User talk:Tamzin/Archive/12

Hello again

Please see here. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Welp, that's one for the userboxes.

I can now say I was "blocked" by an IP. Thanks for that revert, and happy trails. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 18:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

SPI question

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)

@Asilvering: Well you can post it here and I can take a look. Or you can email me if you think it will be sensitive. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It's this user: [1]. 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)

(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)

@JBW I assume that it's gone dormant again and will be for some time. -- asilvering (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The only sock I recall doing similar draftification to that was MRY (see Special:Contributions/VladimirBoys), but the other editing doesn't seem to line up. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Restriction

If you want to impose me a restriction of no more than 500 / 1000 / 2000 words per Anthroposophical topic, I would agree. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Tomafahe bot

gah -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

ikr? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Prusiner

Per your request after our discussion, a reminder of the Prusiner issue. Thanks. DS (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hope a Dope a Rope

I wasn't sure about asking for rev/del on some of those. Knitsey (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Knitsey: Think I've gotten everything that meets RD2. If I missed anything, feel free to email. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You've got it me lovely, thank you. Knitsey (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and are any talkpage-watchers familiar enough wiht Evlekis to tell if Special:PageHistory/Norm Macdonald is self-edit-warring? The content almost certainly meets WP:DUE, although someone might need to find better sources than are currently used. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to jump in , but what LTA are they? Seawolf35 (talk - email) 22:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Looking for advice re: Iraq war article

Hi Tamzin, (or any talk page watchers!)

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.

1. 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)?
2. 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.)
3. 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 in advance; I want to avoid wasting community time, and I figure getting good advice instead of getting near 3RR is a smarter way to do that! EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) After reviewing the protection log, I'd suggest that Iraq War deserves indefinite semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, EdJohnston! I've put in a request at RFPP; I hadn't even thought of that, and appreciate the guidance! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

1997 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade

You can almost call it a Thanksgiving Day Disaster. Scorpions1325 (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Sock question

Tamzin, I was pinged by IndicHistorian555 (don't know why they picked me) to review the edits of Hassan Gangu. I did spend some time doing that, not exactly sure why but... I ended up blocking Indic as a sock, but, at the same time, I wondered if Hassan is the same person as Aryan330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Because you blocked Aryan on November 6, I figured you would be more familiar with Aryan and might want to compare the two. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: A tale of two boomerangs, eh? Well, on behavioral evidence I don't think Hassan is Aryan330. But the Mughal–Maratha topic area is crawling with POV-pushers and sox, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if they're someone (hint, hint, TPW CUs). Melechha (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the other partisan from that POV who was involved in the sprawling AE thread, and I'd call that behaviorally inconclusive. Abecedare is sadly inactive at the moment; maybe Z1720 has some insight. Either way, I'll ECP Maratha invasion of Deccan (1739) and drop Hassan a CTOP alert. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Hi, @Nableezy, sorry, totally missed this. Fact-bound question, would probably come down to levels of AGF. Got an example? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ping or noping? nableezy - 15:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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).

nableezy - 17:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a resolution in mind on the EC-gaming side, but let me look into something first. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Golden

Hello Tamzin. Do Golden's edits in the Shamakhi and Armenians in Shamakhi articles[2][3] violate the topic ban for conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed? Armenians had a significant population in Shamakhi until the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, so the articles are related to conflict. Golden removed sources that stated Shamakhi "is predominantly populated by Armenians" (Hakluyt) and removed any mention of Armenians having even been the majority. And judging by the edit summary (“strangers” likely refers to Turks) these edits seem to consist of original research. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Resolved. Thanks for letting me know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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°^Talk 10:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure, @Colin. @Pppery might know? If not, maybe a good WP:VPT question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 15:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I've done this, which may or may not help. If not it's beyond me, although that TfD will close soon anyway rendering this moot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It will? It's tied on the numbers, with the latest !vote adding new arguments. Either way, thanks. Guess we'll see if that change works. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New message from Red-tailed hawk

Hello, Tamzin. You have new messages at Golden's talk page.
Message added 15:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

I don't know why you've split your message across two pages, but I've responded there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 16:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

AN

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)

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 anti-vaxx transphobic Trump supporter from Idaho who currently serves as the state's attorney general and supports the pseudoscientific 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)

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.

Ever since I learned who Tucker Carlson was, I have predicted that the biggest political realignment since 1980 will take place in 2028. This could resolve a lot of long-standing societal problems. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi, if you're interested, I was hoping you might be willing to talk about your experiences here? No pressure but I'd appreciate it. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Appeal restoration

Hi, can you please restore my appeal? It was archived 3rd time. Marcelus (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Marcelus 0RR appeal (now restored more times than the House of Bourbon). I've moved to close. Vive la Wikipédia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much Marcelus (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"The diaeresis"

A possible solution to one of your cons is that Microsoft has an installable utility for Windows that supports this kind of stuff, rather than fumbling with ALT + 1,261,147,561. See https://learn.microsoft.com/windows/powertoys/quick-accent DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 00:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

now i don't have to enter and reënter those keys, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Salt

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)

An idle observation

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".

An interesting warning against treating Google translate as reliable. JBW (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Trivial example. Toki Pona is one of the least common languages on the internet (and real life too). 178.120.54.237 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Admin accountability

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)

Redirect

Hi, the page I mentioned in my comments no longer exists. Could you please create a redirect from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/_Sennalen to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sennalen ? Thanks! XMcan (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@XMcan: We usually don't do redirects from invalid titles at SPI, but that's why I edited your comment when I moved the page. :) P.S. You can link to Wikipedia pages using [[square brackets]]. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, I'm happy when everything works ;))) XMcan (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

AE word limit

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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.

