Thanks. [[User:Dovidroth|Dovidroth]] ([[User talk:Dovidroth|talk]]) 09:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. [[User:Dovidroth|Dovidroth]] ([[User talk:Dovidroth|talk]]) 09:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
== reversion ==
[[Special:Diff/1188357938|No worries]], I was just feeling like it had turned kind of meta and thought we didn't need to include every possible example that could be scraped up. I think you're right about this one. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of getting pings over someone putting a box on my page that says I did nothing wrong while vaguely insinuating that I did, so I'm just parking these here instead.
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
Update 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC): You know what, screw it. Keeping track of which to list is more trouble than it's worth, and I don't need any one-hit immunity. I'm aware of all of them. Even the weird ones like the Shakespeare authorship question or Waldorf education. If anything, I'm more likely to think something is a DS topic when it isn't, than vice versa.
Thank you so much, Joshua Jonathan. It's funny, it started just as this weird feeling based on the RfD !votes... We get weird !vote patterns at RfD all the time, usually when a number of non-regulars wander in and don't understand how the forum actually works. The weird thing, though, was that they did seem to get the basic premise of RfD, but were still !voting for a conclusion that made no sense. But still I didn't have that high an index of suspicion, and also I was rather busy, and was this closed to dropping it. But instead, kind of on a whim, I asked Blablubbs to take a look. I was only suspicious about the four who'd !voted consecutively, and I was frankly surprised when Blablubbs turned up evidence tying not just all four of them, but Apollo too. I had no previous exposure to this topic area, and didn't know any of the players, so I really though I'd just be dealing with a few SPAs, not someone with 2,000 edits and PCR.
I think it was also Blablubbs who first suggested Moksha as part of it, as we looked at other players in the topic area. Then I found the comment from the Swami sock accusing them, and there went the next few hours of my life, digging through a history that grew more and more horrifying as the behavioral similarities mounted. I've really never seen something that elaborate fly under the radar, except reading early (pre-2010) ArbCom cases.
It's a shame we'll likely never know exactly how many people were behind these six accounts. My personal hypothesis is that it was six people who knew each other off-wiki, with one, perhaps Moksha, ghost-writing some talk-page comments for the others. (If true, that would mean they were done in by that one person's micromanagement, which is a funny thought.) But that's just my guess.
So thanks again for the barnstar. :) I kind of hope I never get this particular barnstar again, though, at least not for the same kind of thing. Mass gaslighting is a demoralizing thing to work against. I'm happy to go back to just dealing with vandals and spammers.-- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.06:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar of Diligence from L235
The Barnstar of Diligence
Hi Tamzin, I'm Kevin. Thank you for your diligence on the Moksha88 SPI; had it been a less thorough report, it may have been overlooked or neglected, especially after the negative CU results. We're lucky to have had you looking into this. KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 06:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
@L235: Thank you—for this barnstar and for your own diligence. I was worried that someone would look at this and see it as too complicated, and as involving blocks that were too likely to cause drama, and just punt on it and leave the whole topic area still in disarray. As someone who's always favored making lots of small improvements over a small number of big ones, it's rare that I get the chance to look at something and say, "Here's a way that I really, noticeably, made the encyclopedia better through one single effort." Which I hope I'll be able to say here, depending on how the POV cleanup goes.
As I said to JJ above, I just hope that I don't run into another case like this for a while—both because I (perhaps naïvely) hope to never see anything so egregious, but also for the sake of my sanity, and the sake of whichever CU is crazy enough to take on that case. :) So again, thanks for all you've done here.-- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Civility Barnstar from Sdkb & Writ Keeper
The Civility Barnstar
Without getting into the messy question of whether or not the other editor's professed ignorance is plausible, I think it's clear your calm, non-judgmental efforts to explain why their comments were offensive have been helpful and appreciated by all. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. <3 While I don't think of myself as an incivil person, I'm not sure this is one I ever expected to get.As someone who both likes to assume good faith and has a low tolerance for bigotry, I always see this kind of thing as a win-win: If the assumption of good faith was correct, then we avert more hurt feelings; and if it doesn't, then people can't plead ignorance the next time. I'm glad that this appears to have been the former. "Lord's work" is a compliment I'll happily (flatteredly) accept, be it meant proverbially or literally.-- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.00:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see great minds think alike. I wasn't aware of the incident that led to the creation of your essay prior to today, and had only created mine in response to seeing "he/she" a lot around here. I must say you articulate it a lot better than I do, though! Patient Zerotalk04:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to thank you as well for your well written essay. I hope this essay helps inform future editors and, in doing so, reduce the instances of misgendering. Isabelle🔔02:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy purim, Tamzin! I thought I'd try and throw together a mishloach manot basket to give out :) feel free to pass it around or make your own basket, if that's your thing—if not, cheers and chag Purim sameach! in jewish enby siblinghood, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
תודה רבה, Claudia! A pleasantly synchronistic treat to find immediately after submitting my first foray into your neck of the woods.
Despite my well-known affinity for Queen Esther (Esther 8:6 tattoo pic forthcoming on Commons once I've got the enby and agender colors touched up), I've never done much for Purim. Don't really know why that is, just how it's sorted out. But I'll never say no to something tasty! Chag sameach to you too, friend.
Thank you very much, Gerda. This means a lot to me, especially given the circumstances and given the date (see userpage footnote 2). After years of, as you allude to, mostly working on improving articles by trimming them down, it's been a very eye-opening experience to build a full-length article from the ground up. I'm glad I got to have this experience with a list that's meaningful to me, although the downside of that is being very aware of how quickly this list grows. A small fraction of those killed overall, but as Masaq' Hub says in Look to Windward, "It's always one hundred percent for the individual concerned". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)02:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this means a lot to me, - see my talk today and 23 March. We have one name in common even, and named victims stand for all the unnamed. - "Stand and sing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharos: Okay, I think that's the last of them reined in, aside from a few buffalo who had already been taken in by loving adopters like Jeremyb. One hopes these buffalo do not feel buffaloed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)03:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bagumba. :) (Incredibly slow response, sorry.) At some point soon I'd like to write up a self-audit of my blocks to make sure I'm staying true to my stated principles in blocking... We'll see. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)00:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Civility Barnstar from EducatedRedneck and Special Barnstar from Bradv
Not for the same thing, but conceptually related
The Civility Barnstar
For your conduct in the Inverted Zebra ANI thread. I doubt I'd be able to keep my cool nearly as well as you did when personally attacked. Your writing managed to convey being justifiably angry without being aggressive. Major props to you for your conduct there, good Mx; I hope I can be even half as civil if I ever find my own person under attack. I hope it blows over quickly now, so you can get back to editing.
Happy New Year, Tamzin! In 2022, other editors thanked you 1003 times using the thanks tool. This places you in the top 10 most thanked Wikipedians of 2022. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2023! Mz7 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Civility Barnstar from Aoba47, but more importantly the nicest conversation I've ever been in on Wikipedia
The Civility Barnstar
Hello again. I wanted to apologize again for my response to the Charlotte York article and my mistakes regarding the page move. You were incredibly kind, especially when the entire situation was my fault, and I wanted to thank you again for that. I am truly happy to see such great and kind communication on here. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
@Aoba47: Aww, you're so sweet. You know, WP:CIR gets cited in a lot of horrible and mean-spirited contexts, but there's a valuable lesson in there if one takes the time to read it, which is that no one is competent at everything. I'd like to think of myself as a fairly well-rounded editor—2 GAs, lots of projectspace work, some technical work including a bot—but there's still dozens of areas of this project that I have literally no fucking clue how to manage. And it's really only luck that I haven't in recent years had the pleasure of having some admin show up on my talk page and say "Umm, that's not at all how this thing is done. I've unbroken it for you. Please be more careful."[a] One thing I've never done in 10 years here, for instance, is get an FA. Hell, didn't have a GA till 5 months after my RfA.[b] You have... holy shit, 45 of those.[c] If I live a long life and continue focusing on content[d] maybe I'll hit that number before I die. When I do go for my first FAC, you can bet it'll be with oodles of behind-the-scenes hand-holding from friends who've done it before, to make up for my near-complete cluelessness about that venue. So.If I can summarize this wall of text, it's
🪞
at both you and CT55555 because like... holy fucking shit this site is toxic sometimes. And it's been so incredibly refreshing to see two experienced users[e] be so relentlessly civil to each other and to me over a relatively minor, totally good-faith misunderstanding, to the extent you're following up on it weeks later. I love it. If there were an inverse version of WP:STOCKS I would put you both in it, no ifs, ands, or buts.[f] Thank you for this barnstar, but really it's y'all who deserve it for this truly exemplary conduct. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
^Well, that's the better-case scenario. The worse-case scenario is "Umm, that's not all how this thing is done, and there's no easy way to reverse the damage you did. Have a fun 6 hours unbreaking it manually unless you want a trip to ArbCom!"
^In fact I recently learned on WP:DISCORD that "How many GAs did the most-supported RfA candidate ever have?" is a decent stumper in Wikipedia trivia.
Thank you for your response and the kind words. I will read through WP:CIR in the near future. I enjoy reading through these kinds of essays, and I agree that no one is great or even competent at every single aspect of Wikipedia because this site is so vast and dense. I think it is good to have a healthy dose of perspective and humility, and I have learned from this experience. I has been a while since I did anything with page moves and the like that I genuinely forgot how to do any of it.
Congrats on the two GAs, and I think it is awesome that you've done technical work as well. I have absolutely zero ideas how to even remotely do anything with bots so I am impressed by that. I am proud of my work in the FAC process and very thankful for all the editors and reviewers who have helped along the way. If I ever do it make it to 47, I will let you know if something special happens, and if you ever decide to pursue a FAC, I would be more than happy to answer any questions or provide any pointers. It can be a very intimidating space, but there are also a lot of wonderful editors over there.
You are right that this site can be toxic at times, particularly from experienced users, and I've definitely reacted poorly in the past. The best I can do is to try and learn from each experience and hopefully be better for the future. I'd be curious on what the reverse of WP:STOCKS would be. I am glad that this experience ended up in a positive place in the end and hopefully, this will not sound super sappy, but it was wonderful to meet and interact with you and CT55555. I hope you are having a wonderful 2023 (knock on wood though as I do not want to jinx anything). Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selected WikiHate
Warnings from the late great Nosebagbear and whoever whomeverwhoever most recently edited this page
Hello, I'm Valereee. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nosebagbear (talk)
Block me if you must, but you'll never catch my socks!
(They're very cozy slipper-socks with like a stylized dog face on the top and then little fake ears on the side. Very cozy socks. AND YOU'LL NEVER CATCH THEM!) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.13:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atomic putty? Rien! "Quantity of love"? :P (For "much love", use olin mute, or more properly mi olin mute e ni 'I love this', although ni li pona mute 'This is very good' is probably more idiomatic, since the colloquial English use of "love" to mean "like a lot" doesn't really translate.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Special:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the [[:|article's talk page]], and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please note that such behaviour is distinctly unacceptable on Wikipedia. However, I realise you are still new to Wikipedia and learning the rules - please feel free to ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you are unsure about making an edit. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, @Tamzin, that that statement is in breach of rule 1 of this talkpage listed at the top. If you do not retract the comment, I may need to tell this user about the poor behaviour by yourself. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re above: by itself, from whomever is correct, if that's the end of the expression, placing 'whomever' in the objective case, due to its function as the object of the preposition from. But, in the longer expression From who[m]ever edited this page, who[m]ever is not the object of the preposition from; rather, the entire noun phrasewho[m]ever edited this page is the object, and that is an independent clause, containing a subject (who[m]ever), a transitive verb (edited ), and an object (the noun phrase, this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in the subjective case (a.k.a., nominative case), thus it must be whoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, like they/them, then it would be whoever edited them). Upshot for this expression: it must be from whoever edited this page. See the first example here, for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you dug into the page history to find that I did originally have it right. My lovely mother, whom I will stress is a published author and editor and taught me everything I know about writing, concedes defeat on the matter, Mathglot. However, for questioning the woman whom brought me into the world, you've still earned a place in the WikiHate section, congratulations or not. (Also thank you. :) ) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Outrageous abuse of power by Tamzin
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Tamzin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Opposition to human rights, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Some of these discussions are collapsed because no one's commented in a while. They're still open discussions, though! If you want to reply to something, just remove the {{cot}}/{{cob}} tags around the discussion.
