This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tamzin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sock?
I remembered you blocked User:Martin Krajščák as a sock- I found this IP (User:121.103.208.31) performing the same type of edit that the blocked sock did. Could this IP be yet another sock? I'll keep an eye on it for now.
Stalktoy more or less confirms your suspicion; viwiki has actually blocked the entire /16 though I'd just be inclined to keep on eye on it for now given the broadness of the range. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This situation is quite extensive, and the majority of the page content on NoFap was written by NeuroSex sockpuppet accounts. Even after the sockpuppets are banned, the content usually stays or is edited in by Tgeorgescu. They also work to control other pages related to pornography.
Could anything be done about this? Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.
@EEng: Strangely this got lost in some wave of pings (not sure which). But yeah, I'm fine, was some weird 36-hour thing; no AN/I content-dispute flu here. My absence since has just been one IRL commitment after another. (Who needs RSN drama when you can insult <a legacy media institution that shall remain nameless> in front of a crowd featuring people affiliated with that institution?) Anyways, regarding Grant etc., I'll write up thoughts on everything today. Thanks for your concern. :)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)16:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Did the record, I'm not actually a caring person; I just play one on TV. I'll assume you saw the discussion at OR Noticeboard. EEng20:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@SeanJ 2007: I've looked through your last 200 edits and am satisfied that you've been complying with the restrictions; all anti-vandalism reverts appear to have come up in the course of your regular content work. Could you please give some examples of work you would like to do if the restrictions are lifted? For the purposes of answering this question, you are allowed to discuss SPI or possible sockpuppetry cases, if you wish. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)17:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I will do the same thing as you said when you logged my account at WP:ER/UC, but If I want to report or discuss on WP:SPI, I will add "proper evidence" if the sock is connected to the original block account like providing links of edits of the user. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@SeanJ 2007: How about this: I will suspend the restrictions for two months. During this time, any uninvolved administrator may reïmpose them if they see renewed disruption of that nature. If there are no issues after two months, the restrictions will expire completely. Does that work for you? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)00:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@SeanJ 2007: I have marked the sanction as suspended. Please be very careful in any future work with recent-change patrolling or SPI, and to remember things that I, Bbb23, Cabayi, and others have said to you on the topic. Just because I'm saying you may engage with these areas of the project, that does not mean that I'm saying you should. You seem to be doing good work on articles in the Philippine TV topic area, and I encourage you to keep that up. :)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)06:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, 2 months has been passed since you suspend my restrictions. You suspend my restrictions until yesterday April 2, 2023 and I still follow what you said. Do I pass again on what you said? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello again, since my restrictions are lifted, can I be granted rollback rights? I know and understand how to use this tool and If I be granted, I will still follow what you said by not reverting Special:RecentChanges. This is formerly SeanJ 2007 BTW. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Tamzin, after your recent edits to Zoroastrianism, there were earnest contributions by Abduhrman Ahmad and slightly odd contributions from GoutComplex, who referenced someone called Silk Road Seattle. I bet "Silk Road Seattle" is a whimsical invention, but don't know about the rest of what Goutcomplex said, so I don't want to erase it based on my limited knowledge. Best wishes, Rich (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to fix my problem with the menus running down the side of the screen. I finally found the answer: reduce the zoom to less than 150%. More details are on my talk page, but THANKS for trying to fix a non-issue. :-) WesT (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey. It's Midterms time here, and I am wading through many illegible student essays. I promise I haven't forgotten you. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
No worries at all, Lingzhi. As anticipated, looks like your limited availability and mine are more-or-less syncing up. Yesterday was Big Move Day #1. Big Move Day #2 starts tonight (Hebrew calendar–style), and then I'll be freer, with the caveat of being at the mercy of T-Mobile and Amtrak WiFi access. For now, I haven't even finished getting through your first round of comments, so really no rush. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)16:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey Tamzin! Early this morning, I filed a report concerning unsourced edits at Clerks III and how all of the edits were made via mobile IP's that were in a range connected to LTA Ethiopique. Before the claim was closed, you commented, "If it's not about politics, it's probably not Ethiopique." Fair enough but I thought you'd be interested in this detail. Since my claim was closed, the mobile IP editor continued to make the same edit, before moving to my talk page accusing me of vandalism and arguing their point. Once I'd had enough, I deleted all of it from my talk page. Suddenly, a new IP address, 50.208.24.165, not a mobile one, reverted my deletion and made another additional comment that made it clear that this was the same person I'd been dealing with on the Clerks III article. Clicking the link to that IP address shows that the user has been temporarily blocked from editing Talk:2000 Mules. I then remembered that the entire range I had reported previously reported was also temporarily blocked from editing that same talk page and you had even commented on it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethiopique/Archive, stating, "Yup. Talk:2000 Mules, as expected. This is Ethiopique, my friends." I did file an SPI and Bbbb23 has addressed it. They then switched to another IP and continued editing until being blocked by Widr on a different range. 