Thanks, Sennalen (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

There's no rule against talking through other channels, although that's not to say I recommend it, just that it's allowed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This may have more bearing on helping weigh the evidence: I would like to remind everyone,

Documented consensus[4] 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.)

Thanks, Sennalen (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

A mini-project to improve rcat templates

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)

@Mdewman6: That does seem like a good project. I've got a full plate of technical projects right now, but maybe 1234qwer1234qwer4 wants to take a stab? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Another apparent NeuroSex sockpuppet

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

Thanks for anything you can do to investigate and prevent further abuse. Keyhound (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

A friendly request

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)

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)

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)

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?).

Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (July 2011)

The palmer report

Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East

Lieutenant Hadar Goldin

Black Friday (bombing campaign)

2014 Bombing of Rafah

Thanks. Dovidroth (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dovid. I won't have much bandwidth for admin work for at least a few days, but I'll ping @ScottishFinnishRadish as a pinch hitter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I left the editor my fancy ARBPIA welcome and a CTOP alert. I'll look into it further this evening. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Id ask you or SFR move Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East and Black Friday (bombing campaign) to draft space instead of delete, as I would take responsibility for both of those if necessary, just want to more fully review both sets of citations, but I do know both are definitely notable topics. nableezy - 17:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm willing to just leave them in mainspace.

Dovidroth, the article on the lieutenant is already at AfD, so I'll let the community decide on that. I've deleted Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (July 2011) as it has no substantial contributions from ECR editors. The others have been converted to redirects, so I'll leave them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Is there something that we can to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future? Thanks. Dovidroth (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

There is not, because we can't proactively salt every prospective page title relating to ARBPIA. lizthegrey (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yet another sockpuppet of Neurosex

Second one in a week.

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

Please investigate, and remove the suspect content. Thank you for your help.

Keyhound (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• IntroEggplant (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Deliganist (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

@Firefly or @Drmies: Are you able to take a look at these? Behaviorally it's spot-on and I'd probably block on that alone, but may be worth a check. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The two above are  Confirmed to each other, and reasonably likely to NS on behaviour and technical evidence combined.  No sleepers immediately visible. firefly ( t · c ) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Fashions by decade articles

I really want the early and mid sections of these articles to change, for example, in the article 2000s in fashion, the sections Early 2000s (2000-2002) are changed to Early 2000s (2000-2003) and Mid 2000s (2003-2006) to Mid 2000s (2004-2006). It just does not seem right to me and other editors here. Is there a way to change or to convince the change? Thanks. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Autisticeditor 20: You can start a discussion on the article's talk page and build consensus, but frankly this does not seem to me a good use of editorial resources. See bikeshed problem. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

0RR in effect

Hello hope all is well. I am writing because I wished to know, since it has been more than 3 months, if my 0rr for the Israel-Palestine conflict be removed? Thank you and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @3Kingdoms. Well, as noted on your usertalk, Special:Diff/1185347119 was a 0RR violation, but you handled it amicably with Starship.paint, who then wished you luck in getting the 0RR lifted. I said in August that I would be prepared to lift at the 3-month mark as long as there has been no disruption in the preceding 3 months and you have been reasonably active, and I'm not prepared to call that one-off incident "disruption"; meanwhile you meet the "reasonably active" criterion. If this was a matter of going from 0RR all the way to 3RR, I might be more hesitant, but, as discussed in the original AE appeal, this whole topic area is under 1RR regardless, so this is only a moderate step down. So, sure, I hereby lift the sanction. Please make sure to abide by the 1RR and other CTOP norms and restrictions. All the best and happy <winter holiday of your choice>. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to hear! Thank you very much! Happy Holidays to you too! 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

AvinashCabral Sock

Resolved

 – Blocked by Izno -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please look into it as you have previously blocked his sock, it's look like a duck. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AvinashCabral DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Another NeuroSex sock

Hi Tamzin,

Hope all is well. Sorry to be a bother, but here's yet another NeuroSex sockpuppet account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HeavyWheeler

This is approximately NeuroSex's 89th known account.

"NeuroSex" continues to repeatedly post misleading/incorrect information with impunity using illicit sockpuppets. Unfortunately, even when such sockpuppet accounts are banned, their edits often remain. Wikipedia admins choosing to leave the sockpuppets' edits up creates a powerful incentive for NeuroSex to continue their course of conduct of posting disinformation.

Can anything be done to clean this situation up?

Thanks so much for your time. Keyhound (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Keyhound, sorry for the slow follow-up on the last thread, haven't had much time for Wikipedia. But I'd like to see this batch through at least. @Firefly: Mind taking a look again? Once this is resolved I'm inclined to throw around some AE protections. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Confirmed to the last two reported here.  Blocked without tags. Closing. ;) firefly ( t · c ) 22:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Keyhound, I’ve reverted the edits of that user per WP:BANREVERT. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 22:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Firefly. I've given a 5-year CTOP semi to the Wilson article and, with some regret, 1-year semis to both affected talkpages. This has been going on for 6 years and shows no signs of stopping without intervention. NeuroSex has no shortage of better things to do with their time; hopefully this pushes them in that direction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13#List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms

