User talk:Tamzin/Archive/5

Orphaned talk pages

Hello, Tamzin,

It looks like you deleted some pages but didn't delete the talk pages which you can see at Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages. I've gone ahead and deleted them but I wasn't sure whether you wanted to move them to a different location. Just thought I'd give you a head's up...if you use Twinkle to delete pages, it will delete the talk pages automatically but if you use other methods to delete a page, you should make sure there isn't a leftover talk page. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Ah I see what it was... I was moving the articles in question for attribution reasons, and had checked the box to move the talkpage as well, but it didn't occur to me that since I was moving the articles to talkspace, the talkpages would have nowhere to go. You think there'd be a warning for that or something, but oh well, duly noted for next time. Thanks. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Help

Help me in this investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MahimMasum71 AkbarAliKhan1 (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@AkbarAliKhan1: Believe it or not, I sorted it out about 30 seconds before you sent this. :) Thanks for the report. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: user should be blocked globally because he is also self promoting on commons wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkbarAliKhan1 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Are you available to take a look at this? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Not yet action taken. AkbarAliKhan1 (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Evasion of your block?

Seeing your block notification of Dimnumero (talk · contribs), edits by Physicsenduser (talk · contribs) look to me to be similar. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Me? I'm not evading any block. ... Oh, the block I made, you mean. /lh

Yeah, indeffed, SPI filed pro forma, latest exchange hatted. If they just didn't see the p-block notification on their last account, they can explain that in an unblock request. Thanks for reporting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Heh – I missed that ambiguity in the grammar that I used. Thank you! 172.82.46.195 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And now we have Priyanka.giri0 (talk · contribs) (sigh) 172.82.46.195 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Banned user

Where can I find the previous history of the "proxy wars" banned user? --Viennese Waltz 11:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Viennese Waltz: That would be Futurist110, blocked by ArbCom and banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've come up against that editor before myself. Out of interest, how did you recognize the hand of Futurist110 here and here? I'm sure you're right, but I was wondering how you recognized them. --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Viennese Waltz: Full credit to Gadfium. I just noticed the IP come up on an IRC feed that, among other things, flags edits by accounts/IPs whose blocks recently expired. It was obvious that it was still the same user on the IP as when Gadfium blocked it, and so all that was left to do was basic due-diligence to make sure the previous block was a plausible match, which it definitely was. Same content interests, same projectspace interests, same city as a previous IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Perfect, many thanks. --Viennese Waltz 10:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sock

Hi, you blocked User:Xing Ping Fi 450 [1] a month ago but I think his sock appeared now User:GarrettDunBar on the same article Kubra Khan with the same style of editing [2]. If you can look into this. Regards. Satrar (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Satrar: Hmm, I don't see the same massive overstatement of Pakistani films' box office figures. Am I missing that somewhere? Or if it's something subtler, might be better to send to SPI with some more detailed evidence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for a quick response. Actually they have newly created their account and the way they are editing, it's quite similar to the suspected master sock. Rest I leave it to your fine judgment. Satrar (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

lmao

Good eye. I was seriously baffled there! jp×g 17:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Man, how the hell did that even happen? Doesn't SineBot do those notes automatically?! jp×g 17:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh. Much to think about. jp×g 17:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: Funny that a non-vandal sock inadvertently did a better job at vandalizing than 99% of vandal sox. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Subtropical Highland Climate

I just wanted to thank you for your review on the Subtropical Highland Climate section of the Oceanic Climate page. It's certainly appreciated! G. Capo (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@G. Capo: This has been sitting on my talkpage for almost 6 months because I keep forgetting to reply to it. Just to clarify, I didn't review the target section, just the redirect pointing to it, which you created in 2009 and which got re-flagged for new page review after it was blanked by a vandal and then restored. The reason I'd left this up is, when you left this message, I'd noticed the current target was actually suboptimal... But I see that, in my long procrastination, an IP fixed that, and then just yesterday someone fixed it further. Well, just goes to show, on a project with no deadline, if you put something off long enough, someone else will do it for you. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. 2009?!?...wow that is now 13 years ago! G. Capo (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A personal message

Hi Tamzin,

I recently posted to Barkeep49 and noticed the discussion involving you and your RfA in the section user talk:Barkeep49#Quoted in the press. It reminded me that I had thought about posting a message to you after the RfA, but didn't get around to it.

I have a user account with a clear block log that I have been choosing not to use out of disillusionment with WP. As I watched your RfA develop, I debated logging in to my account to !vote in support of your candidacy as I was appalled at some of the behaviour that I witnessed. I decided that I would do so a few hours before it ended only to have personal circumstances arise that kept me away until after it had gone to a 'Crat Chat. I wanted to apologise for not managing to offer my support !vote but seeing that the RfA was closed as successful, and seeing you being congratulated, I felt that my posting would be more making me feel better than it would be helpful to you, so I waited.

Reading the thread on Barkeep's page, and the suggestions that one !vote more or less could have made the difference, and then reading the Slate piece about your experience, I felt it was worthwhile to express that you had at least one more supporter who did not speak up. Though all admins have the same grant of authority, I felt your RfA spoke of your integrity and how you would bring it to the task for which you were volunteering, and I think that it earned you the respect and trust of many – though sadly also with the suspicion and doubt of some. I've been impressed, though not surprised, that you have taken some difficult decisions as an admin. I see your name and anticipate a thoughtful contribution, even if I might disagree with it, and that makes you the kind of contributor that Wikipedia needs.

My recent disillusionment was made worse by an Arbitrator who basically dismissed that I could have any contribution to make because I was choosing not to use my account. Though another Arbitrator offered a more humane view, I was then and am still now disappointed and hurt that I was not granted the dignity of a person despite being behind an IP address. The Arbitrator in question never addressed this, which has left me with a highly negative view of his character. Consequently, reading the comments in the thread on Barkeep's talk and the Slate article reminded me that you likely have lingering wounds from the RfA, and just as one person can cause pain, one person can sometimes help to alleviate it. Your RfA ordeal was distressing to watch, and no doubt vastly worst to experience, though it was warming to read how your mother travelled to support you in person – something I would dearly love to experience just once more, but which is sadly impossible. I am cisgendered and so cannot say that I truly understand the difficulties your have faced in coming to self-acceptance and then living openly as a trans individual. However, as a gay man, I do have some idea of your path and how it may have shaped you. Bringing those experiences to being an admin is not a manifestation of bias; it is a strength to be able to empathise with those subject to mistreatment. You stated that you would recuse from the Donald Trump article, demonstrating that you also bring the wisdom to know when bias might arise. In short, the view that I formed of you from your RfA is that you are a strong individual, honest, dignified, well-meaning, and someone who will act with integrity and who is motivated by the best interests of the encyclopaedia. I believe you have more supporters and admirers than the RfA showed – I regret that I did not say so during your RfA – and I wish you well.