Editing principles (Topic: Neurodivergence)
Initially ran 4 May 2021 to 7 May 2021. Featuring Vaticidalprophet and Elli. Collapsed but still open to new comments.
Just noticed the new one. It's an interesting one, and a matter I've thought about how to phrase. I suspect myself a lot of neurotypes odd in the general population are the default baseline on Wikipedia, but there's only so many ways you can say it without sounding like you're insulting someone (and I freely admit I can be less careful and more flippant with my word choice than you often are, certainly when I'm in the ANI peanut gallery). I've noticed there's an unfortunate correlation between editors who freely disclose neurodivergence and editors with significant competence issues, and I've wondered what consequences it has for the project as a whole in terms of interacting with people who are more clearly not working on neurotypical principles than our already high average -- though, of course, many disclosed neurodivergent editors are substantial and obvious assets. Vaticidalprophet04:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, something I'd been thinking about for a while, and felt spurred to put into words after seeing an exchange on your talk page actually. As to correlations, there's a bias there, right? In terms of who wants/needs to disclose. If an editor quietly chugs along writing articles, doing gnomish work, etc., without ever getting into any conflict, then why would they want to disclose something that could subject them to ridicule or at least passive discrimination? (And there's editors who rack up 100k+ edits while barely touching anything metapedian.) Whereas some editors realistically have no choice: If they don't disclose, they may be treated as intentionally disruptive; whereas, if they do, they might at least "downgrade" that perception to CIR. Just like a person who is mild-to-moderately hard of hearing may be able to not disclose this fact in a workplace if they don't want, whereas a deaf person really has no choice in most contexts.
I'm active in a number of spaces online that are majority-neurodivergent. (I'll claim the label "neurodivergent" without comment on the label "autistic".) They all have to deal with the issue that, in such spaces, people are more likely to be sensitive, and also more likely to offend by accident. In the context of a collaborative project one can broaden this to a greater likelihood of people stepping on one another's toes. What strikes me is that these spaces' main advantage in contrast to Wikipedia is that they're honest with themselves about what's going on. Conduct decisions are made with the presumption that the participants' motives may not have been what you'd infer of a neurotypical person. Hence my new personal rule.
That said, it's not like there's easy answers here. Several years ago an openly autistic admin was desysopped for discussing violence against another editor in a way that was intended, by all accounts, to come off as mean but not as a true threat. It was an unambiguously desysoppable offense (although I'll admit I didn't take that view at the time). And yet, I think a lot of neurodivergent people can relate to making a joke that made perfect sense in their own head but came off very differently to their audience. (To be clear, I don't think that they raised autism as a defense, and I don't want to imply that their misconduct was "because autism", but at least the general circumstance is one that neurodivergent people tend to find ourselves in.) What's the solution there? I don't know. There's an overlap between statements that are reasonably insta-indeffable or desysoppable, and ones that a neurodivergent person can make without intending it to read that way. And if that's where we're starting from, how do we handle all the more minor cases?
So that's why I added this personal rule. Feel free to make any wording changes that preserve the meaning, if you think they'll make it less prone to misinterpretation, since it's just such a difficult thing to discuss, walking a tightrope between what could be perceived as being anti-accountability and what could be perceived as ableism. But regarding what you said about ANI: I think the best thing we can do about these topics is discuss them when there's no immediate reason to discuss them. If everyone's thinking about a specific editor when they discuss the topic, that will color their opinions.
P.S., not to come across as talking down to someone only a few years my junior, but a lesson I learned in my first wiki-life, reflected in the second paragraph in my userpage: The best thing you can do for your wiki-mental-health is avoid any page where the word "indef" gets thrown around. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi.05:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To open in response to your last comment: well, a lot of people are scared of ANI, but I'm scared of political articles, and I'm sure I've seen you edit those. 😛 We all see different hotspots.
I'm definitely familiar with what you say about knowing it, or how different it is to be in an environment where people openly discuss that moderation and norms are shaped by neurodivergence, as opposed to the weirdly "everyone knows but no one knows" Wikipedia environment. I'm unsure if it's possible at all on Wikipedia to change the latter to the former, simply because we (in the societal sense) currently conceptualise neurodivergence as a product of diagnosis. Even for things like autism (and I concur, with hangups and caveats that are all frankly well outside the scope of what I aspire to discuss onwiki, with the "will claim neurodivergent, will pass without comment on autistic" identification here) where there's a relatively robust self-advocacy community, it's still in some ways reasonably and in some ways not treated as offensive to tag someone as autistic who hasn't been tagged as such in a medical context, and plenty of things I'd very much like to have robust self-advocacy communities outside of medicalization do not. There's an age factor here, in that a lot of the core editor (and especially content-writer) base is from age cohorts where a lot of what's diagnosed now wasn't, for better or worse.
As for Ironholds, well. I'm familiar from the "read about it after the fact" perspective with that case, for whatever that counts as familiarity. I don't think the behaviour I read was at all appropriate, and I think it's reasonable to expect an admin of any neurotype to know that. Simultaneously, the thing that really interests me about that case (using 'case' here in the broader sense rather than the ArbCom term of art) is the "seven RfAs" bit, and seven RfAs is characteristically autistic to me, for both good and ill. It shines through as both the way one can ascend past a lot of the mental limitations allistic people self-ascribe, and work tirelessly towards the pursuit of a goal, and simultaneously the way one can just not know when to quit.
To circle back around to ANI, I've been thinking about it because it actually did come up there lately, and in part due to a thread I'd created; the subject of that thread was...outed? as autistic by linking to a diff he'd written at a much smaller venue by a well-meaning party partway through, and he clearly wasn't happy at all about it. At the same time, in a different thread, another disclosed autistic editor suggested the reason a third party might have been acting in the problematic way that got him brought there was that he could be autistic, and the readers of that thread interpreted it as a personal attack on the subject. The discussion is worthwhile reading (and my comments in it reference a third, related case where an editor was clearly in severe distress over being a thread subject in a way that nearly went very poorly indeed, and where some of the reopening comments trying to address it were imo atrociously worded). Vaticidalprophet05:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's actually those ANI threads—including a remark you made about how many/most editors at least have subclinical "symptoms" of autism (scare quotes mine)—that first got me thinking about this topic. Just because I never comment there doesn't mean I don't stay up to date on the latest drama. I agree that there's a cultural/generational issue here, and such things will always be a challenge for an international, intergenerational project. A norm like tone-tagging (beyond the common "/s") could do a world of good, but I think it'll be at least a decade till you could get a majority of editors on board with something like that. (Not like, making it mandatory by any means; just instilling it as a norm.)
The other day, in the course of saying something about Wikipedia, I explained to my partner what deletionism and inclusionism are, and she'd said something like, "I hate to tell you, but I think I'm an inclusionist." Today, shortly after sending my last message here, something suddenly hit me, and I said to her, "Wait, what makes you think I'm a deletionist?" To which she said, "Because you need everything to be just a certain way." I'm guessing you know the kind of "certain way" she meant.
And it occurred to me that you can pretty easily predict how drama-heavy a particular area of the wiki is going to be by just how strongly people need it to be a certain way. There's a reason I refuse to touch any edit that has anything to do with categories. There's a reason that the major topic area with the worst-written articles is, by far, math. And you can call the tendencies that beget this "neurodivergent", or just... "particular"... And those particularities carry over to administration too. Ironically, I would argue that the very resistance to change things in a more overtly neurodivergent-embracing direction is itself of tendencies that, in many cases, fall into what I'll again call "either neurodivergent or just very particular." ANI being a mess of massive walls of text is the way that Makes Sense, so that must never change, no matter how flawed it is. For Wikipedia to stop being hostile to newcomers, we'd have to restructure some things that are The Way They Should Be, so I guess it'll keep being hostile. And so on and so forth.
As to Ironholds, to be clear, I didn't mean to make it seem like a "wink wink nudge nudge" thing which case I was referring to; rather, I was trying to use it as a general example since, as I said, once you get into any one specific case that complicates the analysis. (Mx. Ironholds is, incidentally, a researcher and commentator on autism issues these days, though they're no longer active here. And yes, that's an off-wiki identity still linked on their userpage, before anyone says anything.)
Back to your point about the ANI threads: It'd be nice to have an essay as a companion to WP:CIR (maybe WP:Idiosyncratic editors) that discussed how best to handle competency issues in ENDOJVP editors but stopped short of saying "All of these editors are probably autistic." I know you followed the somewhat tragic tale of the now-3X'd SoyokoAnis (talk · contribs). I'm certainly not going to try to diagnose her with anything, but in the threads about her there was clearly a lot of dog-whistling and subtext, as there is basically anytime CIR comes up with an adult native English speaker, because, yeah, CIR is usually about language/culture, age, or neurodivergence. Perhaps it would be nice in such contexts to have a diplomatically-worded essay to point to that nutshells to: "Some editors interact with the world in very different ways than others. Maybe this is for neurological reasons, or maybe it's just how they are." and then... And then what? Then a conclusion drawn from that, but I'm not yet sure what that conclusion should be. (And not that in her particular case there would have been a different outcome necessarily; just that it allows for more honest discussion.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.06:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Soyoko. I admit to less sympathy to her than you or Elli (who was my main point of contact with her saga), but that's not to say a lack of it. She didn't scan to me as adult (and, as someone who first edited as a young child, I suspect some of our current policies about not disclosing the ages of young editors might actually be counterproductive -- but that's another issue...), with the consequence I was mostly viewing her CIR issues through the lens of youth rather than neurodivergence, but I can't exactly say the latter was never a consideration. It did stand out to me that the RfA candidate she insisted on nominating was a disclosed autistic editor.
I know of two essays currently about specific neurodivergences. I can't pretend to like either of them. I'd happily MfD WP:AUTIST, where its every word strikes me as Making Things Worse, if I thought that proposal had a chance in hell (I've already spent my nominating-bad-essays-and-failing points for the month). There might be something useful in its bones, though; it apparently hit someone's sense of "this is me" enough for WP:OCD to be based on it. Vaticidalprophet21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion (hope I'm not barging in too much).
Wikipedia is... an interesting environment, I guess, for neurodivergent people. Given, well, the way the site works, I think it's likely to attract them (what normal person spends their free time writing an encyclopedia for free?) Most people find the whole concept entirely foreign.
As for Soyoko, yeah, I think it's likely a combination of some type of neurodivergence and youth - neither of which are incompatible with Wikipedia, but if someone with them makes wrong assumptions about how the site works... it's not gonna be fun. Hell, looking at my first edits, I'm surprised I didn't get many warnings, given how terrible they were.
I dunno. This is kinda a ramble because I'm not sure exactly what I should say here? I guess, "be kind" has mostly worked for me - and is what, I think, worked for getting me on the right track. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: I do think that Wikipedia's generally moving in the right direction on all of this. As I said to SoyokoAnis, I really doubt she would have been extended as much AGF back when I made this account (2012), which is one thing that made her situation extra frustrating. Then again, one still sees cases where if CIR issues aren't resolved after the first or second attempt at intervention, someone just hits the block button. I recently saw one of my least favorite things, a "Sock of someone or other" block. They're used as an excuse to say "We can label this intentional disruption rather than CIR because they're probably socking." Somewhere between begging the question and a thought-terminating cliché. But still, overall, progress, yeah. (Also thanks for dropping in to this chat. )
@Vaticidalprophet (but also still @Elli): I don't know if I'd agree with deleting WP:AUTIST, but I do think it misses the point. Partly because it's hard to describe the "honeypot" effect without resorting to stereotype. Partly because it's hard to describe autism itself without resorting to stereotype. But the essay manages to cut too much slack to neurodivergent editors while still not giving neurotypical editors particularly good advice about how to deal with us; and the advice it does give isn't very helpful when most neurodivergent editors are not open about it (if they even know themselves), and applying the label speculatively is, as you've said, a thorny issue.