Something about the closure of List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms isn't sitting right with me. Not enough to exclaim "you've got it wrong!" but enough where I'd like to get it off my chest. Specifically, it's because Thryduulf actually never objected to the deletion of the content itself, rather the objection was purely jurisdictional—wanting it at AfD instead. Even after prodding him to give a rationale for keeping the content, he couldn't do it. Because there is no one wanting to improve the content, draftifying doesn't actually do anything. It'll just rot in draftspace for six months and then get unceremoniously G13'd. I'd much rather have seen it deleted outright, perhaps with a comment that WP:REFUND to draftspace applies if someone wants to work on it. That way the problem doesn't just get pushed six months down the road unless there's someone explicitly putting their name to it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tavix: I considered that approach too. Ultimately what I felt was, for a non-controversial deletion of content, all that's needed to restore to draftspace is an editor in good standing saying "This shouldn't be deleted", and we had that. As I noted in the close, anyone can move it back to mainspace if they want, and the next step would be AfD. It's just that restoring it outright seemed unlikely to improve the encyclopedia, due to the current state of the page. I don't think it's a given that it will "rot in draftspace", though. I mean, it may well, but it's also possible someone will take interest. I don't think List of LGBT acronyms would be an obviously invalid list, or someone could create a broader-concept article like Acronyms in LGBT culture, or add content to LGBT slang, or make an article out of the redirect Glossary of LGBT terms. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Mismatching socks

Early in the KlayCax SPI, we both ruled out StardustToStardust as a sock of KC. However, I think my judgement was wrong in not tying them to ShirtNShoesPls. The SNSP account was created several hours after STS was blocked from 2024 United States presidential election, an article both editors overlap on. On Talk:Pope Francis, both accounts took an identical view on Talk:Pope Francis, parroting the term sophist across talk pages (STS, SNSP). Like SNSP, STS is very familiar with RFC nomenclature. Additionally, both editors exhibit American editing hours (STS, SNSP). Both use asterisks to accentuate words in edit summaries (STS, SNSP). As I mentioned with another editor, both STS and SNSP follow a similar naming convention. Am I seeing patterns where there are none? I feel awful for putting this on KC, as I really don't think this is their fault, particularly with the fairly definitive CU. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thinking on this, Prbitti. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi Tamzin! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. It was great to see you in Toronto, and hoping we'll have more opportunities to hang out in the coming year! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!

Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

Solstice Celebration for Tamzin, 2023, DALL·E 3.

(View full series)

Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15c}} to your friends' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, Tamzin/Archive! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 15:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Tamzin, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, I know you're Jewish (and so am I) and that Hanukkah is over, but whatever ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Redirect patrol

Hello and thanks for all the good work. I see 'zinbot has marked a redirect I changed as reviewed. Just checking you're aware that User:DannyS712 bot III does a similar job, though it won't hurt to have a second bot helping to avoid backlog. Certes (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Certes: 'zinbot shouldn't be marking any redirects (in the technical sense) as reviewed. Its scope is RfD'd redirects—which for technical reasons are considered articles, not redirects. Danny's bot, on the other hand, only patrols true redirects. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes, technically it had become an article. Thank you for the explanation. Certes (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

routine revdel (I think)

I have been struggling around verifying sources for Holocaust articles (surprise, there are a lot of problems) and with some effort and concentration produced a machine translation of an archived dead link. I then lost my mind and pasted THE WHOLE THING to the article talk page, my point being that the source is not about the massacre; which is what it was used for, but just a ceremony commemorating it a few years ago. It's not really substantive. But then I realized, aha, that may not be fair use in Polish law. It's definitely not the same thing as the hand translation with translated template that is usually what I am doing with translation.

I edited the text down to bullet points. Your opinion is solicited as to whether I am now in compliance. But I also know that a copyvio in the history is still a copyvio, so I think I am supposed to ask for help at this point. I clicked around and found the list of admins willing to do rev del's, and picked you because we've at least spoken before. I do know better but in that moment however for some reason did not. You may trout at will.

Let me know if I am requesting this wrong? The edits I am concerned about are:

• #Konspect source at Holocaust in Lithuania:[5] [6]
• #IPN source at Ponary massacre: [7]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Honestly, I usually wouldn't bother with a few paragraphs quoted from a source on talk (a gray area in theory, in practice a ~0% chance of ever going to court), but since you're concerned, sure, I've revdelled the three edits. FWIW, Google Translate does have a "websites" option on it... but when I plug in [8] it forgets to actually, erm, translate the thing. Hmm. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

just trying not to be the one. And yeah, I had to cut and paste. Translate somehow doesn't get to the archived text. Normal cut and paste doesn't work either; you have to use the widget at the bottom of the screen. In any case, thank you for taking care of that for me. Elinruby (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for Rollback re-grant

Hi Tamzin :)

It's been a little over three months since you granted me Rollback (following my request under § Request for Rollback), and the temporary permission has lapsed. I'm therefore leaving this message to request a re-grant.

While I had the permission, I used it to undo sockpuppet edits (mostly with the mass rollback script & a custom edit summary) and quickly revert obvious vandalism (when using the default edit summary). (I took a wikibreak for some time during the three months, which resulted in me not using the tool in November and only using it once in October.)

I made one accidental rollback, which was undone with an apology. I have not received any concerns directly relating to my use of Rollback - the closest was a message I received on my talk page regarding my reverting of sockpuppet edits (that thread can be viewed here - due to the editor that messaged me also requesting undeletion, I tagged it for {{admin help}} after responding myself).

