-raising conduct that led to the logged warning in the previous AE? And it was a continuation of that conduct, because he had been sniping at me and sniping at other editors over and over again, even though I had not been doing something to cause him to do that. If you look at what he said in this case, I can understand people feeling like it wasn't a big deal. But if you look at the context, it was a continuation of an ongoing pattern that led to the logged warning that was a consensus of multiple AE admins. It wasn't the worst instance. (My nomination for that would be one of the diffs I presented in the earlier AE, where he replied to another editor (not me) on the talk page by simply asking whether that editor had read Alice in Wonderland.)

I do try to pay close attention to what you and other editors say. So I agree that you make a valid point that there is an ongoing problem with POV pushers trying to use the AE rules to get the upper hand in content disputes. I agree. But you began this thread by expressing concern to Tamzin about this AE complaint. And I know, because you said clearly that you are "not referring to anyone involved in the most recent AE", that you will agree with me that Nishidani and I really don't have any POV issues about that page. I'm not even sure that I have a POV about that page at all; I've been more concerned with making sure of the page focus to avoid SYNTH, and with trying to help with discussions started by other editors about renaming the page. So, while I agree with you about the broad issue of AE and rules, I want to support Tamzin's decision here, and don't think that it would have worked to cut down on POV-pushers to ignore the complaint I raised this time.

You also point out that Nishidani has gotten under my skin. Guilty as charged. You are right, and I know that intelligent editors who condescend are the ones who have always done that to me, in ways that the trolls and the numbskulls never do. It's true. But that doesn't mean that I opened that AE for that reason. I already said there that I tried to just point it out on Nishidani's talk page, and had hoped that that would be that. But his reply amounted to an announcement that he intends to keep on doing those things, to all editors he wants to, and not just me, and I made a measured decision that the right thing for me to do was to go to AE. But it wasn't just me. There were other editors on the talk page expressing concerns with Nishidani's conduct. And I said in the first AE, that I had been thinking for a while about taking Nishidani to AE, but I had chosen not to, because I appreciated the work he had been doing on the page itself, and I didn't want to step on that.

As for it being better to try to fix the lead instead of going to AE, um, that's what I did, and it's what got us here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, the root cause of the trouble here seems to be that the word "affirmed" is ambiguous: it can be read to mean either "contended" (as the person who used it meant) or "proved" (as you read it and rightfully objected). The two of you are actually in agreement in principle here, and whatever else has happened on the page, I'd chalk this disagreement up to a good-faith misunderstanding. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

NYB sums it up much better than I could, Tryptofish, so I'll just add that I'm not at any point questioning your good faith, but I believe we are better off with the sanction vacated, which it now has been. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Brad: thanks. As I just noted at AE, that's a good point, although we still had "a hierarchy of races", which is quite another matter.

Vanamonde: I'm glad we have come to an understanding. Thanks to you, too.

Tamzin: (Oh, yeah, it's your talk page, isn't it?) In one fish's opinion, you should hold your head high about this. You have acted honorably and admirably throughout, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet another AE question

Thanks a bunch for mopping up that mess (and thanks to the other admins as well, if they're watching this page). That was my first time filing an AE report (but almost certainly not my last) and I'd like to know if anything I did wasn't in line with best practices and, if so, how to avoid such pitfalls in the future.

What's the best way to request enforcement when there are several parties involved across multiple pages? I titled the report "Melechha" because their conduct was the most egregiously disruptive, but I wasn't sure if it would've been better to file multiple reports or even start a thread at ANI (ok, probably not, but I did briefly consider it). I realize that the answer probably depends on the situation and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hi Tamzin, can you discern if these micro-edits are innocuous, or is someone trying to ramp up their count quickly with junk contributions [12]? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Weird. Not sure if good-faith, but I've blocked before it gets any farther out of hand, with note that they can be unblocked if they agree to stop. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep, odd. I've seen this before. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I’ll be filing an SPI on this. Got three confirmed socks, but need eyes on how to deal with them. Courcelles (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Datu Hulyo. Fun. Courcelles (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification to Tryptofish

Hi, Tamzin, this is just to mention that I think you've forgotten to notify or ping Tryptofish about your reopening of the "Nishidani 2" AE, unless Ive missed it. Anyway, I've dropped a line to them just now. They may want to comment. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC).