Kind Regards, 172.195.96.244 (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you sent this just as I was traveling, and it totally slipped my mind in the chaos of a whirlwind few days. I don't think I have much left to say about my RfA, at least not at this moment, but thank you for your words of support, 172. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Toronto Star

Hi Tamzin, I noticed you revdeld a recent edit on Toronto Star. Would you be willing to revdel a couple more please from the same ip range earlier today? [1] and [2]

Thanks Carver1889 (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Carver1889:  Done. Thanks for reporting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@TamzinThanks, do you know if there is an easier way of requesting revdels? The two ways I know are to message an admin or to email the oversight address for something urgent. Carver1889 (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Carver1889: I recommend #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Extrapolaris

I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnatyrannus may be part of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Extrapolaris sock farm complex. I've a very long history with Extrapolaris dating back to some his (I think he's a he, IIRC) first edits on Wikipedia around 2014. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not. BilCat (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bil. :) Was already writing a response at the SPI when I saw this, so have replied there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Responded there also. BilCat (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

AE

Hi Tamzin. I don't have space to comment in AE (500 words), but I thought this is noteworthy. Golden just reverted this edit with no reason (removing Artsakh as a country). When I asked for an explanation on talk, they said it's a "disambiguation page". This could've easily been corrected like I did subsequently, but no, they just remove factual information based on a minor technical issue instead of improving it. Is there a pattern here based on the evidence I provided in AE too? I would also like to hear your elaboration on AE if you don't mind, seems like other admins aren't eager to comment. Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Replied at AE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not look at what I was reverting more carefully. Seeing a controversial edit by a new IP as their first edits made me believe this was yet another disruptive edit, which led me to reverting it. I was wrong because the information added was mostly fine except the fact that the link was a disambiguation page, which I probably should've fixed instead of reverting fully. The revert was a mistake and I own up to it, sorry. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #61310

Hi Tamzin. I have left some comments regarding this appeal at User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#UTRS appeal #61310. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Beg a boon of thee

In my stridency, I might have said something stupid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horizons Ventures. I don't think so, but another disagrees. Would you care to comment here about my big mouth there? I need eyes I can trust. BusterD (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: I'll take a look. While I've got you, can Zubeen Garg be unprotected? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

On the same page, youngling. BusterD (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: So, I'll be open about my bias here on the underlying dispute, as someone who takes a very conservative stance on companies' notability. The way I see it, far too much gets counted as coverage of a company that really isn't. Coverage of a company's finances isn't coverage of the company. Coverage of a company's officers isn't coverage of the company. Coverage of a company's products isn't coverage of the company. I think we should only look to holistic coverage of the company qua company.

With that out of the way, I think your response is a bit over-the-top, and a good example of the law of diminishing replies (redlink! oh no!). This may have been a situation where it was best to just accept that the two of you were at an impasse. That said, I think the characterization in response is also a bit over-the-top, especially given that you'd already recognized your mistake. Most of all I think you're both grown-ups and will get over it quick enough. We all have moments like this.

Y'know, today I found myself in a situation where I had to choose between warning an editor and writing a nice, long, heartfelt note to convey the same message in a much kinder way. Having done a lot of sanctioning lately, I settled on the latter, and got a response that left me nonplussed. Let's just say I cycled through a lot of responses to convey how I was feeling. In the end I settled on "Wow." Sometimes less is more.

Hope that's not too preachy. Been a long day for me, mostly due to non-WP stuff. But yeah. Hope this satisfies your request? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the second look. I just thought they were arguing an unsupportable position, but that's my view of CORPDEPTH. I often find myself assuming the role of enforcer; I feel I should primarily be a team builder. AfD is by nature an adversarial system. Get some sleep. I'm off to GenCon this next week so I'm trying to get back on a day schedule... BusterD (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Commonedits

Hi , You also check these two users(Commonedits and Jha09) ... Contributing to drafts[3], creating a similar page[4] , and most importantly, these two users have in common that they are only creating celebrity pages. PravinGanechari (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Jha09" also uses different IPs...

• 27.58.157.10 [5]
• 120.58.75.57

[6] PravinGanechari (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@PravinGanechari: Possible, but I'm not seeing DUCK-level evidence. If you can find some diffs of similar behavior, more than just similar interests—see WP:GOODSPI—you're welcome to file at WP:SPI. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please have a look at personal attack against me on Talk:Zubeen Garg

Please have a look at this diff. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I'd missed that when I blocked for edit warring. Extended to 72 hours. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)`

Revision deletion request

An IP wrote bad language (in Banglish) in the Music section of Poran (film) article. I reverted it. But the edit should be removed from edit history. The IP did the same thing in Din–The Day. Mehedi Abedin 15:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mehediabedin: What does the bad language mean? If it's just equivalent to stuff like "fuck", we usually don't revdel. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Then it's ok, no need to do it. Mehedi Abedin 19:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment

Tamzin, I was considering commenting shortly after you placed this comment [7]. I'm somewhat more reluctant now only because of how things outside of your control played out and I don't want anyone to think I'm only saying this after seeing the results (I hope that makes sense). Anyway, what I wanted to say was I was really impressed with that comment and what you were trying to delicately do. It's certainly easy for an admin to tell someone to nock it off under threat of sanction. Instead you showed strong empathy and a clear focus on deescalating. I wanted to complement you for it. Springee (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: Thanks. Y'know, that's the first time I can recall that sending a message like that didn't work at least in the short term. But I don't regret it. I try to remember that with every "Do this again and I will block you", I slightly raise the collective temperature on this project. Sometimes—often, even—such threats are necessary, but they hurt the soul. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think such empathy is really important. WhatamIdoing took a similar approach with me when I was getting frustrated with a MEDRS issue. I disagreed with one of the regulars in that area and to this day I'm not convinced they are correct. The regular took a very standoffish tone. As someone who has a number of academic publications including one in a orthopedic journal I didn't appreciate being treated like I was a petulant child. WhatamIdoing, while agreeing with the others, took an empathetic approach. That diffused my frustration which also gave the others a signal to back off. That bit of empathy made it so much easier to accept the disagreement and move on. When I saw you do the same with your comment I just wanted to acknowledge it. Please keep it up! Springee (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

FSpace Publications

Frankly, I think this article is overdue for deletion as both an A7 and G11, but I won't do anything about it while you are discussing with the creator. Deb (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deb: Huh yeah. I'm not sure I agree on G11, but I don't see any CCS there, so no objection to an A7 despite its age. I don't think a discussion with the creator about their username (a kindness in lieu of softblock in recognition of 14 years of [very intermittent] editing in which no one's told them they were doing anything wrong) should be an obstacle to such a speedy either. Off to bed now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Oops, sorry

I got so carried away reading your user page that I put my comment in the wrong place! Deb (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Glad to know some people read to the end. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Gender Issues

Which issues, precisely? Reply on my page, please. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I infringed how? The genders of the rapists or the victims? Or did I exclude gender altogether? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello

It's offensive to say my comment was offensive toward followers of Islam or toward homosexuals. It's offensive to insinuate that Muslims, the vast vast majority of whom are decent and peaceful people, think violence will be rewarded in such a manner in the afterlife. It's offensive to suggest that homosexuality has any relation whatsoever to pedophilia. In your quest to make my snide quip (that I probably shouldn't have made, admittedly) into a big deal, you did quite a bit of slandering yourself. Please do better. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN KOOKY: Yeah I'm not playing this game. If you don't understand why that remark is inappropriate for Wikipedia, you are not fit to be editing here. And if you do understand, then this is trolling. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Tamzin, thanks for your message.

I don't want to dox my account name having IP edited, but I have real concerns about this editor. I had not heard of them before today and have no grudge against them. When I looked on edit count to get a sense of their activity and experience, I was startled. 55 000 edits in a year and a half is a LOT. We all have a learning curve editing and I made a ton of mistakes when I started, but within one day and 10 edits of registering an account, this editor used some anti-vandalism tools to post a threat against an IP, and was soon making very complex edits citing specific MOS standards.