Let me know if you have any queries. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@A smart kitten: Sorry for the delay here. I agree that there were no issues in your temp grant. I have granted permanently. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Weasily

I thought that sounded off. Couldn't put my finer on it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/MerriamWebster/status/1447573632448966656 – bradv 01:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Just so you know, I wasn't planning on using that report anymore. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand. It's just a procedural action to restore the previous partial block after the temporary siteblock lapsed; it doesn't imply any issue beyond the original one. If you would like to appeal the original partial block, you of course may. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not good at making an appeal anyway. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I did explain that the report was an accident and I was not in the right state of mind. I didn't even look at the warning to do not do it again because I was too busy with other things outside of Wikipedia. If I did lie too many times about not making unnecessary username reports, I would have remembered myself, but I don’t remember at all. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: I am no longer an admin. You may appeal your partial block on your talk page with {{unblock}}, or at WP:AN. For what it's worth, as I've said, I think all you need to do to get unblocked here is explain how you'll avoid making these incorrect reports. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Many Faces of Jesus

The article The Many Faces of Jesus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Many Faces of Jesus for comments about the article, and Talk:The Many Faces of Jesus/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for The Many Faces of Jesus

On 24 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Many Faces of Jesus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a pornographic screenplay about Jesus led to papal and royal condemnations, a firebombing, the writer's ban from the UK, and thousands of letters per week demanding the ban of a non-existent gay Jesus film? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Many Faces of Jesus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Many Faces of Jesus), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 25,602 views (1,066.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Fascinating article, thank you. Great use of old sources. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @No Swan So Fine! It was exciting to find such a long-lasting, far-reaching story that had almost no coverage on this wiki. I'd love to spin The Return out at some point, since it's really its own topic, but I'm guessing most coverage would be in Danish. Maybe Guerillero can pick up the torch. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I do think with the advent of contemporary newspaper sources from the Wikipedia Library that we could be entering a golden age of articles on recent historical events. I think for the first decade of my time on Wikipedia such sources were inaccessible and it seemed that the distant past was better covered than post war events. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this article is a perfect example of how, despite those who claim otherwise, all the interesting articles most definitely have not been written yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Gay Jesus film hoax

On 24 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gay Jesus film hoax, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a pornographic screenplay about Jesus led to papal and royal condemnations, a firebombing, the writer's ban from the UK, and thousands of letters per week demanding the ban of a non-existent gay Jesus film? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Many Faces of Jesus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gay Jesus film hoax), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mira Bellwether

The article Mira Bellwether you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mira Bellwether for comments about the article, and Talk:Mira Bellwether/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thanks for a really helpful review. I'll sleep on some of those style questions. Also, this notification made me realize that the recent change I made to WP:DYKG wasn't reflected in the GA pass notification! I've streamlined the whole thing. Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Restoring a deleted page entitled "مسعود شفیعی"

Dear Tamzin Recently a page was created for professor Masoud Shafiee whom is a famous teacher at AmirKabir university in Iran. You can find his page on university website here. You can also find his page on google scholar here. He has authored lots of scientific books and papers and is well-known in the scientific community. In regard to his works at different universities in Iran and as he is well-known in Iran, a page was created for him on Wikipedia. But a guy has deleted the page after less than a day from creation (without any reason). As he is one of the most famous professors in electrical engineering in Iran and was the dean in university of Applied Sciences and Technology (named here), the Wikipedia page was created for him to help users find his information on the internet. The page was for his students and other people to know him better and find information about him. As the page is deleted (here), I would be grateful if you could restore it. Thank you in advance. Golyapooch123 (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Golyapooch123: The English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the Persian/Farsi Wikipedia. It looks like you've already found fa:User talk:MJXVI. You should continue your discussion there. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 09:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Rollback conditions

Hi Tamzin! I might be overthinking this but - after taking Huggle for a test drive yesterday - I had a couple of questions about one of the rollback conditions here. Specifically, where it says that reverting a net-positive but flawed edit (such as an unsourced addition of encyclopedic information that could be sourced with a simple Google search) counts as a "bad revert".

I just wanted to clarify a few things. Firstly, I wanted to check if this condition was intended for default rollback (with the bland edit summary) only, or if it includes the use of rollback with a custom edit summary and/or using tools like Huggle (which can revert with a summary like addition of unsourced content to a biographical article); given that one could (for example) undo the edit using the same custom summary and not have it fall under rollback. Secondly, I wanted to check how this condition interacts with WP:BLPREMOVE, which requires that contentious unsourced information about living people be immediately removed.

For reference, the times during my Huggle test drive where I reverted due to the lack of a source are here, here & here. Looking back afterwards:

• The first edit contradicted the source that was currently included at the end of the sentence, and a brief Google search has found conflicting information as to whether or not the Los Angeles Opera are involved & in what sense, in addition to conflicting information regarding the year and place of the premiere. Because of this, I thought that it was best to revert the unsourced change, due to not being familiar enough with the topic area to feel comfortable making any substantive alterations to the article myself.
• The second edit was reverted per WP:BLPREMOVE. Searching afterwards, I found a source that could have potentially been used to insert similar content into the article, but - when patrolling (e.g. using Huggle) - this sort of investigation & rectification is something it's not always possible to do (especially when I'm not familiar with the topic in question), and - when the diff showed up on my screen - it seemed like the type of contentious material that BLPREMOVE says should be reverted immediately. A worry that came to mind was that not being able to revert unsourced additions like this while patrolling might potentially defeat the purpose of BLPREMOVE.
• For the last edit, I accidentally hit the 'standard revert' button instead of the 'unsourced BLP revert' button, but I attempted to make up for that by leaving a supplemental mesage at the editor's talk page.)