So, seriously, if you (either of you) would be interested in working on an essay with me, I think there's room for improvement in the neurodivergence essay category. I'm interested in the idea of something that isn't explicitly about autism, but rather, without outright saying so, says "We're all at least kinda autistic here". I'm thinking of a title like WP:Needing things to be a certain way. In my mind, the essay would start out with something like, If you edit Wikipedia, that means you see a need for things to be a certain way. Quite likely, your first edit was noticing that something was incomplete or incorrect and fixing it. But why does it matter that the world know that the Third Amendment has been incorporated against the states in the Second Circuit but nowhere else? Why does it matter whether "Ljubljana" is spelled correctly in an article about baseball? Because things need to be right. All of us, to some extent, see things this way. And then go on to discuss how this applies to things like WP:CIR, WP:CIV, WP:TE, WP:POINT, and WP:RGW. And then give actual useful tips that can be applied to all editors, not just ones with autism userboxen. Stuff like:
Accept that Wikipedians are more likely than most people to have strong opinions on "little things" like punctuation or reference style. To you, they might be small, but if those things are important to the way things need to be for someone, they can become very personal.
Someone's view of how a conversation should work may not be the same as your view, or indeed, as the view of society at large. In particular, certain editors may value straightforwardness as a virtue significantly more than others, often based on a feeling that conversations are simply meant to work that way. This should not excuse incivility, but understanding this may help to reach constructive solutions in conflicts.
It can be very hard for Wikipedians to let go of something they are passionate about, even when consensus is against them. If this leads to someone becoming disruptive on a topic, then even as you nudge their focus elsewhere you should be respectful of their passion. And whoever comes up with a way to gently keep editors from returning to these passion topics will have averted the indefblocks of countless mostly-constructive contributors.
Wouldn't be the whole list, just the first three things that come to mind. In neurodivergent terms these are "sameness"/general particularities, communication issues, and special interests, but framed generally it's just a lot of the stuff we see all the time on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi.06:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really related, so taking it to your talk page (Topic: Gendered pronouns)
Initially ran 26 October 2021 to 30 October 2021. Featuring Hijiri88, Ezlev, Aerin17, and BDD. Collapsed but still open to new comments.
Arrgh... it's been a while since I thought about gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources (ref) in relation to contemporary Japanese popular media personalities. English-language "reliable sources" focusing on Japanese popular culture tend to be sub-par (one of the sources initially cited in relation to Utada's gender identity proactively used singular they without any request from Utada to do as much, and also seemed to be conflating non-binary gender identity with same-sex sexual orientation...), and Japanese-language sources are extremely unlikely to make as big a deal out of it as English ones because of how the Japanese language works.
Japanese doesn't use pronouns anywhere nearly as much English, because content that is implied from context (as the referents of pronouns almost always are) is usually omitted: the Japanese for "I ate it" isn't "Watashi-wa sore-o tabeta" (literally "I it ate") but rather "Tabeta yo" ("Ate sentence-terminal-particle") and "I met her" isn't "Watashi-wa kanojo-ni atta" but rather "Atta yo"; "I ate it" or "She ate it" in Japanese would only specify the subject if it were in response to the question "Who ate it?", and even then "she" would necessitate a separate indication of who the girl/woman in question is, such as pointing, which is rude. (Needless to say, the Japanese version of Utada's website doesn't use any pronouns where the English version uses "she" and "her".) I actually recently found out that both the "Japanese words for he and she" that I learned in my beginner Japanese class were recent coinages based on English/French, the "word for he" being a redefined word classical Japanese pronoun that originally referred a person or thing that is far away from both the speaker and the listener, and the "word for she" being the same word, in the classical Japanese equivalent of the genitive case, with the noun "woman" attached after it. This kind of development would not be possible, needless to say, if personal pronouns were as entrenched in the actual Japanese language that people spoke every day as they are in English or French. I suspect this is why "pronouns" aren't really a thing on Japanese Twitter (etc.) like they are in America and Europe: it's my impression that a not-insignificant percentage of American pop-stars have their pronouns listed in their Twitter profile, and this percentage probably skyrockets when one only counts those pop-stars who have stated a gender identity other than cisgender male or female, but with Japanese pop-stars (even those who also hold American citizenship and live in Europe, and "occasionally tweet in English"), the former percentage is probably close to zero and the latter may be higher, but as far as I'm aware Utada is the most prominent case at the moment, and...
So yeah, it looks like the Utada case is going to be solved by a consensus of editors based on the fact that sources affiliated with the subject use a particular pronoun pattern, but if more Japanese (etc.) pop stars, voice actors/actresses, live action actors/actresses, video game producers, etc. with anglophone fan-bases and extensive coverage in English-language blogs and "reliable sources" that are little more reliable than blogs, start coming out as non-binary, gender-fluid, etc., a discussion might need to be had about how the MOS passage you quoted applies to such cases. A huge hullabaloo was made about a decade back about whether personal websites (or websites maintained by publicists) should take precedence over academic publications with regard to MOS:JAPAN#Modern names (with reference to whether long vowels should be marked), which I think kinda missed the point there (if we take URLs or copyright information on Japanese-language websites into account, we get people named "Sakaguchi Jun'ichirō" being identified as "Sakaguti Junitiro" just because the webmaster created the URL based primarily on how Japanese text is input on a keyboard).
But I suspect that, when it comes to gender identity, personal/official websites should definitely take precedence over third-party sources that often pass for "reliable" in pop culture articles, no matter how many such sources there are or how recent they are compared to what we assume to be the latest update on the personal/official website.
@Hijiri88: I think we often run into a problem of overly generalizing Anglosphere gender norms to other cultures. What you're saying about Japanese language and culture is very interesting; I don't speak any Japanese, but I speak French, and even in that language relatively close to English, many English-centric assumptions prove false. The whole relationship between social gender and grammatical gender is different when applying any noun to yourself contains an implicit statement of your gender. (It's also, incidentally, the most frustrating part of transitioning when you don't speak the language often enough to form new habits. I've gotten weird looks once or twice for calling myself américain rather than américaine.) One can see a bit of that disconnect going on at Talk:Claude Cahun, where people are struggling with how to apply the subject's gender expression in French in the 1950s to an English-language article in 2021.I'm not sure there's an easy solution to it, though, because this problem runs deeper than just Wikipedia. For instance, without taking a side on the issue of the term Latinx, I'll observe that a lot of the debate in the U.S. about it seems to come from people who are not familiar without how gender works in Spanish. A lot of English-speakers tend to expect our concept of "my pronouns are ______" to extend to languages where gender is more complex than just third-person pronouns and the occasional "son"/"daughter" situation. And that includes RS—many of which, as you allude to, barely even understand the concept of non-binary gender to begin with. So we get screwed over by the RS, and then by people who read them and then make good-faith changes based on their bad takes. The complicated pronoun situation I've been most involved in has been that of James Barry (surgeon). There's no language angle there, but nonetheless his article's been done a great disservice by the surfeit of articles in somewhat reliable sources saying "You'll never believe what this empowering lesbian, forced to crossdress, accomplished" or "You'll never believe what this pioneering trans man accomplished".Which gets us to the awkward sourcing question: Generally, someone's gender identity is the sort of thing we'd want very high-quality sources for. At the same time, we don't want to misgender someone just because major RS have been slow to pick up on something. Ellar Coltrane started taking they/them pronouns long after leaving the spotlight, and for over a month our article on them sourced their pronouns to their Instagram bio, till they got a brief write-up in a newspaper we could use instead. Given how many long-dormant BLP stubs we have (another rant for another time), there are plausible scenarios where a self-published source or suboptimal-quality source could be our only reference on someone's pronouns for decades. Not to mention people who are only mentioned in passing in articles. I've been in the news a few times in my life, mostly when I was very young. In the past I've been mentioned in mainspace, although I currently am not; but if someone were to re-add a mention of me, to get my name and pronouns right they'd have to cite like... a blog post I wrote when I came out, I guess? That's not exactly ideal, and would be weird to see alongside a cite to a major RS, but it's preferable to just getting people's pronouns wrong.At some point we're probably due for an RfC on when, if at all, it's acceptable to use they/them pronouns in cases of ambiguous gender. I don't really want to be the one to start that, though. :D Anyways, this is turning into a ramble, but thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts. (I designate this a talkpage-watcher-friendly thread, by the way; interested to know what others think.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)05:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh. Your James Barry example made me think of George Eliot and even more contemporary women writers who used male or "ambiguous" pseudonyms (or variations on their real names), such as D. C. Fontana. By the standards of some modern popular media, we should be calling them all transgender men or at least gender-fluid, except that we're lucky enough to have good documentation of the actual reasons for their hiding the fact that they were women. Ironically, the same is essentially true of a certain living author (who I won't name, but I think you can probably guess who she is), whose views on non-cisgender rights have turned out to be somewhat questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: This is as much me thinking aloud as anything else, but I'm going to ping you so I don't feel like I'm talking to myself. :) (Not to say a response is unwelcome, by any means, just that this may not really be written like a response to your own points, and you could be forgiven for not having much to say in response.) Oh I'll also ping BDD—with the same caveat—since he expressed some interest in this topic at Talk:Claude Cahun.The way I see it, we have four categories of cases where pronouns aren't as simple as "just say what they want":
Unknown identity, where the person's story does not involve participating in any gender-segregated activities. It was surprisingly hard to find a good example of this (since for most historical figures we can infer gender based on segregation), but after looking around in Category:Unidentified people I did find Italian Unabomber as an example—someone we have no interviews with, no profile of, etc.
Known identity but unknown gender identity. For many articles we don't explicitly know someone's gender identity, but there's a general precedent that we take fem-presenting AFAB as presumptive evidence for she/her and masc-presenting AMAB as presumptive evidence for he/him. This is imperfect, but it's probably the least bad approach. Issues arise in three cases:
Subject has indicated no gender presentation at all. E.g., picking another at random from that category, Neuroskeptic.
Subject has presented in a way too inconsistent to draw any non-SYNTH inference from. E.g. my favorite example, Thomas(ine) Hall... I swear not just my favorite because Thomasine and Tamzin are variants of the same name.
Subject's gender presentation differs from that associated with their gender assigned at birth, but they have made no statement regarding gender identity. There's tons of living people like this, but BLP forbids us from documenting it in most cases. It thus comes up more often with long-dead figures like James Barry.
Known identity, but ambiguous or inconsistent gender identity. Ruby Rose, Sophie Xeon, Vi Hart, and Alexis Arquette all come to mind, as does Utada Hikaru—in each case a different kind of ambiguity or inconsistency. (Often, as in the cases of Rose and Arquette, this may be someone who is genderfluid, and it may well be that they see no ambiguity or inconsistency but the sources reporting on them did.)
Known identity and gender identity, but it is unclear what pronouns should follow from that. Especially common in non-binary Westerners from before Stonewall who went on the record about their gender, like Claude Cahun or the Public Universal Friend.