I do NPP and this is behaviour I've seen from LTA accounts resuming business, they start with knowledge and preferences for how they like articles to be and start with familiarity with vandalism tools. Nor is this a ridiculous concern, we've had an RfA where the candidate was a sock of a blocked editor in the past. And an admin blocked for sock puppetry.

I have not yet fully assessed this contributor's work, nor voted. (Nobody's voted no yet.) I want more admins on Wikipedia and I was very impressed by how you handled your RFA, where I didn't think your treatment was at all fair. But I want to raise my concerns in a careful way. 82.132.215.95 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

These are all concerns you are welcome to express on your registered account. I'll make it easier for you by softblocking this IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ilovemydoodle

Hi Tamzin, I wondered if I could enlist your help with this editor. As you can see from their block log, I both indeffed them and unblocked them based on one of the odder editing histories I've seen. Since then I've had very little to do with them, although their userpages are on my watchlist, until I declined a G11 at Area 120 a few days ago.

After that, there was a series of edits by you and the user, as well as an extended discussion on the user's Talk page (which I didn't read carefully). Since, the user has come close to edit-warring over wikilinks, inline tags, and maintenance templates. I just reverted the last series of edits the user made. They are a very stubborn user. I have not warned the user, although they deserve a warning, but having seen your interaction with the user, as well as your recent partial block, I thought your input might be valuable, so here I am. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have replied on their talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm back (lucky you). So why did they make this edit? Although it's technically category space, it's effectively a part of project space, which violates the spirit of your partial block. It wasn't a terrible edit, but the phrase removed was fine and added a little personal flesh to the description. I reverted, principally because I think the user should be editing articles, not pages like this one. They went and asked me on my Talk page why I reverted; I haven't answered and don't intend to. They also reverted my revert and were then reverted by Praxidicae. Frankly, I'm getting close to reblocking the user indefinitely for NOTHERE, but I thought I'd again ask your opinion as I'd prefer not to be alone in this (see my Talk for an example of how it took four admins to block another user :-) ).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Please do us all a favor and indef them. They're a time sink (here and elsewhere.) They have contributed nothing of value and I'm not sure they ever will. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Yeah, I've been following this... Personally, I'd rather see how their current un-p-block request plays out, in part because I expect that an indef will launch about 50 unblock requests, and thus I'd rather any indef be as solid as possible. But that's just my own philosophy of blocks and unblocks, and my p-block should not be taken to preclude necessary action by any other admin. I do think ILMD could be a constructive contributor here someday, but it seems less and less likely that "someday" is now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I thought reverts should have a reason provided unless it obvious vandalism. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Bbb23 provided a reason: why do you edit these kinds of pages? He's saying you should stay out of back-office things, something I've said before, and something you're currently appealing a block related to. It's fine to ask someone for clarification over a revert like that, but you usually should not revert in kind. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Most of the time ILMD's questions are disingenuous. They know the answer, but they profess not to. It just another one of the many problems with their attitude on this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: What questions are you referring to? I have never submitted an ingenuous question to my knowledge. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Understood. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Are y'all talking about CSD notifications-- like these on a vanished user's talk? or the CSD tagging for that matter? Or did y'all already see/discuss these? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: Well, two out of my four (five?) total deletion requests were accepted and I wasn't the only user to leave messages on that user's page. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

User page

Lugnuts: I see nothing, but in the version of Starship paint, I see a template. Just for information. I prefer the nothing. I'd prefer the formwer user page, - no need to hide what a user stood for. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I see the same things. My point in reverting was that, based on Opabinia regalis' edit summary at {{banned user}}, it's intentionally made to not show anything when someone is banned by ArbCom. So like I said, I'm not sure why that decision was made, but it seems to be by design; beyond that I defer to the arbs and clerks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: @Tamzin: The creator's explanation is that "those were the ones arbcom had a direct interest in the display for (and also had to read the emails of people upset about their bans)" Yleventa2 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the context, Yleventa2. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome Yleventa2 (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Your comment 8/5/22

Don't worry, I have better things to do than argue with bigots, or with you. You may or may not be aware of the Settled Question Fallacy. It applies in spades to the Donald Trump page to which I suggested improvements, and probably to innumerable other pages. This devalues Wikipedia to just another opinionated blog. Chrismorey (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chrismorey: I have no interest in arguing with you. I actually tend to agree that our coverage of Trump is a bit overly negative (although probably not to the extent you do). But if you're going to call SPECIFICO a bigot in response to me saying not to call her a zealot, I'd ask you to please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and then either strike that remark or present solid evidence of bigotry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's start with her repeated attempts to close down discussions on the talk page, including the attack she fired off before I even had the chance to see the other editor's request. Demanding that a contentious matter not be even discussed is bigotry IMO, as well as being a textbook example of the SQF. The editor concerned. like anyone else, is entitled to hold and express her opinions on any topic, within the law. No one is entitled to demand that alternative opinions to theirs be suppressed. That's what freedom of speech means. Chrismorey (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chrismorey: Wikipedia does not now promise and has not ever promised freedom of speech to its editors. These servers are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and the First Amendment in fact prevents any government entity from compelling the Wikimedia Foundation to host speech that it does not want to host (a decisionmaking process it delegates to its volunteer editors).

Anyways, "I think it's unfair that this person tried to close a discussion" is fair criticism. Speculating as to their state of mind (which is what an allegation of bigotry is) is not. People who throw around words like that, especially in controversial areas like American politics, tend to not get very far here. Please be more careful with your word choice in the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Art Lover SPI

Hi Tamzin! I'm writing regarding this notification you left on Everybuckwheat's talk page. I don't know if it is relevant to the SPI case, but this new user has been translating drafts from Everybuckwheat's userspace in Esperanto to several other languages, so I guess they may be related. Something to look into, perhaps? –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: You blocked them on three wikis. Any thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the master but I'd suggest blocking them here because they are clearly up to no good. Still working on cleaning up this mess xwiki. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

An Esperantist friend tells me that eo:Uzanto:Everybuckwheat/Mary Morrissey (writer) reads like a human translation by someone who speaks good enough Esperanto. The hypothesis I'm trying to either rule in or rule out with Everybuckwheat is that they're part of the same art scene as Art Lover; if that's the case, an independent interest in John Kiss etc. would make this not meatpuppetry. So, if already considering such hypotheses, a fluentish Esperantist having some sort of connection to a "polyglot" who overestimates her language skills is... well, as a conlanger, I can tell you, emininently plausible. At the same time, a brand-new account deciding to translate a specific userspace draft across a bunch of wikis is absolutely suspicious enough to warrant endorsing a check.  Doing... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Everybuckwheat. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Tamzin

Thank you for creating Indigenous science.

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

Since I've withdrawn the AfD, I really think it would be best to get an uninvolved new page reviewer to recheck the rewritten article since nobody currently has.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Pppery}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

typo nt4m

increasingly blocked for restriction violations.😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Fixed. (I mean I suppose I would have been right back in the peak unblockables era.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Take a look

Been so long, take a look around here [8] DIVINE (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Response and Continued Sockpuppet Abuse

Please excuse me for responding to your inquiry on your “talk” page rather than the archived sockpuppet investigation page for NeuroSex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NeuroSex/Archive). Because that page is archived, I’m not sure I’m supposed to respond there.