If you have any feedback and/or criticism about the reverts I've made, or any questions about anything I've said, then please let me know. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 00:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@A smart kitten: Yes, I was only referring to standard-summary rollbacks (or rollbacks where the added summary offers no greater clarity). And of course, the occasional mistake of which button one hits is understandable. It sounds like you're being conscientious about your reverts, and that's the whole idea of my approach to granting rollback, so keep at it. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Move to workshop

Hi 'zin. Can you please move your analysis of my evidence to the "Analysis of Evidence" section on the workshop page. We have an unlimited number of words there -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Sure! FWIW, speaking to your arb-self and not your party-self, it's not at all clear to me as a random party what the difference is between rebuttals on evidence and analysis in workshop, and that might be something to clarify someday. But whatever works for others. ☺ -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Uncivil message

Hi, I was just looking through the contribution history of this particular IP when I noticed that someone had sent a rather uncivil message to you. Well, I wasn't that person, but I would just like to stop by and offer my most sincere apologies on behalf of that person. I see your notice on your talk page about stress, and I know it was a while ago, but I can't imagine that that rude message helped any further. I hope you feel better soon!

Many thanks, 92.40.212.157 (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Meh. I like whales and I like doing silly things. So I took no offense. But thank you for your thoughtfulness.

The stress banner could probably come down now (the circumstances that begat it still exist but life goes on and life is good), but I'll leave it up a little bit longer. If anything I am the opposite of stressed right now—serene and methodical—but strangely that can have similar effects, to the outward observer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 13:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08

On 2 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in one neighborhood commission district, the voters and officeholders are all inmates at the D.C. Jail? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Watching the Night, or the current RfA

Dear Tamzin,

First of all, I am really sorry if writing this breaks any rule, be it a written or unwritten one, or if it comes off as Lourdes-style canvassing and pressuring. Heck, I am a rather random editor with quite a humble amount of edits, with few connections and somehow limited knowledge of the Wikipedia's community. But I thought to myself, what could go wrong? Worst case scenario, I will maybe be ignored or warned. Surely, I wouldn't be blocked... right?

Oki, onto the matter of the subject. Since a few months I've been participating in RfAs, getting to see the community in action and seeing how the entire process works. Honestly, this entire thing gives me anxiety and I cannot really imagine ever trying my luck there myself. Unless it takes me 10 years to gather enough experience and Wikipedian culture will be completely different by then. Although I would be an elderly man by then - 35 years old!

I mean, you know that first-hand, where RfA is just some cuttthroat business where people look for scandals to ignite just to sink the candidate down. You made a very rightful comment about Trump and Trumpism, only for it to become a huge outrage that almost sunk your entire RfA. And yet what you said was completely correct and fully appropriate, and your entire point that people can and should be judged for their politial views was just a truth that people voting against you just did not want to hear. At least that is my view here, because I do not mean any disrespect to people who voted the way they did at your RfA.

And here comes the RfA of The Night Watch. I am writing this because despite the fact the vote is currently looking good for them, I can't help but just feel... frustrated about this whole thing. Not because I know The Night Watch or have any right to be so emotionally involved in it, but it's just this... emphathy. I can imagine how hurtful their tone-policing remark against you was and how hurt you felt, and how their A9 appeared to be tone-deaf, which also prompted leeky (and, finding myself convinced by leeky's stance, also me) to vote neutral instead of supporting. But then... The Night Watch wrote an appending to A9. It felt like a very emotional, honest, sincere and simply heartwarming apology, and full recognition of their error. It made me feel like there is truly something else to Wikipedia than just its brutal atmosphere and white-on-black text everywhere. Leeky switched to support, and so did I.

And we know what happened next. Now The Night Watch is experiencing an oppose wave on its own just because for that appendix. Because it's "melodramatic", because it's weak, because it's self-flagellating, because it's supposedly disqualifying for someone who aspired to become an admin. Honestly, it just feels upsetting to read and see. I feel like The Night Watch deserves better. After all, this is just a losing situation for them, their A9 came off as out-of-touch to some, and when they went the other way and actually lived up to their mistake, they get criticized all the same. There is literally nothing they can do! Apparently the only way for The Night Watch to truly gain the community's trust is to completely disregard you and your feelings, and to stay silent on the matter. But they didn't, and it seems they're paying the price.

So, why am I even writing this? Because I thought, and wanted to ask you, if maybe you feel like you could change your vote in the light of this development. Like I said, this is a scary thing for me to do, because I do not want to come off as some canvasser making himself look like an idiot for an RfA candidate they never encountered, but I am wondering if this thought crossed your mind. I just feel like what's happening at this RfA is great injustice and makes me feel depressed about the whole thing. It felt like a personal defeat for me when Tails Wx withdrew - that is because as a fellow furry and asexual, I just couldn't help but root for him. But alas. And now The Night Watch can get their RfA sunk over developing as a person and fully recognizing their mistake. I hate this.

Your oppose was extremely impactful, and every single oppose against The Night Watch is related to it and the incident that prompted your oppose in the first place. If you were to change your vote, it would have turned this whole thing upside down. And I wonder if that wouldn't be the right thing to do in that situation.

Ok, I am so sorry for this long text. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts! I am again sorry if you find this inappropiate or if I'm showing off my inexperience by unknowingly breaking a rule by writing this. Feel free to warn me, revert this, or maybe just ignore it if that is the case. But I felt like it was worth a chance to write this to you and see your thoughts. Thanks! Brat Forelli🦊 07:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Brat Forelli. I don't mind the comment at all. I've been thinking a lot about whether I stand by my oppose. To me the four main factors are:

1. I like TNW as a person.
2. I don't like seeing good people put in emotionally difficult situations, and like being part of it even less.
3. I do have unresolved concerns about how TNW would act as an admin.
4. I do not think it would be the end of the world if TNW became an admin.