In #1, #2.1, and #2.2, I think it's really author's preference (à l'EngVar) whether to do they/them or avoid pronouns. I think readers understand the concept of the gender-ambiguous they, given that it predates the singular-personal-pronoun they by several centuries. The important thing is not defaulting to he/him or she/her based on stereotypes. On #2.3, I've made clear my view at the Barry RfC that MOS:GENDERID should apply there the same as anywhere else: Binary presentation should be met with the corresponding binary pronouns unless there's clear evidence that the person did not identify with that gender (or, for more modern subjects, that they did not want those pronouns). On #3, I think we should default to not changing pronouns unless the subject requests it, because anything else would be presumptive, and shouldn't "compromise" on they/them. Avoiding pronouns sometimes might be the least bad option; sometimes we also just have to figure, if this person really cared that much, they'd probably reach out and ask us to change it. For deceased subjects like Xeon and Arquette, all there really is to do is follow the final statement, at least as best we can manage (bit complicated in both cases). And on #4, I dunno, I'm not opposed to they/them pronouns for someone who explicitly eschewed gendered pronouns in their lifetime like the Public Universal Friend. But they're almost the exception that defines the rule. The vast majority of people covered under #4 did refer to themselves with gendered pronouns, and I think we need to follow people's final wishes even when we suspect they might have preferred some modern option.K, that was a lot. Respect to anyone who's read to the end of this. Responses welcome, but, as noted before, this was as much thinking aloud as anything else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)04:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Tamzin, if this is what comes out when you think aloud then you should think aloud as often as you feel the urge to. (When I do it, it doesn't end up nearly as... coherent.) I think the categories you've laid out here and your explanations of how you think they should be handled make a lot of sense – this is definitely something I want to come back to and read more closely when I have more time. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I see your 2. and I immediately think of ancients of whom we know some details but nothing that makes their gender (or at least biological sex) clear. Hieda no Are and Junia (both long assumed male but now widely considered by specialists to be women who were misidentified as a result of linguistic ambiguity) are interesting cases, but there are others who don't even have names, such as "the X poet", where X is the name of some work of literature written, or likely written, anonymously. A number of authors of Japanese literary works are assumed, based on their content or style, to have been written by male authors (court nobles proficient in literary Chinese, Buddhist monks, etc.) or women (members of the literary salons serving this or that empress, or more often than not just Takasue's daughter), so I guess in English they can be referred to as "he" or "she" once these authorship theories have been elaborated upon. (Needless to say, this is quite unrelated to the distinction between biological sex and gender identity, which I believe was not widely recognized until recently. I'm pretty sure throughout most of human history biological sex was of interest for the purpose of carrying on family lineages and gender identity -- or, indeed, sexual orientation -- didn't enter into the equation.) As for 2.3, it'll be interesting to see, if Wikipedia lasts as long, how our little encyclopedia will deal with such cases once such subjects have passed on and BLP no longer applies. Probably have to have an RFC in each article. 😅
As for 3., I think that, as a general rule, the "traditional" pronouns/determiners may be best, unless and until they specifically state that they don't like it, since it can probably be safely assumed that in such cases no one will find this usage either awkward or hurtful. (There do seem to be people who, for their own reasons, think anyone with any of these gender identities "should" use specific pronouns, but I don't think they can be assumed to find it personally hurtful, I'm pretty sure such people are a negligible minority even within the LGBTQ+ rights community, and I suppose they will probably eventually be outright rejected by said community for advocating a position that runs completely counter to said community's goals, similar to those who believe anyone with a particular sexual orientation should disclose said orientation publicly to "create awareness", as though public awareness were anywhere near as important as the feelings of the individual[s] in question.)
4. strikes me as particularly ... well, outside my area of interest and expertise. Japanese poets before c.1880 referred to people as kore if they were "near" and kare if they were "far away", so the idea of pronoun preferences based on sex or gender would have been completely alien to them. Modern Japanese is a bit iffier since late 19th-century literati, in translating European literature (into what essentially amounted to a new, artificial literary language) took that word kore and used it to translate "this" (or "it"), kare to mean "he", "him", or "his" (Japanese uses postpositions to mark the subject, object, and possessive/genitive), and kano-onna (the genitive form of kare and the word for "woman", literally meaning "that woman") to mean "she", "her" or "hers". Since Japanese doesn't actually use pronouns very often, especially when speaking of people (it's quite rude... I think the same is true of English, at least because it implies you have not taken the effort to learn a person's name), this new Europeanized style was comfortably adopted into the standard Japanese written language, and consequently the spoken language, and now scarcely a century later Japanese gender-minorities are being told by non-Japanese-speaking netizens that they "should" use gender-neutral pronouns in English... "Ironic" might not be the word for it, but...
Hello! You probably don't know me, but I watch your talk page and saw this interesting discussion, so I thought I might share my thoughts if you don't mind :)
It seems to me that the hardest cases are the ones where the subjects are long deceased, and the issue is trying to translate their gender expression at the time they lived to how we might classify them today. The discussion goes something like, if this person were alive today, they might be considered a [something, e.g. trans man], so one the one hand that means we should refer to them with [e.g. he/him pronouns], but on the other hand, we shouldn't press terms upon them that they didn't use to refer to themself. Of the ones mentioned above, the ones that stand out to me are James Barry, Thomas(ine) Hall, and Claude Cahun. (The same problem applies to historical people whose sexual/romantic orientation was unclear, but it's easier to avoid making a statement one way or the other when you don't have to deal with pronouns.)
Modern people, on the other hand, tend to declare what their preferences are for pronouns, and the question is just how to interpret that. For example, Vi Hartindicated that they have no preference and do not care which pronouns they are called by, and Rebecca Sugar stated clearly that she uses both she/her and they/them. It seems like these kinds of cases ought to be more straightforward, though evidently nothing is straightforward. Aerin17 (t • c) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, I forgot one! (This is an addendum to my own rant, not a reply to Aerin17, whose post I appreciated but don't think requires a reply; indentation is to visually distinguish my own comments from Aerin's.) Sometimes an author will self-identify as "a man", or "a woman", or "the mother/daughter/wife of Such-and-such". (I won't pretend there isn't a gender disparity in the examples selected here; there is, but that's just because unfortunately most of the relevant examples are women whose identities are only known in connection to their male relatives.) So we know their gender (insofar as, with the ancients, we usually have no choice but to assume gender aligned with biological sex) but practically nothing else. Given that, as far as I am aware, none of the languages Japanese between around 800 CE and around 1400 CE could have been familiar with had gender-based third-person pronouns (Chinese, like Japanese, nowadays has a fairly arbitrary distinction in the written language between "he", "she" and "it", but this seems to be recent, and Sanskrit -- which some of the Japanese Buddhist clergy may have had some limited awareness of... -- ... might distinguish the three?), I don't know if any of them would care if they knew that centuries after their death people were talking about them in a language distantly related to Sanskrit and using strange pronouns that classified them by their gender, but I think such questions, regardless of how interesting they might be for some folks with unusual hobbies might be, are probably not all that important as far as we are concerned, since all of them are also very much dead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I started writing a few comments, but ended up like a writer in a cartoon, constantly tossing drafts into the trash. I largely endorse your four-part division above. Surprisingly, I am more inclined to accept they/them for #4. It is possible, but unlikely IMO, that such people would reject they/them pronouns today. And ultimately, we have to make some assumptions about such people—the use of he/him and she/her very much included. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@QoopyQoopy: Ah. You dropped an "e", then. ;) Well cool, say hi on the server sometime. I'm wan Tansin—ken tonsi li ken jan there. Also, if you aren't aware of https://wikipesija.org, check that out! I'm not too active there atm, but it's a fun project, with a long-term goal of getting WMF backing. Which is a long shot, but would be really cool. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)02:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Would there be interest in a bot that makes a "watchlist" just for recently-edited pages?
@El C, TheresNoTime, and Wizzito: Well, currently item 1 on my big-project wiki to-do list is some content work (gasp! I know), and item 2 is the second round of 'zinbot automatic patrol circumstances, which I got consensus for months ago but still haven't run with, but this is item 3. If anyone else would like to take a stab at it (hint, TNT), what I'm thinking of is something like:
{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = <!-- Watch all pages linked from these pages, emulating Special:RecentChangesLinked for them. Separate by newline. --->
|source_user = <!-- Watch all pages edited by these users in provided timeframe. Separate by newline. -->
|user_days_back = <!-- How many days back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 7. -->
|user_edits_back = <!-- How many edits back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 200. -->
<!-- Either of `user_days_back` and `user_edits_back` can be set to None, as long as the other has a value -->
|namespace = <!-- Name or number of namespace(s) to watch. Use 0 for mainspace. Separate by commas. Default: All. Prefix with - to mean "everything but" -->
<!-- Days back, edits back, and namespace can be overridden per source page or source user, by appending a # and then `days=`, `edits=`, or `namespace=` to the entry. You can also use a `prefix=` parameter. -->
|always_watch = <!-- Will be watched even if not covered by the above parameters. E.g. Your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|never_watch = <!-- Will be ignored even if covered by the above parameters. E.g. your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|update_frequency = <!-- A number in minutes, or "auto". At "auto", the bot will update as frequently as possible, with the understanding that after each update you are moved to the back of the queue for updates, and the bot only edits once every 10 seconds. -->
}}
Thus mine might look like
{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log
User:Tamzin/XfD log
User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable <!-- Open TPERs -->
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/ <!-- Only watch active RfD subpages. -->
User:Mz7/SPI case list <!-- Active SPIs -->
|source_user = Tamzin
'zin is short for Tamzin
|user_days_back = 2
|user_edits_back = None
|namespace = -Category, File <!-- I don't really edit these namespaces -->
|always_watch = User:Tamzin
|never_watch = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
|update_frequency = auto
}}
That would render as {{Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the {{{update_frequency}}} value.Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're ever looking for a new project, I think it would be very helpful for categorizing redirects if more redirect category templates could take a parameter to define the term the redirect is a modifcation from, for use with redirects that are modifications of other redirects (i.e. are avoided double redirects) and can be used along with the {{R from avoided double redirect}} template. For example, {{R from alternative name}} allows one to put the more common name after a pipe (parameter 1) in cases where it is different from the title of the redirect target, or {{R from other capitalization}} allows one to indicate the form with other capitalization after two pipes because that template is coded differently. {{R from alternative spelling}} also takes a parameter after a single pipe. Rcats that don't seem to have this functionality include {{R from plural}}, {{R from singular}}, {{R from long name}}, {{R from ASCII-only}}, {{R from initialism}}, {{R from acronym}} and likely others. Should be fairly simple to modify the templates, but you seem far more suited for template editing than me! Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tamzin! I was rummaging through the NPP archives and stumbled onto this discussion. First, my belated THANK YOU!! Second, please see this redirect which showed up in the NPP queue as a result of: 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · ←Blanked the page and then reverted 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · Undid revision 1097374915 by Turtle-bienhoa (talk). Is there any way we can get the Bot to recognize that type of activity so that it doesn't remove reviewed status? Best ~ Atsme💬📧14:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Example male and Example female
Hi Tamzin—hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you would be able to update User:Example male and User:Example female to use Special:GlobalPreferences to set their genders, instead of setting them locally? As an irrelevant aside, as I was writing this note, I realized I would ping both accounts. This made me curious: how many pings are they currently sitting at? Anyways, happy editing!HouseBlastertalk22:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
This is now the second time I've found myself agreeing with a complex and nuanced group of arguments you've made on an issue enough to wish I could just give you my proxy. If not for that darn RfA Q14, I'd be urging you to stand for Arbcom. --GRuban (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: Thanks. :) You know, I have my share of regrets as a Wikipedian, but answering that question honestly isn't one, nor is giving the community the chance to decide whether that kind of disposition made me more or less qualified to be an arb. The answer seems to have been "less", and I'm quite content with that. Just means I'm too cool. ;) I've already been to the land of burnout and back—drafted and deleted resignation statements twice—and found new priorities both off- and on-wiki. I'm happy in my current niche, wandering back and forth between content-creation periods and projectspace periods. Maybe someday I'll be stupid enough to run again, and maybe that time the community will punish me for that folly by electing me.