I’m sorry to see that this sockpuppet account operator has continued their pattern, targeting both the Gary Wilson and NoFap Wikipedia pages. Just today, the NeuroSex account operator appears to be employing the username “Oysterthebigsleeplog” to edit the NoFap Wikipedia page with false information. By my count, this is at least the 23^rd account that NeuroSex has utilized to edit the NoFap Wikipedia page. This does not include the other 50+ accounts this sockpuppet-operator appears to have utilized to edit other pages related to pornography addiction. It is nice to see somebody take action after so many years of unrestrained sockpuppetry.

Earlier, you asked me which content should be removed. Upon reflection, I believe the most appropriate course would be to remove all of the content published by the illicit sockpuppet accounts. People look to Wikipedia for unbiased information, so it is important not to preserve proven bad actors’ loud voices.  Almost the entirety of the Wikipedia page about NoFap is written by one person, while more balanced edits from others are often reversed by the illicit sockpuppets or Tgeorgescu. Removal of such improperly sourced and defamatory misinformation by these dozens of sockpuppet accounts may require time, but it is the right thing to do for both the public and to maintain Wikipedia’s credibility.

Thank you for bringing the Wikipedia rules to my attention. I believe all my actions are in accordance with them. I signed up only to bring attention to ongoing abuse of sockpuppet accounts, not to edit any particular pages. For my own safety and peace of mind I prefer to remain anonymous. I have seen the harassment that is leveled against people who discuss these issues publicly.

I would be grateful for your continued help in addressing this disheartening situation. Keyhound (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Keyhound: I've filed a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeuroSex. As to your content concerns about NoFap, as an administrator I have no special powers over content, and in fact shouldn't involve myself in the content dispute lest I force myself to recuse from administrative matters regarding it. I'd recommend starting at the neutral point of view noticeboard if you have concerns. There's also the fringe theory noticeboard, but that's used more for people being too agressive in a pro-fringe direction than (as you allege) an anti-fringe direction. (I express no opinion on whether that is or is not happening here, to be clear. Also, I forget if I said this before, but if you have a conflict of interest with respect to NoFap or Wilson, please disclose this.)

As to removing content, I'd say a lot of what NeuroSex has added has been removed, and saying "remove all of it" is more complicated than you'd think, because often paragraphs have since been edited by others, and you have to gauge how substantive those other users' edits are. So if you want to highlight specific sentences, paragraphs, etc., that you think can be removed under WP:BANREVERT, I'm happy to look into them, but "all of the content" is too vague for me to action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

For my own safety from harassment, I cannot say exactly who I am publicly – or else I will find myself targeted too. I consider myself to be an admirer of Gary Wilson's work and am aware of NoFap, but I do not believe I have any COIs that are relevant here. Again, it's my understanding that COI rules relate not to reporting verifiable abuse, but rather to page edits. I do not intend to edit any pages.

I appreciate the actions you have taken to protect the various Wikipedia pages that the NeuroSex sockpuppets have vandalized. At the moment, only a minority of the 75-or-so sockpuppet accounts have been formally banned, despite being confirmed to be NeuroSex. It seems like the extensiveness of this situation, as well as Wikipedia policy, likely warrants banning all of the NeuroSex sockpuppets, even if they aren't currently active. Thank you very much for your time in addressing this important matter.Keyhound (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Keyhound: Well if you're going to go request that the pages be reviewed for bias or anything like that, I would say that you should disclose any COI in that case. But if you have no COI, then all right. As to blocking old accounts, that's something we really don't do unless a sockmaster has a history of reviving them, which this one doesn't. There's no point in blocking an account that will never edit again. For what it's worth, I've given NoFap a solid five years of semi-protection (no edits by unregistered or new users), under special rules allowing harsher administrative actions for the topic area of pseudoscience. Wilson's article is under similar restrictions till December under a similar set of rules for the topic area of gender. So that pair of restrictions should keep NeuroSex at bay a bit; to date, they haven't shown willingness to "game" the new-account restriction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sock

User:Mr. Beast Quake. It is a Duck of Awolf58. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying! And for cleaning up. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Adakiko Gender-Related Disputes

Hello Tamzin! I saw that you had placed sanctions on Adakiko for gender-related disputes about a week ago and wanted to let you know that they are still at it. I edited Justin Vivian Bond to include gender-neutral language and to delete v's deadname and restructured some quotes using square brackets to replace "he" with "they". Adakiko almost immediately reverted my edit and justified it saying I changed the quote. Then they told me to "take [my] proposed edit to the talk page", which I had done a month before. I just thought that you should know so that you could do something more. I didn't know who to tell but I believe that my edit was unfairly reverted so I thought that you were the person. If you could reply to this telling me what I'm supposed to do that would be great. Thanks for everything! Cedar Tree 07:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cedar Tree: As it happened, I saw this on my watchlist and had already reverted and responded. To be clear, though, Adakiko is not under any sanctions. That was merely a notice for the existence of sanctions (and was actually sent in the tangential context of List of serial rapists, not anything directly about gender). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Cedar Tree 07:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I apologize, I screwed up. I saw the removal of "Don't change; this is a quote." and reverted. Adakiko (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: I understand, and figured as much, but you know, still have to take every revert at face value. But I've certainly made worse reverts than that in my time. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

BLP Topic Ban

I didn't want to start a back and forth on someone else's talk page about this, but I was suggesting they steer clear of all BLP editing because it's safer, and because the lines aren't always clear enough to not worry about making mistakes. For instance, to me, whether or not someone was in a movie is clearly biographical. I wasn't trying to step on any toes, though, was just trying to help keep someone from getting blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

President of Kenya

Moved from User talk:Kashyap kakadia

Hello Tamzin.

I noticed you blocked the user who constantly vandalised the above subject Article. If possible, may you kindly semi-protect it as well because as long as the country's new President has not been officially inaugrated, it is quite likely people will continue to vandalise the article. Thanks. D.K.L. (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, DylanKB. I've moved this to my talkpage, since this is the best place to contact me. All of the disruption I'm seeing on that article is coming from the same user, a long-term abuse case from India. I've widened the rangeblock to 2405:205:1000::/36 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Please let me know if vandalism persists. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Vellalar

Hi Tamzin. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Examine [9] and [10]. It's pretty obvious that they're collaborating and they have similar goals. Here's further evidence of meatpuppetry. And when I ask them to cease, user Anthrodox responded with a personal attack and a retaliatory warning on my talk page. They also did not want to wait until the end of a talk page discussion to make their desired change. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.Pinsky I believe that Anthrodox is a sock of recently blocked editor Konguhead. I've filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Konguhead. - SUN EYE 1 14:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Rosengarten Zu [sic] Worms

Could we not restore TPA? Get more words to compare with other socks' words? They're quite indignant at UTRS appeal #59591, you know. Have a whale of a time. Best --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I blocked without TPA since their response to their last block was to threaten to kill the blocking admin. But if you think they'll behave themself, I don't object you or anyone else reënabling. Courtesy ping JBW. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Deepfriedokra, and since Tamzin says she doesn't object, I have restored talk page access. (As far as I can recall, Tamzin, that's the first time I've seen ë used in English apart from in the word noël, though I may have seen it many times and just not remembered. I supppose coöperation, preëmpt, & zoölogy would make sense too, and no doubt quite a few more.) JBW (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Tamzin actually speaks English, as apart from the current ersatz patois masquerading as English. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: As far as I know, it's just me and MastCell who keep the diaeresis in English alive on the English Wikipedia. One of these days Condé Nast will buy the WMF, the New Yorker style guide will take over, and then I shall revel in diaereses and "Jr.,'s"es. And, Deepfriedokra, while I was indeed raised in a household where English, French, and dashes of Yiddish and Hebrew were blended together erratically (not even on the Creole side of my family, although owing some spiritual inspiration thereto perhaps), I think I owe this more to being a neurodivergent language geek (or, as some would say, "pretentious fuck"). Idk MastCell's excuse.