As much as (1) and (2) sway me on an emotional level, I do not want to vote against my own perception of what's best for the project: Adminship isn't a reward for being a good person; it's an assessment of one's fitness to serve in that role. So I hope that that ambivalence came through in my follow-up comment yesterday. If this goes to a 'crat chat, 'crats can and will weigh votes based on statements that qualify the support/opposition, and I would expect a 'crat to do so for mine—especially given my obvious bias regarding the incident at issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I do find your perspective interesting and I really appreciate the fact that you shared it!

One thing that leaves me wondering is that you did mention the increasingly likely possibility of the RfA becoming a narrow call that will have to resolved through 'crats. Of course, other possibilities on the table are withdrawal, be it from the enormous stress that The Night Watch is going through, or the odds shifting further against him.

You did have to go through the 'crat vote in your own RfA. It was definitely all narrow, both the actual support ratio, and the 'crat chat was also not unanimous, with two 'crats arguing that there was no consensus for your promotion. Thankfully, however, you made it - you got the mop and you use it to your fullest to make Wikipedia a tad bit brighter.

However, should The Night Watch have to go through all this? The 'crat chat, this cold process where they have to watch whether the 'crats argue in their favor or not? I feel like it was terrible in your case, and it would be just as terrible now. I also find something chilling in the scenario that you hinted at in your comment on your oppose. That should the RfA fail this time, jaded and cynical The Night Watch could try again in about a year or so. A bit depressing for me to envision that one's world has to lose their colors for the community to deem them ready for the mop. Brat Forelli🦊 04:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

RfA comments

I had stopped reading TNW's RfA after deciding I wasn't going to participate but checked in just now. And I have to say I find these diffs ([9] [10]) really unfortunate. It feels like you're shocked shocked that there's opposing going on in here. If you didn't want to see the rfa fail you could have done nothing rather than opposing the way that you did. But the chance that the rfa would go the way it was completely foreseeable and so feeling conflicted or sorry might be sincere but is a bit much coming from you. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Huh? I don't see where I said I didn't want to see the RfA fail. In fact, I've conveyed the exact opposite by declining to strike or weaken my oppose. I also don't see where I said this course of events was unforeseeable. Is it really so much to want to be able to oppose a candidate you aren't convinced would make a good admin, and to also not want people to be a dick to them? If you think that it's "really unfortunate" that I a) made a comment addressing the nuances of the situation and expressing sympathy for the candidate's situation and b) criticized someone assuming bad faith of the candidate, then I... well I really don't know what to say, Barkeep. This is one of the most utterly surreal talkpage messages I have received in 11 years. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I don't understand what your conflicting feelings are (ES of diff 1). And from my POV, Grandpallama's oppose is being no more of a dick than your oppose - which to me are both with in the realm of what people get to oppose about at RfA. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you may have read my addendum in haste. Your implied question is answered in the second sentence. As to Grandpallama's comment, I suppose there might be a certain wiki-worldview in which assumption of bad faith is no worse than bringing up an old argument, but it's a worldview that's quite alien to me, and sounds uncharacteristic coming from you, as I tend to think of you as being fairly staunch on civility. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Question 9 directly gives them a chance to respond to your oppose. And the chance that would happen is predictable. I suppose A9 wasn't predictable exactly but that for me doesn't mean you bear no responsibility for what happened, including A9 and the reaction to it. Despite your characterizing it as such I don't think Grandpallama's is bad faith; I don't agree with the characterization of it that way, I agree 100% with yours for similar reasons of how I acted when I was young and on the internet, but there is absolutely evidence to support the characterization Grandpallama gave to it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Again, where do you get the idea that I think the current state of the RfA was unforeseeable, or that I reject any responsibility for it? Obviously, my oppose was the first link in a chain of causation, and while there have been intervening events since, ultimately we probably wouldn't be here if not for my decision to oppose. That's why I made the comments you're criticizing, because I felt a degree of responsibility for the state of things, including bad-faith-assuming opposes like the one that you are saying I should not have argued against. I'm really confused by what's happening in this conversation. You seem determined to dissuade me of things I never said, which is very much unlike you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

ARCA request - contentious topics appeals template

Hi Tamzin, Given there were no objections, I've implemented your suggested change to the template, and hatted the ARCA request. Let me know if I managed to botch the template somehow. :-) Maxim (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Maxim! Tangentially, might also want to clarify the different standards of review for CTOP / case-level AE, as came up briefly in the discussion. Since it's just a matter of reflecting existing policy, I imagine it shouldn't need a new ARCA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm Open

You hit the nail on the head. If you need anything from me or want to talk, I'll be there. The Night Watch (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, TNW. :) Likewise to you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel

Hi Tamzin, in the past you blocked this IP as a sock. Well, they're back, it looks like. I've accepted one of their dratfs at WP:AFC, but since they're a banned user any article by them can be G5. Any advice? Nobody (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You inspired me

A redlink at User:Tamzin/userpage/special inspired me and I created this. Thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh cool! Thanks, @Bri. I'll have to tell my mom; she'll like that. Maybe at some point I'll edit-request in a synopsis.