Thanks Bish, and done. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Another probable Neurosex sockpuppet account

Hello Tamzin,

Just reporting another probable Neurosex sockpuppet account. This latest account is following the same MO as previous Neurosex socks, adding English content (citing the usual sources, with the usual POV) to the page on Pornography Addiction but for some reason (potentially to cloak that it's another sockpuppet account) switching to German to add a "Slate" article, an article entirely sourced by the Neurosex account operator herself, to the NoFap Wikipedia talk page.

Here is the potential sockpuppet account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Angurispome

Could this be looked into? Thanks. Keyhound (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

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

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

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the tips on socks/vandals.

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

Wow

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

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

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

snicker

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

@Valereee: :P -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Now I'm trying to remember what joke I was making. :D Valereee (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Userbox for you :)

Hi Tamzin! I made a userbox for you, and was wondering if you wanted to make any changes to it. Thanks!

Here it is: Template:User likes Tamzin MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 15:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It does seem kind of weird to have that sort of thing in Template-space, but Tamzin is a pretty good editor who I think does deserve the recognition  Kinehore

Definitely adding some of your (Matt)'s templates to my userspace. But maybe think about putting them in userspace instead of templatespace? casualdejekyll 05:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I put it as a userbox, so I think it still belongs in template space as there are a lot of userboxes like the ones that I made. Here are some examples.

This user likes animals.

This user likes Yoga.

This user enjoys eating soups.

MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 14:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

MasterMatt12, I have to say, while I entirely appreciate the sentiment behind these userboxes, I think they are a bad idea. They've pretty much all been vandalised already, as they're such a nice target. firefly ( t · c ) 16:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and noticed it as well earlier. Because of the concern for vandals since these Wikipedians are probably disliked by many users, I put in a request to RPP for indefinite semi-protection for most of the userboxes, as you can see in the archives. However, they all got denied except for one of them which got semi-protection for one week. If these continue to get vandalised perhaps you could add whatever protection is most optimal to it. I do hope they can be kept, since it has made a lot of users very happy. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 17:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@MasterMatt12: Hi, catching up on old talkpage messages. Thanks for creating this. :) This and its kin definitely belong in userspace, though. See WP:UBXNS and WP:UBM. But I do really appreciate the sentiment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Scholarly Barnstar
		For the immaculate and quite profound sources on Mike Tyson's tattoos WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 21:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Your latest GA's

Well done on getting another five GA's since your first! How awesome MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta: Thanks! It's been really fun and fulfilling to focus on them. Capri-Sun in particular was a real challenge... both so much written about it, and not nearly enogh. If you're looking for another law article to review, my one pending GAN, Mike Tyson's tattoos, while categorized under art, is about 50% law, and even has a connection to your part of the world. (Australia, New Zealand, same thing, right?) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Tamzin. I can take a look in the next few days. Would you be open to a QPQ? I have one open as well. Me taking yours is not dependant on you taking mine. I like reviewing so will take it up soon if no one else does before me. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Cetaceans

Just got home from Alaska. Many orcas were viewed. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

They didn't sink you? I always knew you were a good egg. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee A few weeks after this, I meant to tell you, my household all went out to an arcade for a birthday, and thanks to a high rate of neurodivergence among those present we rather aggressively pursued maximizing tickets, getting ourselves enough for a whole two stuffed animals. One is a very squishy orca, so we named it... cetacean kneaded. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a bread thing. If you know, you know. Valereee (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