Anyways, yeah, let's see what they do with TPA. See my comments at the SPI: I'm skeptical that they're really Ajhenson, but Alpharts Tod's reaction to that block was so incredibly far beyond the pale that it kind of moots that IMO [AmEng "moot"]. But it might be good to wait for an answer from CU-land on how that block as an Ajhenson sock came to be; if we don't hear back from Callanecc in a few days, I'll {{rae}} it and ask someone else to take a look at their CU log for that day.

P.S. @Gerda Arendt: Since this is about the user Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk · contribs) and not the article Rosengarten zu Worms, I've restored the ungrammatical heading, but sicced it for you. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Spent too many formative years reading New Yorker articles, I guess. Besides, pretension is pretty much my brand. :P Glad to see someone else is keeping the cause alive. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

June songs

Thank you for improving articles in June, and your message to Mathsci! My song collection is especially rich, look, and the hall where I first heard DFD, Pierre Boulez and Murray Perahia. Do you find the baby deer in the meadow (last row)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

today: a song about getting through the night, after plenty of music over the weekend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Every time you leave me one of these messages, I mean to ask, and then forget to: Do you think Roger Tapping is notable? See obits from January; three backlinks from mainspace currently. He was the father of a highschool classmate, and was a very nice guy, and I gather from the news coverage at least a big deal locally; but I don't know enough about classical musician notability. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

clearly yes, with The Strad and The Telegraph - did you know that my fourth article was about an English viola player, and when he was on the Main page (within 10 minutes after nomination !) I received thanks for bringing a viola player there, and later was told that his widow was happy - good 2009 memories -- enjoy wandering! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

SeanJ 2007 unblock

Thank you for unblocking me, I will do my best and follow your conditions! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, what do you mean that I may not interact with anti vandalism patrolling? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: I mean that you may not go looking for vandalism to revert. If, for example, there is a page that you have watchlisted, and you notice vandalism and revert it, that's fine. But patrolling recent changes or anything like that, that would fall under the restriction you just agreed to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, also I am about to install Twinkle or RedWarm, which among these 2 are easy to use? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: You are not allowed to patrol recent changes. Why do you want to use those scripts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Because it is automatic and it is fast to use SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: Automatic at what? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Um for example, you will report a IP or account at WP:AIV because of vandalism, and you will use Twinkle, it will directly proceed your report there based on the text on the screen aside from copy and pasting on how you will do it. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: If you want to use Twinkle or RedWarn for that, on cases where you happen to notice vandalism, I'm not going to stop you. But it really really sounds like you're looking to go recent-change patrolling, or some other kind of vandal-hunting. Please understand that if you do that, I will have to block you again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What about if I use Twinkle or RedWarn on unsourced contents, reporting on WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, nominating an article for deletion? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: For something like nominating an article for AfD, sure, that isn't about anti-vandalism, so it's not an issue. For the other things, it's the same thing as with vandalism reverts: You can't go looking for it, but if it comes up by chance, that's fine. Like, if you happen to see a page that needs protection, sure, it's fine to use Twinkle to request protection. Just don't go through RecentChanges looking for pages to request protection for. Or reverting a single edit as unsourced is fine, but looking for unsourced edits to revert is not.

Is this making sense? The alternative is to remove the exception entirely, but it seems unfair to make it so you literally can't do anything if an article is being vandalized. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What RecentChanges are you talking about? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I... Sean, let's do it this way: Why don't you tell me what you think your editing restrictions are? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit hard, because I don't want to take a hard time reverting vandalism, unsourced contents by just using undo and reporting them on WP:ANI by just copy pasting what is need to be also when you will warn a user by just copy pasting the warning template (including the shared IP advice template if you will warn a IP). I want all of those for me to use Twinkle because it is fast. Doing it without this tools is just a waste of time. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I know what I am doing on how this tools work SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sean, I really need you to answer that last question. What do you think your editing restrictions are? The conditions you agreed to less than 24 hours ago. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

For the SPI, it is okay for me, but for the anti vandalism patrolling, it is a bit hard SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You agreed to these terms, Sean. Less than 24 hours ago. If you would like a different set of terms, I can reblock you and you can file a new unblock request and wait for a different admin. Will you or won't you abide by these terms? Feel free to take some time to think it over. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay fine I will follow what you said SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think you're getting a pretty good offer and nice encouragement from a kind and forgiving admin. I would try my utmost to honor such a deal. But don't push the envelope. And don't get me wrong; we're happy you're here to help. Truly. But start by abiding by the unblock terms to which you've just agreed. Or a less gentle admin will be forced to deal with you. And Tamzin is fully capable of being less gentle. BusterD (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: Sure! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Tamzin, can I also move article space to drafts as what I did before? (Only if those are not yet ready for article space) SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  @SeanJ 2007: It would not go against your unblock conditions. However, draftifications can be controversial, and it might not be the best way to get back into things. That's just friendly advice, though; the short answer to your question is "Yes, you can". If you do draftify something, though, please be aware that WP:DRAFTIFY has been modified during your block; you should reread it before draftifying anything. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Am I allowed to revert good faith edits using Twinkle? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @SeanJ 2007: Yes, as long as it's not part of recent change patrolling. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Can you clarify to me what you mean by recent change patrolling? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Looking through Special:RecentChanges, or anything similar to it, in search of edits to revert. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Tamzin can you make a table and list down all of what I need to do and not to do (include also what I can do or not to do on using Twinkle or RedWarn) while I am still under editing restrictions? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Instead of asking someone else to do that work, perhaps consider making a table yourself of what you think you're restricted from doing and what you're allowed to do, and then ask someone to confirm? Perhaps do it in your sandbox rather than cluttering up this user talk. Valereee (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  @SeanJ 2007: I am happy to make any necessary clarifications of your unblock conditions, but since we've already had a whole conversation about this, I do think it would be good for you to do as Valereee suggests and start by saying what you think those conditions are. That will make it easier for me to correct any misunderstandings. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Lebron Merkle

I noticed you blocked this user from editing. But for some reason when I went on their talk page the block notice isn't showing up. Dunno if that's just me but I thought I'd let u know incase there was a formatting problem. I'm not mucking about btw Stephanie921 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921: Huh... it looks like sockblock templates don't show up on mobile. That's bad. If I haven't fixed that in a week, feel free to remind me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Will do, tyvm :) Stephanie921 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, how will I be able to tell if you've fixed it or not? Stephanie921 (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah nvm I've figured it out! Stephanie921 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Sock-block templates

Hello!