P.S. Might want to mention the Highway of Death when discussing "Highway to Hell" -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh also, it was Robert Vare, not Ted Koppel, who edited Things Worth Fighting For (along with my mother, but she's not credited). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08

The article Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08 for comments about the article, and Talk:Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word

The article When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word for comments about the article, and Talk:When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Capri-Sun

Congratulations, Tamzin! The article you nominated, Capri-Sun, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cover-up tattoo

The article Cover-up tattoo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cover-up tattoo for comments about the article, and Talk:Cover-up tattoo/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort with F1NN5TERs surname

I just wanted to thank you for taking the additional steps required to create a viable and just consensus on a complicated topic :) FortunateSons (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Ray cat

On 1 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ray cat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that color-changing cats could help us communicate with the future? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ray cat. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ray cat), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 43,372 views (1,807.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word

On 1 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that no one laughed at the worst joke in legal history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 42,498 views (1,770.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible splitting help

I believe anal fingering should have its own article split from Fingering (sexual act) as anal fingering comes with its own techniques and risks. Do I have to be patient when it comes to consensus? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Autisticeditor 20: See WP:PAGEDECIDE for when to split a page. It seems unlikely to me that there's a benefit in splitting off just anal fingering, unless you plan to be able to write a much longer article on the topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I plan to extend the info on anal fingering. Thank you. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Chag urim sameach!

Patient Zero has given you some Potato pancakes! Potato pancakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some Potato pancakes, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Hanukkah!

To spread the goodness of Potato pancake, you can add {{Potato pancakes}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Patient Zerotalk 06:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

'zinbot seems to be down

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T363552

Last patrol April 4. I noticed this when a redirect I created that was sent to RfD was patrolled by a human new page reviewer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This is still an issue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: You had set this up on Toolforge. Do you know what's up? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The last error was;

==> zinbot.err <==
    return self.request('GET', url, **kwargs)
  File "/data/project/zinbot/venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 542, in request
    resp = self.send(prep, **send_kwargs)
  File "/data/project/zinbot/venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 655, in send
    r = adapter.send(request, **kwargs)
  File "/data/project/zinbot/venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/requests/adapters.py", line 498, in send
    raise ConnectionError(err, request=request)
requests.exceptions.ConnectionError: ('Connection aborted.', ConnectionResetError(104, 'Connection reset by peer'))
CRITICAL: Exiting due to uncaught exception <class 'requests.exceptions.ConnectionError'>
Sleeping for 120.0 seconds, 2024-04-20 09:22:49

so I've restarted everything (toolforge-jobs flush && toolforge-jobs load jobs.yaml) and there doesn't seem to be any new errors. I'll keep an eye for a bit.. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

hm, still not running (I think..?) — I've tried recreating the venv, no joy.. I'll keep digging for a bit and let you know — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Cover-up tattoo

On 16 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cover-up tattoo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some cover-up tattoos incorporate scars into their designs (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cover-up tattoo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cover-up tattoo), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 30,998 views (1,291.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster

The article 1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster for comments about the article, and Talk:1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Hi! Tamzin User:Aryatheautistic 15:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Capri-Sun

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

FAC nomination input request

Tamzin, since you have already taken the time to read through Bäckadräkten for its recent DYK nomination, I wonder if you wouldn't mind leaving a few comments on its current FAC nomination. It's been up for just over a week with only one reviewer so far. My appreciation in advance if you're able to help! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI

You've been researched on:[11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

tks. TK talk TK. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"F♯*@bois" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect F♯*@bois has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30 § F♯*@bois until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday

You made me laugh with that revelation of yours. I don't know if you're willing to help me, and I know we might not click properly, but I think I can learn from you and maybe someday communicate on-wiki about how I operate. Treat yourself well, alright? Your mental health is the highest priority. Take care. The Night Watch (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm doing great, @The Night Watch. Walked on the beach under the full moon the other night, from bayside to seaside, where just by walking in a "straight" line along the shore the moon appears to move across the sky. That was really nice. Been spending most of my creative efforts on a novel-length translation effort into toki pona. We'll see how it goes. :) I hope you're treating yourself well too and enjoying your less-on-the-grid time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Talked with a wikifriend on the phone for the first time yesterday. I was really nervous but it was still fun in the end. Anyway, we talked briefly about what it means to get caught up in something bigger than yourself. You know, I think it was unfair for you too to get caught up in something like that. You're human, and you deserved better after spending ten years of your life here. I got trapped in a situation of my own making. I still want to say so many things about it…but I don't know when. Maybe after I get home eventually. The Night Watch (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

How and when to remove comment for a talk page archive?

I accidentally found a very short comment in a talk page comment, only about eight comments in the five years since the article (a BLP) was created.

Can I just delete the comment from the archive? It is slur that is awful in two ways. I will clean the stable so no one else must.

Could you advise me or point me to another editor?

Now for an entirely other subject. When I scan the behind-the-scene spaces here, you write most of my favorite content. Thank you for being here. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 01:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) —

@Neonorange: Aww shucks. Thanks! As to your question, glancing at your contribs, I can guess the comment you mean. I'd say just throw a {{redacted}} in place of the sentence in question. If the term were directed explicitly at her ("X is...", not "X looks like..."), RevDel might be appropriate, but here I'd say it falls just a tad short of the line. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. And in addition to thanks, you also get an image I found in a recent issue of the Economist; a fearsome cetacean—when a mistake is really egregious. Just as soon as I can fix my archives access to get a digital image plus the article and caption. I will email to you. Thanks again. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC) —

Falun Gong and Judaism: False Equivalence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Back in 2023, you made a comparison that has not sat well with me. The more I consider it, the more outrageous and detrimental to the Wikipedia project I find it. As part of an arbitration decision regarding the extremely controversial new religious movement Falun Gong ([12]), you state, regarding me, "All I can think is how quickly someone would be blocked if they showed up to Talk:Mi Shebeirach and tried to cite my religion as part of an objection to the article's content".