P.S. I always feel like it's tacky to thank someone for !voting "per" oneself, but in this case I did less for the agreement and more because it's been ages since anyone picked the third pronoun option. I've been working today on a piece of fiction where a lot of the characters take Spivak pronouns, and was thinking about how neglected my poor neopronouns are. Thanks for looking after them... Maybe someday they'll fix the Echo bug that forced me to randomize the order in my signature. Or... hey, Sammy, would some sysadmin yell at me if I wrote a script to change my signature every minute? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)01:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, talkpage watchers! If anyone's looking for an article to write, here's one that I think is really interesting, easily notable, and maybe has GA potential, but with which I have a minor COI: Edgar Labat, a Black man wrongfully convicted of rape in Louisiana in 1953. At the time he was freed (1966), he was the longest-serving death row inmate in U.S. history. He was the subject of protracted litigation throughout that time and became a cause célèbre, with lots of coverage. This Time article gives an overview. Newspapers.comTWL has lots more. And there's scholarly coverage. My COI is relatively small (my grandparents advocated for him and he lived with them briefly), enough so that I'd be fine assisting once written, but I shouldn't be the main author on this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)18:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Highest of the month so far -- congratulations! I'm experimenting with hook placements a little; I'm not sure how much the "quirky last slot" structure is borne out by user experience data (as opposed to pageviews data). Placing this one in the second slot seems to have worked out for it. That makes 7/10 top hooks this month so far ones I promoted, including 4 of the top 5, with 2/5 from that set alone. Vaticidalprophet04:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tamzin. I've just seen Wikipedia:Salting is usually a bad idea. I wish a few more administrators realised the very basic and simple fact which is the main point of that page. Many times I have been carefully watching a repeatedly created title to catch the next sockpuppet, only to be thwarted by someone coming along and protecting it. A related case is a personal photograph, often on Commons but sometimes on WP, which is used only for persistent WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by an editor who keeps coming back as various socks, and naively puts the same image in each new user page. So easy to check "what links here" every now and then, until someone deletes it, thereby cleverly persuading the sockpuppeteer to recreate it under a title that I'm not watching... Sigh...JBW (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)
Revoke TPA for banned user
Sorry to bother you, but since you're the blocking admin I figured you were the correct person to ask. The recently blocked user Trexerman briefly came back, only to accuse me of being a "Russian sympathiser" on his TP for having reported him to ANI. It's nothing egregious, to be fair, but given that I already have one crazy person to worry about on Wikipedia, I can definitely do without that. Could his TPA be revoked? Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, you said: You've made this edit twice now to Blackout tattoo. No one's trying to use Healthline as a source there. Rather, "WP:healthlinedotcom" (not sure why the adding user didn't link it) indicates that there was originally a citation to Healthline that has since been removed. Why are you removing this detail from the template? It's potentially useful information to someone trying to find a new citation—at a minimum, it steers them away from making the same mistake as whoever originally cited Healthline.
Healthline has been blacklisted as a source on Wikipedia after a community decision to remove all traces of the website from Wikipedia - I am part of the team doing that.
Putting a neutral [cn] requests editors to find a reasonable WP:RS source, for which there seem to be several. I made this edit to reuse the HuffPost ref and add another from Penn Medicine. Hope this is satisfactory to you. Good luck. Zefr (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: Thank you for adding the source to the article, but that doesn't really answer my question, and since you've done the same on other articles, I'll press the matter. Why remove the mention of Healthline from a citation needed template? Maintenance templates' content is explicitly not part of the encyclopedia. It's fine for them to acknowledge the existence of deprecated sources. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion will give you background. As Healthline had been used as a source over years mainly for medical topics - and Healthline is a spam source that damages Wikipedia - the RSN discussion led to a decision to remove all traces of it on the project. There is always a better source available than Healthline. Zefr (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: You're still not understanding. Healthline is not being used as a source on these articles. Please stop and look at the content you are removing. This was not using Healthline as a source. This was not using Healthline as a source. These were not using Healthline as a source. In each case, a {{citation needed}} was already there, and its |reason= parameter was being used to explain that a previous Healthline citation had already been removed. I have no problem with you removing citations to this deprecated source! However, for these particular edits and some others like them, all you are doing is making existing {{citation needed}}s less clear. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the healthlinedotcom part of the cn was created purposefully with a bot to remove the original Healthline spam ref. There is no value to what was the existing Healthline source, as it leads the user into Healthline's spam. This has been discussed with admins, so we are proceeding with removal. Leaving a [cn] in place is like any neutral request for a (better or any) good RS source. Zefr (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: I see that David Gerard wrote If the bot can leave a comment tagging that it was Healthline (if that's possible), that would be very helpful afterwards and there was then a consensus to implement that via the |reason= parameter. Can you point me to the consensus to remove that information? If such a consensus does exist, you need to be linking it in your edit summaries, not the very unclear rv cn for blacklisted spam Healthline, which makes it sound like you're either removing spam, or removing a CN tag, neither of which is the case. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read further in the discussion where David Gerard said: "that would be ideal, "reason=WP:healthlinedotcom" is a searchable flag that the claim itself really needs human inspection." The searchable flag was needed because typing healthlinedotcom in the conventional way with a "." would cause a blacklist error. This is what prevents novice users from inserting Healthline articles as sources now. The "searchable" part was intended for editors to locate its uses and eliminate them. I have explained enough here, so am done now. Zefr (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: You have explained nothing. And you are not above justifying your edits to a colleague. If you continue to remove useful information from CN templates without any consensus, this will go to AN/I. Please self-revert the edits or partial edits you have made that remove |reason= parameters without changing anything else, or present an expicit consensus for these changes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've always figured there's an implied "accurate information" criterion for that clause of WP:CSD, so this makes sense to me. A page might still be G12'd if a first G12 is declined by someone who fails to locate the cited source, or G3'd as a hoax if an editor incorrectly thinks that an existing source verifies its claims, when it's actually about a different entity. If one wants a more wikilawyerly way to view it, one could say that the requirement of "remove[d] ... in good faith" is transferrable—if someone assumes good faith of what is in fact bad-faith content, the bad faith transfers up to them, albeit inadvertently (i.e., a good-faith proxying of a bad-faith action). Or, of course, WP:IAR. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we all encounter some form of mental illness in our lives, some all encompassing, some apparently trivial. Nothing is trivial, but we can think it is.
I knew all this, but I know it better now I've seen it written down.
@Willbb234: I've tried to avoid discussing anything involving their previous usernames. To some degree it might be inevitable, and doing so does not violate WP:OUTING since the connection is not revdelled/OS'd, but I'm still trying to be respectful of privacy considerations. In this case, I'm not sure that's worth bringing up, since there's an easy AGF association. Friends/acquaintances/etc. do often run at or around the same time (Firefly was my RfA buddy, although we wound up going a few months apart because I was slow to check my last box), and since the two acknowledge they know each other off-wiki, that seems like a pretty innocent explanation. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your caution, but even a little digging suggests that the former username of one of the two at least is quite possibly of significance when looking at what may be evidence of long-term issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First ArbCom case request in which I read the opening statement all the way through without wanting a red pen. No opinion on the case itself, but that was clearly and consicely clear and concise. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ya think? Yeah, stuff like this doesn't bother me. If it gets too gruesome or explicit then I don't mind if someone thinks it sets a bad environment, but even that stuff doesn't bother me directly. Like a duck's back off water. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there!
I though I'd ask for rollback rights here because I saw you on the list of admins willing to grant such requests. I have been reverting vandalism for a little while now. I think I have the responsibility and knowledge of policy to use this tool well. I would also like to use huggle .I commit to being accountable for all reversions that I make and am willing to have this tool revoked at any time if I misuse it. Any feedback of my contributions is most certainly welcome! Thanks! Seawolf35 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC) You can disregard above. Thanks! (edited 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Word limit exceeded
Hello, Tamzin. You are currently exceeding the prescribed word limit at WP:A/R/C. Please do not add or subtract any more words from your statement without formal permission from the Arbitration Committee or clerks ahead of time. You can request a word limit extension by emailing the clerk team. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL‐Talk‐☖01:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Thanks for letting me know. All I'd request is the right to note it if Corbie makes another comment like the ones I've recently highlighted. Otherwise I think I've said what I have to say, for this phase of the case at least. If you want, I'm fine with collapsing my replies to Cryptic, Thryduulf, and Risker, which clarify some small points but don't add to the evidence presented against Mark and Corbie. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Autisticeditor 20. Overall, this is pretty good work! If I could give a general note, it's that you should make sure you're using the highest-quality sources available. For human sexuality articles, these will be more scholarly works, less sex guides (although some sources admittedly blur the line between the two). Note that for some human sexuality claims (namely, ones relating to biology), WP:MEDRS applies. I have not checked all of these citations for MEDRS compliance, but have checked whether they verify the claims you're making. And so a few issues on that note:
You changed The clitoris is the most sexually sensitive part of the human female genitalia to ... of the vulva. But the two cited sources [2][3] refer to its role in the whole human body, so if anything that summary should be broadened, not narrowed. See also Clitoris § cite note-Rodgers O'Connell Greenberg Weiten Carroll-2
The McCammon cite is fine, but it's put in the middle of a sentence attributed to Shere Hite.
The essential aspect of cunnilingus is oral stimulation of the vulva by licking, movement with the lips or some combination is not an encyclopedic tone, nor an encyclopedic approach. We document what people do, and if we say that particular techniques are more pleasurable, we say that based on reliable-source analysis, which a sex guide is not.
(Sidenote, not text you added, but: the female may separate the labia for her partner implies that the giving partner won't be female)
Fellatio (diff): I don't think Bullough quite verifies It is difficult for some people to perform fellatio due to their sensitivities to the natural gag reflex. Reword to say what Bullough says: the penis hitting the back of the throat and ejaculation are both able to trigger the gag reflex.
Fingering (sexual act) (diff): Does Carroll say the rest of the genitals (as was written before), or just the rest of the vulva (as you changed it to)? My instinct would say the former is true, at least depending on how "stimulating" is defined.
Non-penetrative sex (diff): I don't see how Rosewarne verifies the comparison of manual masturbation with manual sex. One could argue that that's trivially true, but if you're going to cite something at all for that claim, it should be a source that makes the claim explicitly.
I’m leaving this message as I’d like to request/apply for the Rollback permission. What’s prompted this request is where I’ve recently been doing a lot of WP:BANREVERTing - Twinkle makes things a lot easier by being able to restore a previous revision (one prior to sockedits), but it can still take a fair amount of time, especially if there are a lot of contribs to go through. If I understand Rollback correctly, it should speed up the process of banreverting in instances where no one has edited the page since the sock. (I’m also aware that there are scripts like User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback, which from my understanding would make it possible to mass-revert a sock’s contribs from their contribs page — but I would want to be extremely cautious when using tools such as that, given the obviously much higher potential for something to go wrong.)
I’m happy to commit to being fully accountable in my use of the tool, as described in point 2 of User:Tamzin/Discretionary admin things#Permissions requests - you can take this message as such a commitment. As for point 1, I’d like to think I’ve generally employed good judgement when editing Wikipedia (though I guess I’m about to find out if that’s not the case /lh).
Let me know if I’ve missed out anything you’d like to know, or if you have any questions for me.
Saw you weren't an admin anymore. Glad it's voluntary and temporary, but hope everything is well with you and yours. But, now, my user highlighter script highlights you as pink, so it's not all bad! CLYDETALK TO ME/STUFF DONE16:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Hope whatever is happening in Real Life eventually settles down with a reasonable (to whatever extent possible) resolution. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ClydeFranklin, Darling, A smart kitten, Schwede66, GRuban, DMacks, and Gerda Arendt: Thank you all very much. Thank G-d, things have settled down a bit. Some things are still unclear, but without getting into details, the potential contigency where this situation would have become my overriding focus for months/years has not come to pass. I'm taking the opportunity to remain away from admin work a bit, get some content work done (Draft:LGBT synagogue in process, and something more audacious planned after that), and hopefully return to admin work sharper and better-rested when I'm ready. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the newest edits here and let me know if you think this editor has resumed making personal attacks against me. I do not think that their latest posts are consistent with your advice to them in connection with your recent block. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you wanted a discussion on the article talk page, you got your way, I made the points I needed to make like you wanted me to. I do not know if you know this, but you are absolutely enraging me with the statements you are making Ssilvers. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave admins out of this. I am doing nothing wrong. If you want a discussion, respond to my claims directly on the article talk page. There is no reason for you to do what you are doing here. Please!!! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: I am not currently an admin. @Drmies, could you take a look? Or any talk page watcher. Given the intensity with which HxA approaches this topic, I tend to think an indef pblock of HxA would be in all parties' best interest, but haven't thought about this too hard, since, again, not an admin. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what an indefinite block is? That means forever. You are saying that I should be blocked from editing any topic, even non-Music ones, just because of comments on one talk page? Do you see the video game articles I have worked on the past month? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said a pblock, as in a partial block from the article and its talkpage. This is the normal solution for when an editor is generally productive but for one reason or another has a weak spot on a particular article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Breathes in, beathes out* Alright. I misred that for a second. Thanks for clarifying.