You asked me to remind you if you hadn't fixed the sock-block templates to show up on mobile within a week, so this is just me doing that :) Stephanie921 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Vellalar Issue

Respective @Tamzin,

Before british era, there were no Brahmanical varna system in southern India due to different race. In Travancore presidency, vellalar are classified as Vaishya. In madras presidency, they were classified as Sat-sudra. But the vellalar men petitioned against the wrong classification. Edger thurston classified they're vaishya. As their tradition, they're classified as Vaishya too. Some brahmins classifying them as Kshatriya.

Wikipedia should be neutral. In this edit, I've added the information from finalized consensus of talk page and added reliable sources. If I've done any mistakes, I sincerely apologize.

Kindly, I request you to justify the page without any editorial bias to maintain neutrality of Wikipedia. Thank you! Dmackvictim (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

As of 14 August 2022, unapologetically confessing to sockpuppetry on this page remains a bad strategy. (CC User:DMacks :P) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, if only all socks took this approach. DMacks (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Shubha karanataka National Party

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) Cahk (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Cahk. Upgraded to hardblock as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

heads up

TamzinMay -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol they tripped a filter I monitor 8 seconds after you posted this. Indeffed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

wow -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Their decline rationale was creative. [11] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, we've all wanted to say it once or twice... Well, maybe DFO hasn't. But those of us with the patience of mere mortals, at least. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I've done one block under the rationale of "violation of WP:DICK" but that was years ago and it was frowned upon. I ended up taking away talk page access and semi protecting this editor. Pretty sure all those socks were just them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the sockmaster harassing them was ZestyLemonz, although could be someone impersonating them; I'm not familiar enough with the M.O., and I don't know the history between Zesty and LordBossMaster/BossKoolaid. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It may be, although the edit pattern was odd if it was, given they corrected the appeal before doing the fake decline. Bbb23 also said it was ZestyLemonz, and wasn't sure about my decline, which came before all this and wasn't related to the other socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

LBM and Zestylemonz have a long-term and deep-seated antipathy for each other. I'm not sure how it got started, although I suspect LBM filed SPI reports identifying Zl socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:2X.manzo

Why was I deleted 2X.manzo (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello, because User pages are only for helping Wikipedists maintain the encyclopedia. They are not a webhost for posting one's biography. Have a look at mine if you like. Or Tamzin's. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: You get bonus points for leaving a deletion notice. Bravo! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "bonus points"? 2X.manzo (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

She and I are the only admins i know who take time to inform users of why we deleted a page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that is important. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@2X.manzo: In addition to what Deepfriedokra has said, your userpage also presented issues under our policy on biographies of living people. Talking about things like drug use and violence in the context of a person's full name, without citations to reliable sources, is unacceptable on any page, even your own userpage, even if you're writing about yourself. (Also, reply in this section please.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for your off-Wiki assistance. I must admit it. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 06:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft

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

---

Tamzin Can you move this draft to mainspace Draft:Radhakrishnan Pillai or if you want any deal offline for that. SamirBishal2 (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@SamirBishal2: Are you receiving any payment (including a gift in-kind or payment through exposure or work experience) for creating this draft? Also, what sort of deal offline are we talking about? Also, @Samir Bishal: Can you please confirm that this is your alternate account? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you move this draft ? SamirBishal2 (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@SamirBishal2: Could you please answer my two questions? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Both are my accounts please move this draft ? SamirBishal2 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@SamirBishal2: First, you need to confirm that these are both your accounts from your other account. Second, you need to answer the two questions I asked. If you do not do this, I am going to block you from editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please move this draft sorry for creating another account. SamirBishal2 (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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

@Tamzin: this is not my account. I have only 1 account, from which i am writing now. I dont need another account for editing. I will only edit from this account only. Thank you Samir Bishal (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I figured. Your writing styles seem very different. Thanks for checking in. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Tokyo is poop

Please could you update said user's block reason to include their username being a blatant violation of the naming policy? Stephanie921 (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921: I don't think that's necessary. They're indeffed either way, and will likely be globally locked shortly, so it doesn't really matter if there's other reasons I could have blocked them for. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, ty! Stephanie921 (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Note on my Jinnifer report

Agreed that on the surface, the report I made may not seem like Jinnifer on the surface, due to the lack of canvassing, and I should have included this in the initial report, but before they started doing the heavy canvassing, Scooby-Doo related topics were also a somewhat heavy target for Jinnifer socks, especially when it came to voice actors, which this new account seems to hit on as well. Just something to keep in mind before we dismiss it altogether. Thanks. NJZombie (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@NJZombie: Not sure if you saw my pings. I initially filed at the Jinnifer SPI, and was then made aware that there was already a filing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyMega, which I merged the Jinnifer filing into. It turned out to be TyMega. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Tamzin I did see the pings, thank you. I’m currently on vacation and only checking in periodically. So I’m not always seeing the full story in one shot. I guess my thought is more do we know for certain that there’s not a connection between Jinnifer and TyMega since there’s been a few cases now of TyMega accounts veering into Jinnifer type edits. NJZombie (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Response to Mangbroson changing the G&M’s political position

Sent August 17, 2022 Hi Mangbroson, Your statement that, “ with its current attack oriented themes against conservative party members, it is untrue to portray this newspaper as anything on the right side of the political spectrum, especially in the short description.” This is your opinion. I can say the same about the G&M’s “attacks” on many Liberals politicians.

We have to provide more than our own personal biases in order to make claim that a media outlet is left, centre or right. I and others have done so by citing groups that measure media bias (such as the Association for Media Literacy) as well as a history of the G&M’s federal political endorsements. Luxphos (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Luxphos: I'm just the traffic cop here. As long as the two of you are discussing constructively, I have no special role. If you reach an impasse, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am so sorry the comment came off wrong

It was meant to do the opposite. Hopefully that can help. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Userpages

My apologies, as I misunderstood the 'new' subsecton-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Aren't they sock?

May I request you to check their homepages of User:GoodPhone2020 and User:TheresDifferentTime! User:TheresDifferentTime was blocked and User:GoodPhone2020 signed up just a day later. Both are having ditto user page. Aren't they socking? _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 01:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@NeverTry4Me: Good catch! Blocked and nuked. Will file an SPI for sleepers. For future reference, when discussing potential sockpuppets, it usually is best to use {{no ping}} or {{no ping2}}, to avoid drawing their attention. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. In future will use . _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 01:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

PA by IP

Probably related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betabum, this just showed up on my TP by 2405:4803:fdd0:4290:9877:8e58:a9d4:5976 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks. MB 00:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, MB. Blocked the /64 1 week. Sorry you've had to deal with that. And Jesus Christ... what they said to El_C might place in the top 10 worst things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The key to a really good personal attack is using proper spelling and grammar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Precious

may memories be for a blessing

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

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

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)

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)

@Gerda Arendt: Oksana Shvets was on my mind when I suggested at Talk:List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War that perhaps a List of artists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War is in order—also to list Artem Datsyshyn, Brent Renaud, Mantas Kvedaravičius, and perhaps Maks Levin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

yes - just working on Maks Levin --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

May songs

Congratulation to being an admin now, and I'll come to bother you when I need (to not bother El C, 28bytes and Floq all the time). I didn't quite know where to place this, - too many images at the bottom, but move if you think here isn't good. I have the quirky DYK today, which is rare, and I don't quite know why music for peace was deemed quirky. Enjoy thinking of dolphins! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

serious memories today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Today, I point you at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, - perhaps add that to what you watch. I mentioned my own mistake under DYK, and nothing happens. We talk about replacing two letters by one, no more ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Happy? If I messed something up, it's your fault. :P -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

more memories today, performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK - and more May pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

today more pics, and should this woman have an article? - or only her sons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

today Melody (not by me), and more pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --

Please help me, Tamzin

Hi, Tamzin.