BLPRESTORE at Rebecca Bradley

Hi – just to let you know that someone restored the section on Rebecca Bradley's self-editing; I re-reverted it, explained the policy on the talk page and also replied to your challenge there. Joriki (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the SmallCat dispute case

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)

When you have a chance, could you revdel this comment: Talk:Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_21)&curid=74405239&diff=1172415384&oldid=1172414643 The admin I have usually worked with on this set of articles (User:Courcelles) is away at the moment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've had limited access to WP the past few days. I see Courcelles has taken care of this. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I was glad to see Courcelles was still able to access Wikipedia even in the ice-swept wastelands of Greenland. ;) Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m in Amsterdam right now. Getting on the boat in a couple hours. 27 hours getting here from America was not fun. Courcelles (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles What, did you connect through New Zealand? 😳 Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Aaha Kalyanam (disambiguation)

Hello Tamzin, I hope you're doing well. I would like to ask restoration of the above disambiguation page. Also courtesy pinging @Whpq for transparency. I will comply with all the relevant policies. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, C1K98V. I think you may have gotten a bit confused from what I said over IRC.

• The DAB page cannot be restored unless Aaha Kalyanam (web series) is restored or some other Aaha Kalyanam article is created.
• Aaha Kalyanam (web series) was soft-deleted, so I can restore that if you would like. Note that the article can still be AfD'd again, however.
• I could, then, also retore the DAB page since CSD G14 would no longer apply, but the page would be a WP:ONEOTHER DAB page, which are generally not needed, so I would probably take the DAB page (not the web series page) to AfD after restoring it. Instead, what I would recommend is a simple hatnote from Aaha Kalyanam to Aaha Kalyanam (web series), and leaving the DAB page deleted.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I'm listing the article here Aaha_Kalyanam and Aaha_Kalyanam_(TV_series). Hope now you can restore the article. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, it would be great if you could move the web series into the draftspace, so that it can be improved and submitted through AFC. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I can draftify the web series, sure. A draft wouldn't go on the DAB page, though, so that would still be a "one-other" DAB. With a draft pending, I personally wouldn't care enough to AfD the DAB, but someone else might. Are you sure you want it restored, rather than waiting for the web series article to return to mainspace? I could even draftify the DAB, if you want. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

DAB is fine for mainspace. I assure you, I will comply with all the relevant policies so that it won't get deleted again. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to comply with all the relevant policies, well, WP:ONEOTHER is an official editing guideline: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. So long as it only links to the base title and the TV series, it is likely to be AfD'd. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

what I meant was, I will work on the web series as well. I will try my level best to be inclusionist if there is an scope for improvement. If not then I myself will indulge in any dicussion. I want admins efforts and time to be fruitful for the betterment of the wikipedia project. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what here means that the DAB page would be compliant with guidelines. As a matter of policy, any admin can restore the DAB as long as the TV series is added to it, but I'm not convinced you understand the problem with that per WP:ONEOTHER, so I'm going to invoke WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and simply decline to restore it. You're welcome to ask some other admin to do so at WP:REFUND; I won't view it as admin-shopping or anything. Either way, I've restored the web series to draftspace. Note that there have actually been 3 non-overlapping versions of this page: 2 in mainspace, 1 in draftspace. I've restored all 3. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Complaint means that I created the Dab page in good faith. I will add all the related Aaha Kalyanam articles to the DAB. Could you please restore it. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There are only two Aaha Kalyanam articles in mainspace. Per the guideline, that is not enough for a DAB page. If I restore the page, it will likely be taken to AfD, which would be a waste of editor resources. So I am exercising my right to not take an admin action if I don't want to. Again, you are welcome to ask at REFUND. But my recommendation would be to not have it restored unless the web series page gets mainspaced, or some other Aaha Kalyanam article comes along. Two-item DABs are really only appropriate when neither topic is primary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

As I was pinged, I endorse everything that Tamzin has stated. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)