@Infinity Knight: WP:NOR does not apply to talkpages. It only applies to what content we put in articles. If Nishidani were saying the content should be included simply because his friend's friend's daughter was allegedly raped, that would be an NOR violation. If he is offering that in support of including RS-published claims to that effect, it is not, particularly given that all he is saying is that it's "not improbable" and not arguing for a statement in the encyclopedia's voice. (That doesn't necessarily mean it's a strong argument—I take no position—but it's not an NOR issue.) All the best to both of you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. You do bear a striking resemblance to my daughter, and I hope you don't take offense to my observation. It's truly admirable to share your photo openly on the Internet, but I usually advise my own children to prioritize their online privacy. Navigating the nuances of original research can indeed be a challenge, and at times, it can be somewhat disheartening. Wishing you a wonderful day ahead. Infinity Knight (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OR still doesn't apply to talk pages, and they're explaining why it's important that high quality sources are used. These things will only come out after the war, so it is useless speculating on them unless we get strong independent reliable sources.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you feel better
I saw your note on your userpage, I'm sorry and I hope you feel better soon, I know things can get really stressful sometimes. Take as much time as you need, take care. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓04:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tamzin. you very kindly semi-protected the article Chicken Tikka Masala a year ago (Oct 11, 2022), which worked wonders in reducing the frequency of people messing with the national origin of the dish without providing evidence. The protection expired not a week ago and the first pesky IP user has driven by, causing work for those who care that statements should be backed by evidence. Would you be able and willing to semi-protect for a further year, or should a certain threshold of disruption be demonstrable? Kind regards and best wishes Guffydrawers (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I've re-protected for a year, given that the disruption started pretty much immediately the protection expired. I don't think we need to waste any volunteer time on this. firefly ( t · c ) 10:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Cullen328. Well, glad to be back, because where else could I be called an "idiot Jew" by someone I blocked for pushing an Israeli(!) POV? Gotta love this place, right? Be seeing you around, I'm sure. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a while, some troll liked to send me emails calling me a "self-hating Jew" and worse. Clearly pertaining to Wikipedia, but not through Wikipedia email. That troll seems to have lost interest. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got called an antisemite for reverting an unreferenced addition to a BLP about a group the subject tweeted about years ago. I don't understand how people determine the motivations of others. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I long ago gave up paying attention to the names people called me on the Internet. And segregated emails into folders. But I came to say the same thing: welcome back, Tamzin, and thank you for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier this year you blocked 174.55.91.169 as a block evader. 204.111.198.147 appears to be the same person making some of the same edits with the same edit summaries.
Their other edits cover the same areas. I don't know who the originally blocked person was but you might better be able to tell if it is the same person. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so they are. Sorry for overlooking that. Well, happy to block, then, but first will give a ping to Yamla since the original block was a CUblock, and I cannot peer into the black box of whatever sockmaster this connects to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By policy, I'm not permitted to share which account was involved earlier in the year. What I can say is that the checkuser data is stale so I can't say for sure this is the same person. I can be sure the IP addresses geolocate to the same area of the same country (not conclusive, but definitely suspicious) and the behaviour is basically identical. Therefore, not on checkuser grounds, I'd say this appears to be the same person evading their block. Let me know if you think there's more you need from me! :) --Yamla (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: Nah, just wanted to make sure there was no extenuating circumstance inside that black box, like the original having since expired, or there being some reason to be unusually harsh or unusually lenient in block settings. Blocked 6mo soft, feel free to harden if you think merited. Thanks for the response. @ThaddeusSholto: Feel free to roll back whatever edits of theirs you want to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin. A user is accusing me of breaking my ban on restoring contributions by sockpuppets/banned editors. However, I've checked carefully and, as you can see here and here, he reverted literally hundreds of contributions by several different editors who improved the lead, both before and after HaNagid (the sock) came to that article and made a few changes (which were already modified by other editors afterwards anyway). If you think this is a violation of my ban, of course I apologize and will self-revert. But it seems like a stretch in this case. Thank you very much. Dovidroth (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dovidroth (CC @Nableezy): That is a violation. There is no "collateral damage" exception to your editing restriction. You would be allowed to pick through what Nableezy reverted and restore only things that had nothing to do with HaNagid (or any other banned user) added, although that would be tedious, and fairly high-risk if you happened to mix up who said what. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone named Nyxaros is trying to drag me into their edit war, at least I think they are. In any case, before I responded to them inappropriately dressing me down as they reverted my contributions, I saw they likely violated 3RR in his snark against me.
See:
...and maybe more reverts on the same page from earlier, I lost count.
Another moderator had politely warned him to stop canvassing him and others to protect his POV, and to work things out for others, basically saying his axe to grind is willfully not taking into account reasonable contributions.
The heart of the dispute is that this user is trying to make a disruptive WP:POINT that aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be the arbitrator of critical consensus, as he was admonished for doing so here, see this example, when it turns out that an WP:RS etiquette tailored toward film articles under MOS:ACCLAIMED says otherwise.
Editwarring by this editor also spilling out over to other pages as well like the movie "Oppenheimer" and "Saw X" and likely others, if you dig deep enough into the editor's history.
Seriously, Ethiopique? Why would you bring this to me of all people? I can only think of two or three admins more likely to recognize you. Well whatever, blocked. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as an editor involved in their reporting to ANI, I support a block being imposed but I am not so certain about it being indefinite. Perhaps I assume too much good faith. Do Slatersteven and EducatedRedneck have any views on this? Pardon me for asking. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd originally envisioned a short block, with the notion that all Ali36800p needed was a wake-up call. The threat of socking, and the proliferation of single-use IPs on the Talk:Iraq war page make me think that this wasn't a joe-job, but maybe WP:MEATPUPPET. I would not object to a time-limited block, but their subsequent response to the block has made me think an indef, where they have to show they're ready to contribute congenially, is better. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Indef is not infinite. Once a user shows they will straighten up and fly right, they can be unblocked. The idea that behavioral issues will end after a time limited block is a misconception devoid of root cause analysis.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the threat to block evade (they were informed about socking at the ANI, it is down to them to understand the policy) is problematic. It seems to be that this is very much an issue with them, they rush in without reading policy, and then hope they get it right. So there are serious wp:cir issues here, and it does seem they will be a time-sink. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: The socking "threat" doesn't bother me that much because I don't think they know what they're threatening... But there's the rub. Anyone can say "I know what I did wrong and I won't do it again." We expect blocked users to be able to articulate what exactly that was, though. They were arguing backward from a foregone conclusion, citing any source they could find that they thought supported their claim. I'm not yet convinced that they know how to avoid that, even assuming they're serious about wanting to. If you'd like to give them some advice, by all means; and if another admin said they wanted to unblock I wouldn't stand in the way of it; but I'm not currently inclined to unblock of my own initiative. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My (original) view was, if they were unblocked/converted to a time block, then this would effectively be a probation (we are watching and there are no more chances). The responses here allay my concerns. Thank you all for your responses and your time. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia, as for my latest edits I have used information sources, I posted them on my talk page, a bit about me I'm a Autistic, Bipolar, Queer Trans, Ashkenazi Jew, I joined Wikipedia to edit what I've been trying to, people here aren't accepting the article source's I've found, there is more than one in relation to each of the comorbiditys
Hi @Remote123457. I'm actually also all of the things that you said you are (for some value of "autistic" and for some value of "bipolar"... I usually just say "neurodivergent"). I definitely appreciate you wanting to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mood disorders. However, like I said in the note on your talk page, medical statements require high-quality medical sources. That would mean things like systematic reviews and meta-anlyses, the kinds of thing you find on Google Scholar—not just info pages from various websites. That's why your edits have been reverted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 14:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, but the message/template wasn't my doubt I meant to ask, did you find out why you didn't receive the ping from the bot? —usernamekiran (talk)17:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen328. This was related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Audit of indef IP blocks. Occasionally admins accidentally click indef when blocking IPs, which I assumed was the case here, since there was no indication of any exceptional circumstance justifying an indef for that IP, which has never edited outside of a 1-hour period last December. As part of going through the list of old IP indefs, I resolved to start by clearing out recent ones that fell into that category; given the number of such blocks, I felt it was better to notify admins generally, as I did in the AN thread, rather than to send out pings to each admin who had made such a block. Is there a reason that this IP should still be blocked? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I had accidentally blocked that IP editor from editing the entire encyclopedia, then I would have no problem with your unblock. This IP editor, though, intensely disrupted one specific article, and I indefinitly pageblocked them from that specific article, leaving them free to edit over 6.7 million other articles, plus the vast multitude of non-article pages. In my view, all they would have had to do is say, "I'm sorry. I won't do that any more", but they didn't. I expect to be asked to comment before this type of reversal of a pageblock that I imposed. It is a minor issue and the chance of disruption is likely negligible at this point. But I do not think that pageblocks of an IP address that has never made a single productive edit, either before or after the pageblock, should be treated the same as an indefinite sitewide block of an IP address that seems to have been used by different people, for edits of various types, some good and some bad. Do you see the distinction that I an making here? Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I totally see the distinction you're making. But I don't think it gets around the problem that we don't know how long a given person will be on a given IP. That's the main reason that WP:INDEFIP says not to block IPs. We have no way of knowing if that vandal is still at that IP, or even still lives in the same state, or even if they're still alive. And while an indef IP p-block does a lot less damage than an indef IP siteblock, in terms of potential collateral damage years/decades down the line, in aggregate they still do all add up. But I'll grant that the rule against indeffing IPs predates p-blocks, so maybe there should be some discussion of whether it should apply to them, and if so how much. If you want to start that discussion at WT:BLOCK or somewhere else, or even just as a sub-thread to my AN thread, it might be one worth having. I could reinstate the p-blocks I've commuted pending an outcome to that, if you prefer; or we could leave it in limbo the other way, without prejudice against reblocking if there's consensus that such blocks are OK. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 17:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a variety of reasons, related to factors both on and off Wikipedia, I do not have the appetite to begin such a policy discussion. But if you want to start that discussion, ping me and I will explain my thinking. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: It's an incel term for a moderately attractive woman, with connotations of trashiness and promiscuity. I could probably link you to scholarly sources or something but instead I'm going to link you to a video from an absurdist YouTuber, because it's a free country and I can do what I want: [6] (@5:08). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 17:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Just not up-to-date with all you youngsters' latest slang. BTW. I think that user page needs full protection. I'm sure we all have emotions over this, but really. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing that, it's an angle that I really hadn't considered. I've had any noteworthy interactions with such users so I suppose it's easy for me to say "WP:DENY" from the peanut gallery, but I understand that reality would much messier and more complex for people who've been directly involved with them. — SamX [talk·contribs]04:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, of course. You hit all the nails squarely. My first such was Essjay. When I first started, Essjay seemed in many ways a model Wikipedian and a fine person. When I returned from a Wikibreak, I found out it was all a lie. I felt the anger at betrayal mixed with the grief of loss of what-never-was, as you describe it in the essay. I mourned/mourn the person who never was. In a way, I feel a little of that like with Lourdes. Never idolized her as I did Essjay, but still. I think we all, to a greater or lesser extent, hold ideal versions of the encyclopedia and the community in our hearts and minds. The realization of a Lourdes crushes our hearts and bruises our minds. So, yes we need to not deny those feelings and cover grief with anger. And we need to treat the grieving with compassion and understanding. (I think the Foundation should provide a clinical psychologist, like a real employer would, but that's a different discussion.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship?