I desperately need help, and am not sure where to turn. I am being accused of being an undisclosed paid editor, and it is not true, and the tag/template that was placed at the top of the article that I wrote is very harmful to the subject of the article, suggesting that she paid for it to be written.

This is the article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Sachar

Please look at the discussion under conflict of interest on my user talk page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Belltower57#Conflict_of_interest

And at the editing history of the article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Emily_Sachar

The problem, in a nutshell, is that I am new at this and don’t know what I am doing. But now I have hurt someone who is not guilty of anything, and I feel sick about it. I am trying to find a way to fix the article and clear her name, and specifically to ***remove the harmful and untrue tag.***

I am a retired physician, and have written medical journal articles, but I am not a professional writer. I don’t know the subject of my article, Emily Sachar, personally. She is a well respected journalist, and I have followed her career since she was a writer at Newsday in the 1980’s. Her name was in Wikipedia before I wrote anything; she appears twice under the entry for the Fred M. Hechinger Grand Prize for Distinguished Education Reporting. Her name (in two places) had red links indicating that she didn’t yet have an article. Other Hechinger Prize winners had articles, and so I thought I could write one.

But because this was the first article I had ever attempted, I screwed up. I wrote the article on Word first, and thought I was working in a sandbox, but ended up working in a Draft page that was not a sandbox. I had researched my subject very thoroughly, but admittedly also looked at some things I found on academia.edu and on social media (like LinkedIn), and so had information that was not adequately documented, and then went to news sources to find acceptable documentation. When I was finished with what I thought was a great entry, I moved it from what I believed was my sandbox into the published area.

If I knew what I was doing, the article would have been shorter, more encyclopedic, and not at all promotional. But it didn’t come across that way to an editor, Praxidicae, who tagged it for speedy deletion. ****I am writing to you because you saw some merit in the article, and on August 5 made this edit and comment: decline G11. some parts are a bit promotional, but does not "require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic"****

After it was reviewed and accepted, Praxidicae returned to it and removed large sections, justifiably calling them inadequately sourced. That was fine, but the tone of the editorial comments was unnecessarily harsh. In any event, I restored some of the deleted sections, but only after adding citations to support them. At that point, Praxidicae returned and added the false tag saying I was being paid for this.

I could see that there were parts of the article that did not appear to be encyclopedic enough, and that the entry looked too long, and so then went through it very carefully to remove anything that I thought looked promotional. It was my hope that by improving the article, and making it as neutral as I could, it would meet the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia and the tag could be removed.

At this point an administrator, Bbb23, became involved. Bbb23 was concerned because the photo that I used for my article had been uploaded to Wikimedia shortly before I found it and used it. I had actually been trying for a while to find a usable photo, and had checked Wikimedia on several occasions while I was working on the article in Word. I don’t know exactly when it was added, but I’m sure I was looking every day or so as I was writing. When I added it, that was the first time it showed up in my search.

I didn’t see the comment from Bbb23 on my user talk page right away, and when I didn’t respond quickly enough, they reverted the article, restoring it to the point before I removed the questionable material. I don’t understand the rationale for this, because if anything it made the article less encyclopedic and made it appear more promotional, the opposite of the desired direction. They also indicated that because they felt I had a conflict of interest that I was forbidden from editing it or improving it, and threatened to block me if I made any changes to it.

• • • I am not a paid writer/editor. I am completely new to this, and nobody asked me (and nobody paid me) to create this article. By tagging the article in this way, it makes it look like Ms. Sachar did something improper, that she hired someone to write an article about her. It causes real potential harm to her reputation, and she has done nothing to deserve this.***

Please tell me what I can do to make things right by her, and by Wikipedia. I am not upset about editors or administrators doing their jobs; I was trying to write a great article, but I now recognize that some things look too promotional. I want the article to be encyclopedic and well sourced.

I am asking for your help with this, because I believe you can be objective and fair, and will at least be able to advise me on how to proceed. I am trying to assume good will on the part of everyone involved. ***Please help me make things right with Ms.Sachar by removing this false, misleading, and harmful tag.***

Tamzin, thanks for your time, experience, and objectivity. Belltower57 (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Tamzin, the only positive thing I can say about Belltower is that since being warned, they have not edited the article. As for the rest, I see the user is at a minimum WP:NOTHERE. Their claim that they don't know Sachar strains (my) credulity given this obsession they have with her and the weird assertion that the UDP tag on the article "punishes" her. I also see their coming to you as admin forum shopping as the extended discussion on their Talk page was not working.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, Bbb23.

  I am trying to find a way to fix things, and intend to follow the rules. I was not shopping for another administrator or another forum, but was trying to get help figuring out my best path forward. I apologize to you, Tamzin, if it was inappropriate for me to approach you for advice.

  Bbb23, you see me as "not there" because I really am new to Wikipedia, and this was the first article I have ever written. It is a learning experience for me, and I am afraid to try to write more until I first see how to fix this first mess that I created. I don't want to risk doing this damage to another innocent subject. I really do not know my subject personally, and perhaps I am projecting myself too much into this, but if I were a journalist, I would perceive that particular tag as an assault on my integrity. You don't see it as "punishing" an innocent living person, but it clearly implies that she is not acting ethically. It is a soft libel, a published false statement that may damage a person's reputation.

  I swear that I am not a paid writer or editor, and that I have received no compensation from anybody for this. On my talk page, someone from the VRT indicated that my subject also denied any paid connections. I don't know how to convince you that this did not happen. And nobody asked me to write this article; I am completely responsible for it. I admire my subject and have followed her career for a very long time; my article comes off as too promotional because it may reflect a subconscious bias, and I truly tried to fix this by removing and rewording things that gave that impression. When you reverted my changes, you undid my efforts to clean things up. And then advised me not to edit it, and I am complying.

  I want to work with you, to work within the system. I am not challenging you; I am asking you for help. What must I do to allow you to feel comfortable changing the template suggesting that the subject paid for this article? I really do not know her personally, but if you tell me what to do, I can post something admitting insufficient objectivity on my part. I cannot declare that I was a paid contributor; that simply is not true. You are questioning a connection, which I do not have, but I want to find a way to fix this, and I want your input. What can I do, short of claiming that I was paid, to allow you to remove that tag. Even if you suspect that I am hiding a close connection (which I am not), there is nothing anywhere to suggest that money changed hands. Again, please help me to make things right. Tell me how to fix this.

  I was excited to be writing my first article, and do hope to become a regular contributor, but you are right, I am not yet "there." I spent a lot of time learning how to do things, but evidently not enough time learning how to do them right. Please don't treat me as an adversary; I am not. I am an amateur, new at this, and I need help. These tags may seem routine to you, but I have never seen such a defamatory tag on an article ever, and with all due respect, I do not think it "weird" that a less seasoned observer would see it as "punishment." And in this case, punishment of an innocent living person.