This looks a lot like you were comparing antisemitism to anyone daring to mention what appear to be continued and organized attempts at manipulating Wikipedia's Falun Gong page, a reality that we in fact we have discussion of in peer-reviewed academic literature (especially Lewis, James. 2018. Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, p. 30, 80-81, etc. Cambridge University Press). This is not in question with our Falun Gong, Shen Yun, and Epoch Times coverage. In turn, anyone foolish enough to edit in those quarters will in fact be interfacing with Falun Gong-aligned editors, many of them WP:SPAs, who will gang up to silence them, whether by endless talk page and process lawyering or more straightforward revert-warring. Falun Gong-aligned editors will attempt to manipulate the site's coverage to reflect the group's preferred narratives, hoping to return our coverage to the earlier, Falun Gong-approved version. In addition to this necessary but obnoxious work, said user might even have have to deal with a comment here and there like the one you made (quoted above).

I'm responsible for adding most contemporary reliable sources at Falun Gong and related articles, including information about their compound, founder-leader, and well beyond. That has made me an on-site target for editors who don't like that and aggressively attempt to get this information removed. It has led to me receiving threats, veiled and otherwise. As some other editors there noted, this arbitration request was a naked attempt to silence me from editing and adding yet more WP:RS to these articles. This time it backfired.

However, that above quoted comment from you was offensive, unhelpful, and simply wrong. It helped nothing. I write about a lot of new religious movement topics on Wikipedia (and only stumbled into Falun Gong-land when researching their claims about folklore). I have had to deal with various instances of attempted outing and attacks that no editor should have to endure on this site because of it, generally with zero support from Wikipedia at large. Like many new religious movements, Falun Gong much prefers to make grand claims of religious persecution rather than discussing the reality of the organization and its extremely well-funded, highly political media arms. It is no doubt going prepping its agenda for the upcoming presidential election, just like it did last time.

And I have to ask: Are you aware that the Falun Gong is a new religious movement entirely based around the words and whims of one man, Li Hongzhi? Would you have made the comparison to antisemitism and anyone who mentioned the Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia? Please retract your statement. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I stand by the statement that no editor should attempt to disqualify another editor's fitness to edit based on their religion. That is true for Judaism, it is true for Falun Gong, and it is true for Scientology. That is not the same as attempting to disqualify someone based on improper coordinated editing that may in some cases correlate with religion. (I would know. I busted such a meatpuppetry ring in the BAPS topic area.) There is a difference between having religious views related to a subject one edits and editing at the behest of religious leadership. You, and a number of other editors, failed to heed that distinction, which is why I warned editors in the Falun Gong topic area generally, and you specifically, to knock it off. I stand by that, and it is hard to convey how disappointed I am that, half a year later, you not only refuse to accept the warning but have dwelled on it to such a degree that you have spontaneously demanded an apology. If I were still an admin, I'd be inclined to take this comment as prima facie evidence that you cannot edit civilly in the topic area, and impose a topic ban. But fortunately for both of us, I am not an admin anymore. Which means that, in fact, I couldn't take back what I said even if I wanted to, because it is substantively the same as the logged warning, which I lack the power to amend or rescind. If you would like to appeal that warning, you may do so as described at WP:CTOP § Appeals and amendments. But please do think on what I've said. Your fellow editors are your equals, regardless of religion, regardless of what the institutions affiliated with their religion might do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this all until it came up again in a recent exchange at Falun Gong, where you're essentially handed WP:SPA editors there a shield to to deflect questions regarding their activity surrounding on article. And, yes, good thing you're not an admin then because I certainly don't appreciate the would-be threat, which is itself outrageous and inappropriate.

I strongly suggest you consider the difference between a hugely diverse and ancient religion and a new religious movement centered around a single man whose adherents seek to polish his movement's media coverage by way of manipulating Wikipedia articles and the fallout that can occur when conflate these huge differences between the two. And that's well-recorded by scholars in the area, whether you acknowledge it or not.

A reminder: We don't write articles around the preferences of religious groups, period, and when a religious org, like any other org, attempts to influence coverage, it needs to be called out explicitly and clearly. Invoking notions of antisemitism when editors like myself do exactly is absolutely unacceptable and merits strong pushback. All editors on the site are equal, yes, but not all edits: we have instance after instance or organized attempts at manipulating coverage here, and when you might have to chose to help those of us who go to bat against this kind of manipulation, it appears you instead decided to give them a little gift. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference between preventing organized manipulation of religious articles and targeting people for whatever religious beliefs they may privately hold, you should not be editing in the topic area. There was consensus to warn you for this last year. Please either accept this consensus or appeal it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, the organized manipulation was and is the problem, which I've repeatedly noted (and which peer-reviewed material from experts have noted), and your invocation of antisemitism in that context was outrageous and bizarre. Adherents don't call the shots on our coverage, organized or not, and they don't get special treatment: WP:RS rules the day. Telling the WP:SPAs to stick to WP:RS and WP:NPOV was the easy move there. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing against something I didn't say. If you want me to affirm that religious editors can't manipulate or POV-push any more than irreligious ones can, well then, of course, but I never said otherwise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)