Even if we disagree with another editor, that edit [7] wasn't necessary IMO, and expressly went against TPG and ROLL. Would be polite to restore it. Cheers, — kashmīrīTALK00:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the thoroughly obnoxious terminology involved ('stacey-lite' in particular has its origins in the incel movement) I'd say that 'censorship' was a fairly mild response to the post in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Kashmiri: Are you familiar with the meaning of "stacey-lite"? See above if not. Please also note that WP:ROLL does not govern use of rollback for edits with custom summaries. (I used rollback because two edits had been made, and reverting via restore does not send a ping; I wanted to be transparent with Feyd about the revert.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I agree that the comment in question was grossly misogynistic. Personally I can see valid grounds for revision deletion - I wouldn't want for anyone else to think such comments are permissible to make in a space where female editor retention and prohibiting harassment are of high importance. Patient Zerotalk03:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I admit I'm not familiar with the term "stacey-lite", However, our policies don't permit removing other editors' comments even if they are invectives, uncivil, misogynistic, racist, etc. The targeted editor may, of course, but it's better to take the matter up with the author. It may sound hard, but these are policies. Even removing personal attacks (which this was not) is termed as "controversial" – see WP:TALKNO, WP:RUC, WP:RPA, etc, — kashmīrīTALK08:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to wikilawyer this, @Kashmiri: TALKNO allows Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. RPA says that Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. RUC says essentially the same thing. So, yes, our policies do permit such removals, and they are in fact fairly routine when people say offensive bullshit. But if you feel I erred in my interpretation of policy, you are welcome to raise the matter at WP:AN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 09:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - good removal IMO - purely due to the inclusion of "stacey-lite". And sorry Tamzin for causing a bit of hassle for you over this.
In case of interest, here's my excuse for the unhelpful post. I semi habitually drop incel & other youth lingo into my RL conversation and in that context it's helpful as an opener for discussion to reduce what I see as harmful ignorance among my fellow 50 somethings about the unique challenges faced by today's young people. I'd normally not have used it on wiki but was a little unbalanced due to the Lourdes revelation. I'd always liked them plus felt indebted as theyd been of great help to the Colonel and myself. I was shocked to see them under attack, then relieved as I saw tactical possibilities that I thought has a good chance of saving them from a desyop, then gutted to see them signing a warrant for their own permaban with the WiFi Wifione confession. Again, sorry Tamzin & thanks for reverting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I appreciate your reconsideration here, @FeydHuxtable, but could I nudge you to think a bit deeper about that overall approach? I'm a Zillennial, and a lot of my friends are Gen Z, and I wouldn't say incel culture is at all representative of younger generations. (In my experience most Zillennials/Zoomers are either happily getting laid or happily not.) There's a narrative that that group puts out about how their hands are forced, there's no place in society for them, etc., and it's just not true—or if it is true, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've been a neurodivergent teenage boy of a body type many people aren't attracted to. I was still able to find women who wanted to go to bed with me. It's a really sad thing that happens, the incel rabbit hole, but if you want to talk about the challenges of the younger generations, that's not where I'd start. Zoom out a notch to mental health challenges, and then take in the full picture of a mental healthcare system in shambles, ever-rising rates of deaths of despair (suicide + overdose), and a complete lack of financial security to tackle any of that. That's the shit I see my younger friends deal with, the ones who call me in crisis, the reason I got good at finding people on short notice, the reason I could run someone through a wound care checklist in my sleep, the reason my heartrate doesn't even go up anymore when I see a suicide threat. The same friends who need $100 to not be homeless, or a place to crash when their parents kick them out when they're working full-time but still can't afford an apartment where they live. A bunch of scared and confused kids trying to navigate a world built by past generations for past generations, who raised them to have a set of skills that mostly doesn't apply to that world, and now blame them for that deficiency. That's the real youth crisis. Not girls not wanting to put out. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can Tamzin, I have, and I will be trying to change my appraoch. A nudge at the right time from the right person can be hugely valuable, so thanks again. Our perspectives on this are probably more alike than you might think. I too felt economics was the place to start and focussed in that domain for decades before I began to suspect such one dimensional attention may be sub optimal. In line with this, when I arrived on wiki back in 2008 I was doing things like publising the 'Keynesian resurgence' that aimned to relieve much of the economic stress resulting from the crisis, and was slightly ahead of the available WP:RS as I didn't know about WP:OR back then. Anyway, I think youre 95% correct with the above analyses. I could talk about the other 5%, but you didn't ask for my opinion so you'd have to invite me. I'm not sure you'd want an old man trying to explain such a sensitive topic to you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request to delete disruptive revisions of 152830 Dinkinesh
Hi,
An IP user recently posted some explicit images on the article 152830 Dinkinesh and edit warred with users multiple times before getting blocked. The explicit images still remain in the edit history. Can you remove them please? Thanks, Nrco0e (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Well if you have any questions, let me know! I recommend playing when in a decent headspace emotionally, with a free schedule the day after. Solitaire is more satisfying than coöp IMO, but if you do solitaire I recommend having someone around you can talk to as you play.Also, we actually gave away our own copy after the playthrough recounted in the essay—felt wrong to keep playing—which came around to annoy me when writing the article on the game. The picture I uploaded of the status tokens, I had to crop from an old one I took mid-game. So if you feel like taking a better picture of tokens, and/or a picture of the cover of the Book of Scripts (which, like the tokens, I believe to be copyrightable in Poland but not the U.S., so eligible for local upload), feel free! -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 15:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was planning on solitaire as the hubs isn't a huge board gamer, but he's always around and after 30 years still mostly charmed rather than otherwise by the rabbit holes I go down and the bees I get in my bonnet. Totally happy to take photos, which will in all likelihood show I'm Doing It Wrong. Okay, first of questions likely to become annoying...after having recently discovered that a jigsaw puzzle needs one of these to ensure it won't require a trip to the vet to see if the missing pieces are inside the cat...can this be be put away between sessions? Valereee (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Yes, there's a save system built in! Although I'd recommend taking a picture of everything too just to be safe, at least if you're an anxious type to me. That's actually why I have the pic that the tokens are cropped from. Also, a ping to @BiomatrixBackup in case she has any insights on the intersection of cats and boardgames, both of which she happens to be an expert on. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 17:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, like, actually medically? I thought you were joking, lol. There are many good intersections of cats and board games, such as Calico, The Isle of Cats series, etc. The bad intersections involving cats eating pieces, I must say I've never actually run into. You so rarely get feline patients who have eaten something ridiculous, it's the canines who eat everything, and when it does happen, it's never been a board game piece in the history of my practice. Hmmm. Clearly I need more experience. BiomatrixBackup (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a thought behind those eyes Having once called a vet to ask about the dangers of eating cat poop and being asked, "And how old is your lab?", quite agree on the general higher likelihood of dogs to eat things. I've had cats who have eaten yarn and tinsel, but it turned out there was no evidence the cat had done anything but steal, play with, and eventually hide the puzzle pieces. The yarn appeared to be the bigger issue as I had no idea how long a piece of yarn had been ingested. They admitted her, stupid thing. Valereee (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right? Not every cat could actually eat what turned out to be nearly three feet of yarn. I mean, it's not that easy. I actually knew yarn had been eaten rather than having simply disappeared only because I noticed her, Bill the Cat-like, yacking as the final couple inches disappeared into her gullet. I was like...what do you do? Trying to pull it back out didn't seem to be ideal. Valereee (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've taken photos of literally everything during unboxing. I believe we can use under fair use anything that is discussed in the text in a way that would make a photo helpful to illustrate, but I'm not familiar with the game at all at this point. Would you want me to put them into a gallery there so you can put them where they should go? I think there are probably a few that could even go to commons -- a photo of the open box with the various pieces in their slots, etc., may be okay for commons? Valereee (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Tamzin. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Arb.... Message added 18:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Since you seem to care more than the average admin about WP:MEATBOT editing, User talk:CrafterNova/Archive/November 2023#Incorrect pluralization, and MEATBOT edits may be of interest. Short version: Going around replacing redirects with pipes to the article name in exactly the way WP:NOTBROKEN says to not do, and actually cites NOTBROKEN when doing it (WTF?); doing the opposite with template calls, swapping intelligible template names out for gobbeldygook shortcuts for no reason; and making lots of plurality changes that are almost always wrong, sometimes badly change the meaning, and at best are a WP:STYLEVAR problem (other than I did find one actually correct one). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I'm afraid I'm going to have to recuse there. I'm not quite INVOLVED, but I try to only be one kind of uninvolved with a given editor if I can help it, lest someone cry HOUND (and... let slip the havocs of war?). And I previously had an exchange with CN here about something unrelated. Do feel free to bring me things like this in the future; just bad luck on this one. Although probably better to wait for a response first, since all I could do right now is pile on. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 22:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I wasn't actually looking for any immediate action, it just seemed like an activity-type you were keeping tabs on or something. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some stroopwafels for you!
Hi! I hope it's not too forward of me to drop by to say that I smile every time I see your [cetacean needed] signature. Nothing really of substance to add, it's just improved my day enough times that I wanted to tell you so. — Moriwen (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know I added the wrong template. I don't know a lot about the arbitration stuff. There was only one other page where I had added it, so you caught me early. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the irony
Thank you once again for dealing with the weird disruption at my Talk page. A fragment of the deleted comment got through to my WP email account, enough for me to note that if asked, my wife would likely claim that I abandoned all manner of "grooming behavior" about three hours after getting married. And that was 28+ years ago. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) ARoseWolf - to be very clear on why we don't publicly post on oversighters' talk pages regarding edits that require suppression, there is a huge risk that posting the diff in public venues will lead to several other people viewing it, especially if you explicitly say it contains suppressible information (see Streisand effect). Such sensitive information needs immediate removal with not a lot of attention being drawn to it. Emailing the OS team (or the emergency team if there is a threat of violence or self-harm) is always the best decision to make in these instances! Patient Zerotalk00:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Patient Zero, Not sure there is a threat of self-harm or violence against the person in this instance. It was a case of potential doxxing or self-doxxing if the user is who they appear to claim to be. They self-reverted, perhaps believing that it deleted it not realizing that it was still in the history. I understand from the wiki-link Cabayi provided that reporting it by email to the OS team is the best way and, again, I will be following that guidance from now on when I run across these which is rare. Thank you. --ARoseWolf12:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: Sadly I forgot to ask the 'crats to use the userbox. But, for whatever reason I'm back in the saddle now, so maybe next time.
Some say my tenure will end in arbies.
Some say in 'crats.
From what I've tasted of ol' ANNIE.
I hold with those who favor arbies.
But if I had to de-mop twice,
I think I know enough of burnout
To say that for desysop 'crats
Are also great
And would suffice.
Aah, Robert Frost! I read and very much liked his poems back in my youth, but I can scarcely remember anything about them now. The sadness of the passing of time... Sigh... JBW (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If while I am editing on my phone, but not on my computer, I select some text in a foreign language, a box with various options pops up, including Google translation. (I think it is probably a feature of the particular browser I am using, but it just could be some option or script I've put in place and then forgotten.) Anyway, if on this page I select the text "wan Tansin li toki pona" and then select "translate", Google translate appears, and tells me that the sentence is Arabic, and means "I want to talk to you". If instead I get to Google translate by a Google search, and paste the same sentence in, it still thinks it's Arabic, but now translates it as "And if you forget me, you will protect us".