  Thanks, Bbb23. Belltower57 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

See UO Journalism AFD talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Oregon_School_of_Journalism_and_Communication Wiseoleman17 (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry wrong link. Standby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiseoleman17 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Something fishy is going on. I can't find the talk page for the most recent debate. It vanished out of thin air. It was determined that a cleanup was in order — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiseoleman17 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wiseoleman17: AGFing here, I'm guessing that you read the 2015 AfD (which you linked above) and mistakenly thought it was the talkpage for the 2022 AfD, which Scottywong closed simply as redirect. Could I ask, though, are you connected to Special:Contribs/24.85.234.209? They seem to have had the exact same misunderstanding. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am. I must have misread it. I swore there was one that closed about a week ago or so. Maybe I got them mixed up? Wiseoleman17 (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wiseoleman17: By "Yes I am", do you mean that you are that IP? And you may be thinking of one of the other recent UO AfDs. Either way, could you please self-revert at University of Oregon? As long as there's a consensus for the School of Journalism article to redirect there, there shouldn't be a link from the article to that title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I am the same IP. I'll revert and continue to review the talk pages. My mistake Wiseoleman17 (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Wiseoleman17. In the future, please do not edit the same article or related articles both logged-in and logged-out. Doing so can create the appearance of false consensus, even if that's not your intention. Ideally, don't edit logged-out at all. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll use my account Wiseoleman17 (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Another one

Special:Contributions/Madeforall1 - similar pattern to the ones you've been blocking. Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Uhai: Seems a lot like someone gaming autoconfirmed, but I'm not sure it's this person gaming autoconfirmed... I'll keep an eye on it, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Gaming of autoconfirmed definitely is concerning though and definitely could be grounds for revoking it. Worth considering. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Autoconfirmed can't be revoked except by the AbuseFilter, and I don't think there's currently consensus for that. But if their first edits as autoconfirmed are to a semi'd page and remotely controversial, I imagine I'll block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this is a sock or somebody looking to bypass AfC. Making popcorn -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right, Tamzin. That was me having a brainfart. I was thinking extended confirmed. What I said stands for that... TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Used to see this pattern with paid editors, start an account, blue link the user page, make enough edits, wait a few days, then start spamming and acting all crybaby "I'm new" when called out. Many were socks, many were meatpuppets. Not saying this is that, but it fits the pattern for first dozen edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You were right (of course)

Hi, in light of this discussion at WP:ERRORS, I thought you (and Schwede66) might be interested to know that the hook in question got well over 14,000 hits, making it one of the monthly DYK pageview leaders.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  07:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As you and I (and Tamzin) predicted. Awesome! Schwede66 08:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe if I'd stuck "Florida man" in my Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach double-hook... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the interesting thing for me was that math books were banned, not necessarily that it happened in Florida, but really, where but in DeSantisland could such a thing happen?  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  18:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, theleekycauldron, you ambiguously owe me an unspecified amount of money. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hand to god, I thought "above the 50th percentile" meant "below the median". I'll pay up just for the idiocy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion

Disregarding it being in the wrong space, did I err in deleting Wikipedia:Destroy Lonely. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I think there's a de facto usage of G11 as "non-mainspace page on a professional that would be an unambiguous A7 if it were an article" outside mainspace. Personally I don't like deleting on that basis, but I accept that a lot of admins use it. So... If you're of that school of thought, it's within admin discretion. If you're not, I think the right call would have been a suppressredirect move to draftspace, and maybe look into COI/UPE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So not "unambiguously promo" in and of itself? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Not in my opinion, no. gaining his passion for music and He started gaining traction with the popularity are moderately promotional, but I don't think get the whole page across the de jure G11 threshold. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

agreed. thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine Structure Constant

Sock indeffed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Tamzin, I noticed that you have removed reference to a technical article (published in a standard journal) added by Ignotus12 on derivation of the fine structure constant. In that section `Numerological ..' that was the only technical reference. The other contents there are a quote by Feynaman, a popular book by Stephen Hawking, and a vague philosophical statement by Good. The technical reference you removed is the only journal reference. I wonder if it is fair to remove it? Request you to kindly restore it. I do not know if Ignotus12 is a Sockpuppet. I am not a Sockpuppet. I do not intend to Undo your revision myself. I request you to undo it. By the way, I am a physicist and I understand the physics of that technical article. Am happy to discuss the physics with you or anyone else interested. Since it is a technical reference, I am not clear why it has been removed. The community surely will be interested to know there is a rigorous derivation of the fine structure constant now, which answers Feynman's question. Can we discuss further? Thanks. WrightSisters (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see SP case

Can you look here the sock is obvious and i losing my patience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ShkoDevAct Shadow4dark (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Actioned. Thanks for reaching out. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Jabbi's topic ban

I saw you wrote on AN/I announcing that you were lifting User:Jabbi's topic as expired 24 hours after you wrote that comment. It's been four days since. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Might still be indisposed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

DroneBogus MfD abuse?

Tamzin, I see from earlier this month you had to have a discussion with Dronebogus (talk · contribs) about personal attacks against other editors. Today he decided to put my userpage up for deletion for no real reason that I can discern. I haven't been a super active Wikipedian in a few years, but back when I was, we didn't go around deleting people's userpages wholesale. I have taken this directly to him but he now claims it's out of his hands since other people (one other person, besides myself) has chimed in. Is this an appropriate use of MfD? If yes I only ask for clarification and will navigate the process, but if not please put a stop to this farce. Either way I thank you for your time. Rogue 9 (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rogue 9: The VRWC userbox MfD seems justified given the recent similar MfD. The French drivers uxerbox MfD seems eminently unreasonable. The userpage MfD seems unreasonable at worst and a waste of time at best, but I acknowledge that editors in good standing have agreed with Dronebogus on it, so maybe my view there isn't an uncontroversial one. I can't tell you what to do here. I blocked them for personal attacks, and unblocked when they walked them back, and there's no comparable administrative issue here, so I'm speaking just as a fellow Wikipedian. Dronebogus was warned in a thread I started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096 § Proposal: Dronebogus warned. One could definitely make the case that the French drivers MfD and perhaps also the userpage one go against the warning to not use MfD and ANI as venues of first resort for cases that might be solved by discussing with users directly. Whether you feel this is something worth bringing to AN/I is up to you; I can't tell you for sure which way it would go. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. MfD was definitely used as the first resort. I don't want to escalate conflict within the community higher than it needs to go (I hope I've been making that clear through this whole sorry mess; I've bent over backwards doing almost everything he wanted), but if this continues (and drive by "delete per noms" start appearing because people don't read) I might have to. Thank you for your time. Rogue 9 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I have waited a bit since I had an impulse to speak on this subject. Who made User:Dronebogus the userbox police? I'm seeing some echoes of Animal Farm here. We now have official enemies, based on MfDs. It could be argued the entire recent Bedford incident was provoked when Dronebogus poked the long-dormant hornets' nest. And today comes this: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JohnnyReb1977/Proud Confederate. I'm wondering whether it's a good idea for me to tolerate this type of thought-police, personalizing behavior which seems to incite a mob mentality (righteous anger is the most dangerous sort, imho). I thought I'd ask someone less reactionary than I. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I had not been following this as well as I might. I clearly missed this. What is the next issue we must combat in the userbox fight? I'm all about NONAZIs, but are we now at NOREDNECKS (because that's a lot of users, and more than a bit subjective)? What other righteous causes shall we champion? This is coming from your chosen-mom... BusterD (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)