I've noticed some very odd behaviour by a user that really only makes sense to me as "sockpuppeteer forgot what account they were logged into while editing". I don't have any other account to link them to, so it's my understanding that I'm not supposed to open an SPI about it. What am I supposed to do? -- asilvering (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's this user: [8]. The strange behaviour is draftifying an article after it was accepted by an AfC reviewer - the first edits this user has ever made in mainspace. Previously, there's a hiatus for a few months, before which they worked on something completely unrelated. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Asilvering, there is a very unusual editing pattern going on, and really not looking like a new user, but I don't see anything more definite than that. Tamzin may be able to offer something more helpful, but at present the best I can say is that it may be worth watching the account for a while. JBW (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was so great to meet you at Wikiconference North America – thank you for allowing me to infiltrate the Cool Kid Inner Circle! Hope to see you again at future conferences/gatherings and around on the wikis :)
The account is Evlekis. The others I'd be inclined to lean a bit negative at this time, though I can't really say any more than that. I can tell you that Evlekis doesn't edit from the US. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, zzuuzz. The British IP is a mess of vandalism and BLPvio since February, which has seemingly slipped through the cracks owing to the dynamicness of the /64. So I've blocked 6mo, without finding as to whether they're Evlekis. No action on the American IP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping I could get some advice on how to proceed. In the Iraq war article, you may recall the now-indeffed Ali36800p was stonewalling against changes to the infobox. Since then, it seems to me that a consensus has developed on the talk page, but some IPs have been edit warring it back. My question has three parts.
Is my read of that as consensus reasonable? One other editor indicated so, but I'm also aware that two does not a quorum make. If I'm mistaken or in a gray area, would an RFC be an acceptable way to help generate a firm consensus (one way or the other)?
If my read is correct, what's the most appropriate way to enforce that consensus on the article page? I'm up to two reverts already, and too new to want to do a third revert. The options I've considered are ANI, request for page protection, and SPI. (See below.)
The third and final wrinkle is that I suspect these IPs to be socks or meatpuppets of Ali36800p. First, these IPs geolocate to the same locations as the suspected socks/meats/joe-jobs just prior to their indef. Second, their first ever edits were to the same interest areas as Ali36800p, espousing what seem to be the same views. Finally, the timing is interesting, in that Ali was silent for quite some time, and the IPs were not active, but just a couple days after Ali reposted their request for an unblock decision (Nov 16) these IPs suddenly came up with the same arguments as Ali. (Nov 18) I haven't yet filed an SPI because I'm not experienced enough to know solid this evidence is, and I don't want to waste clerk time if this isn't anywhere near enough for a WP:DUCK block.
Thanks for checking out the behavior, and your other actions sound good. Me, It's late morning, and I've been up for way too long and already expended the energy I have for the hard stuff. Happy Thanksgiving!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, weighing in because I was pinged and I did a quick skim of their contributions: while there are similarities in topic areas and POV perspectives, I don't think there's enough evidence to say that they are the same person. However, I would keep an eye on their contributions to ensure they are not pushing an inappropriate POV. Z1720 (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ec question
If an editor gained extended-confirmed largely through violations of the EC restriction, would that be grounds for revoking or not? nableezy - 13:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Screw it, since it now includes edit-warring against previously established consensus at Washington Institute for Near East Policy and my AGF meter is trying its best to buy it but I dont: Thmymerc:
Nearly all of their edits on Oct 30, excepting the first 2, 223 in sum, were adding similar edits to this to US congresspeople's biographies.
Along with another 68 edits robotically adding a Biden score on November 15 (non-ARBPIA but robotic and thoughtless).
Blocked indefinitely. Definitely someone's sock, and the normal "Oh maybe it's a CLEANSTART" doesn't apply when the account immediately leaps into hundreds of policy violations. Gun to my head, if I had to guess a master I'd say NoCal100, but that's not a very confident guess. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt feel like NoCal to me, theres a word that I use to describe the vibe I get reading NoCal's writing that I cant use around polite company, and I just did not get that vibe here. nableezy - 01:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ACE 2023 Guide
Thank you for your Guide, I found it very interesting, very thoughtful and reasoned, and I appreciate the time that you put into it. --Elonka22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that prompted me to award you this rare and exclusive barnstar was your work in creating User:Tamzin/ACE2023 guide. But don't think that all the other things you do have gone unnoticed! You are an awesome Wikipedian! Thanks for everything. — Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Diannaa. This means a huge amount coming from you. After a year and a half as an admin there's only a few admins left who feel to me more legend than colleague, but getting a barnstar from Diannaa is one of those things that just... oh I don't know how to finish this sentence without sounding too fangirlish but... well, again, thank you.
I'm glad you appreciated the guide, and likewise Elonka above. Although, I must say, I just discovered Teratix' painstakingly researched guide, and it so thoroughly blows mine out of the water that I'm tempted to just redirect mine. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 07:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google
If you google "trans" the top of the page is a summary of the lead of the Transgender wikipedia page. But today it says:
‹ The template Infobox gender and sexual identity is being considered for deletion. › A transgender person (often shortened to trans) is someone whose gender identity differs from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Is there any way to make that template notice something that Google ignores the way it ignores "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and the hatnote "Not to be confused with Transsexual." -- Colin°Talk10:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, if you don't agree with my argument there, would you please just make the topic ban "Armenians, broadly construed"? Golden has a large collection of GAs about Azeri poets (Yusuf Meddah, Kishvari, Mirza Shafi Vazeh, Imadaddin Nasimi, etc.) and an FA in that same topic area (Fuzuli (poet)). If the concern is ethnic conflict POV-pushing, it might be wiser to just ban him from Armenians, and let him make edits about Azeri poets and the like. I feel like this will make it a lot easier, and will serve a more narrowly tailored preventative purpose than banning him from all Azerbaijan. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)15:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear that my meltdown at WP:AN had nothing to do with anything you did. I do not think you are a bigot at all. In fact, I once saw you sticking up for an editor who associates with a denomination of Christianity (Evangelical) who genuinely don't like queer people. I have always believed that if you think Trump is a reliable source of information for anything, I would question your ability to reason on just about anything. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, @Scorpions1325, no one in my RfA ever bothered to ask whether I think Wikipedia has a liberal bias. I do. I think some of that is inevitable (between "reality has a well-known liberal bias" and our duty to match the consensus POV of reliable sources, which often lean left), but often it isn't, just the product of crappy writing by AMPOL regulars. I don't have a solution to it. It does piss me off, though, to see "John Doe is a far-right[1][2][3][4][5] anti-vaxx[6][7][8] transphobic[9][10][12][12] Trump supporter[13][14] from Idaho who currently serves as the state's attorney general and supports the pseudoscientific[15][16][17][18][19][20][21] belief of intelligent design". We don't write any other class of article that way—not Nazis, not serial killers, not child abusers—and the people who perpetrate this perversion of NPOV should be ashamed of themselves. But again I don't have any solution. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 16:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail right on the head. It helps to know that at least some people on the far-left are aware of this. I concede that my side doesn't fact-check as well as they used to. Heck, a Gallup poll from 2003 found that Republicans and Democrats held similar views on global warming. I took an environmental science class in 2020, and I was surprised to see how easy it was to defend a small-government solution to it via a literature review. In 1980, the bias would not have been a problem since the mainstream media was more diverse back then.
Hi Tamzin, just came by a philosophical discussion more than anything and to say thank you for your feedback in your guide. Yours was the first one to be published with substantive commentary on the candidates and up to that point it had felt a bit like typing into a black hole! I think we agree on more than disagree on. I'm very strongly in favour of admin accountability. I'd like to see it become slightly easier to become an admin, much easier to git rid of a problem admin, and for a desysop to not be a permanent stain on an editor's record that means they'd probably never pass an RfA again. I'd love to see a community-based desysop process for removing admins who have lost the community's trust or confidence, and I'd love to have a venue like XRV that had teeth to censure. I just think the whole meatpuppetry case was handled rather clumsily. All ArbCom had to do was say "for policy purposes, these two editors can be treated as one" (which is black-letter law) at the outset. The community could have handled the rest. From what I've seen, these were two editors who were trying to do what they thought was the right thing for Wikipedia, even if they were on the wrong side of policy. I think it's important to remember (cf. my comments about YellowMonkey in response to my most-recent question) that we're humans behind the usernames and even admins who have made even severe misjudgements are still people who have given thousands of hours to make Wikipedia better. We may have to discipline them for The Greater Good™ but we should try to be compassionate while we do it. Anyway, you're a great admin and I respect your opinion and won't hold it against you if you oppose me. I don't expect you to change your mind, just wanted to share my thought process. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?16:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Should I shunt off my collapsed section elsewhere off the WP:AE? I thought that I should try to illustrate the problem for the admins that I see, but I'm not sure if this PvP is helpful as an illustrative matter or not. Without the section, I'm well-below 500 words. With the section, I am well over. jps (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One option would be to start a section on my usertalkpage, for example, and link there just to make things prettier. Seems a little silly in terms of rule following, but I want to make the situation as easy as possible for people who want/need to follow it to follow it. jps (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: I think it's fine collapsed, as long as you understand that, collapsed, some might not read it. Either way, you're "only" at ~160% the limit, while Sennalen is approaching 300%, and I try to be even-handed on word limit. If you have more to say, we can discuss an extension, but again, fine for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am hopeful that this may be the end of it. I am fine with people skipping the section as I think it should really only be relevant for those with a keen interest in the sausage-making/inside-baseball of these matters. If I think there may be cause to expand, I'll ask your advice, if you don't mind. jps (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of anything else I might need to say, but as more and more people excavate old diffs to accuse me of different things, I reiterate that there is too much for me to respond to under the current procedural vehicle. I encourage you to join the conversation on my Talk page about whether I have any improper PoV. Sennalen (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: If it's alright, I would like to reply to Rjjiii,
((re Rjjiii)), Lab leak and zoonotic theories are not equally likely. "Unknown" is the language of several sources and is not principally about lab leaks - but rather uncertain aspects of timing, intermediate host, etc. Jps and I are having a more fruitful exchange along these lines on the article talk page, which I invite you to join.
I do not think that this comment will help admins reach a decision in the thread, especially after so much has already been written, so I am declining this request for an extension. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Would it be procedurally inappropriate to leave it on his talk page then? I really just want to invite him to the conversation. Sennalen (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may have more bearing on helping weigh the evidence: I would like to remind everyone,
Documented consensus[11] is there is no consensus that lab leak is a conspiracy theory (#1) and that The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (#4). What I support and others oppose is the presence of the word "likely" there, and in this matter I am on the side of consensus. (It's true I once considered lab origin very likely; however my current assessment is only that it is plausible.)
Hello, Tamzin. I hope you're doing well. In your closing comment to that AN discussion ereyesterday, you said: "I've always tried to be an editor who's a leftist, not a leftist editor. It saddens me that some others are seemingly unable to draw that distinction for themselves." Hearing this from you gave me pause as, in context, this to me feels more like an attack on the characters of editors (including me) who differed from you, than a contribution to the debate on the issue at hand. Now that that discussion has more or less concluded, would you consider retracting that remark? Kind regards, -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)12:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maddy from Celeste. I've considered your request. Given that multiple editors cited explicitly political rationales for their stances in that thread, I do not think it was inappropriate to criticize, in general terms and without naming names, editors who were putting their political views ahead of the encyclopedia's interests. There's more I could say, but I said I was done with that thread, so I'm going to stick to that and continue working on building an encyclopedia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 21:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Looking at that thread, I think multiple is an overstatement. In any case, it's good to know you presumably weren't referencing me. I would contend that, as evident here, such general criticisms may be liable to misinterpretation. Best, -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)22:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-EC user creating articles in ARABPIA
Hi Tamzin. The following articles in ARABPIA were recently created by a non-EC user. Could you please delete them? (I put up a deletion template, but this shouldn't need to wait 7 days ... if you are not the correct address, can please you tell me where to turn?).
No worries, I was just feeling like it had turned kind of meta and thought we didn't need to include every possible example that could be scraped up. I think you're right about this one. Valereee (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dr Pepper can.jpg
Hello, I'm Valereee. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nosebagbear (talk)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Special:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Done -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I meant to ask, did you find out why you didn't receive the ping from the bot? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