50.208.24.165 remains only blocked from editing Talk:2000 Mules. Every IP address involved originates from the same general geographic area using a simple IP search as well. The editor I'm dealing with made it publicly known that they work at a theatre in Colorado that has computers open to the public. Very odd though that both mobile and computer IP addresses are both blocked from the same talk page. Totally understandable as to why it may have not seemed connected earlier but wanted to give you a heads up that there absolutely is a connection and to give a heads up as something to watch. Thanks! NJZombie (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Please revert your edits. "New York City" is a place where most readers will be at least somewhat familiar per MOS:OVERLINK, and therefore there is no justification for linking it in infoboxes of biographical articles. See also {{Infobox person#birth_place}}, where NYC is not linked in the recommended example given. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 23:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Neveselbert: I've already explained why that is not applicable. A person's place of death is inherently of particular relevance to their article, thus will always be acceptable to link in an infobox. Now if you could please go revert the edits where you restored your idiosyncratic interpretation of OVERLINK at Stephen Sondheim and Nancy Reagan, that would be appreciated. I repeat, you are welcome to start a discuttion at the relevant MOS talk page if you wish to make OVERLINK apply in the context of infobox birth/deathplace fields, but currently it does not apply. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)23:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. Per MOS:OVERLINK, Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, they should not be linked. That is not the same thing as A person's place of death is inherently of particular relevance to their article. It's absolutely absurd to link such a ubiquitous place as NYC in an article which can easily be understood without such a link. It's no different to linking dates, it's obviously absurd and I'm astonished by how you fail to understand that. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 23:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
You're right, the corrected quote—"the context in their article"—even more clearly excludes such links. Obviously, when saying "X died in New York City", there is particular relevance in linking New York City. You're welcome to disagree. Many links are stylistic choices, and I wouldn't have touched the Reagan and Sondheim links if they didn't originate from you imposing a stylistic preference by fiat. If you were to write an article and not wikilink NYC in the infobox, I wouldn't touch that, because that'd be overriding your stylistic preferences with mine, which violates MoS. But in all this you haven't explained how the article is any worse with the link. If it is in some way worse, it certainly isn't for violating OVERLINK, which is about contain[ing] an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding—obviously not applicable for a line of an infobox. Anyways, if my stance is so obviously absurd, I'm sure you'll be able to clear this up very quickly on MoS talk and make a fool of me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)23:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
None of those cities compares in ubiquity to NYC, obviously one of the largest and most ubiquitous cities in the world. Linking to NYC in such articles is every bit as ridiculous as linking to dates in articles. It's complete overkill and doesn't help the reader at all. There is no relevance whatsoever in linking to it in articles where the subject just happened to have died there. People die almost every hour in the biggest city in the world, it's not unique and certainly does not meet the criteria of particular relevance. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
You seem to have it backward. Bellwether's death doesn't need to be particularly relevant to NYC. NYC needs to be particularly relevant to her death, which it of course is, as it's the place where it happened. And if your concern is that none of those cities I gave compares to NYC, okay...FAs in subcategories of Category:People from New York City, manually excluding those who were born or died elsewhere:
So, prior to your intervention, it was a slight majority of FAs in favor of linking (14 to 12). Which is about what I expected, because like I said, this is stylistic preference. Some editors, like me, hew toward the upper end of what MOS:OVERLINK allows. Some stay closer to the other side. But what I hope you can see is that there is not in fact any project-wide consensus that New York City must not be linked (nor, for that matter, that it must not be) when it appears as a place of birth or death in infoboxes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)00:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't have it backwards at all. It's not "particularly relevant to her death", it's a city in which people die hourly. There is absolutely nothing particularly relevant about anyone dying in NYC. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 00:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't really have anything to say to that. That's not how relevance works. Anyways, the more important part of the above comment is that >50% of relevant FAs do or did the thing you're saying is "obviously absurd". I understand you feel passionately about this, but this may be a good time to step back and consider the possibility that you've misunderstood the guideline. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)00:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, some articles choose to link NYC in that context, and some do not. I think we're on the same page there. The question is why you feel it's appropriate to go to articles that do it one way and unilaterally switch them to the other, when both styles are widely used without issue, even in featured articles. What you're doing is no different than switching a whole article over to using the Oxford comma. One may well feel that that is the preferable style, but, again, the default is to retain the existing style when multiple styles are permitted, as is the case with wikilinks to major cities in infoboxes. One of the most important principles underlying the MoS is that editors should not change things simply because they would have done differently. This is particularly incumbent on editors who make serial minor edits, lest they promulgate their own preferences as a fait accompli. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)01:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Not at all, thanks for reporting! Well, this has to be one of the stranger blocks I've ever made, but I've blocked the whole university /16 from just Fine-structure constant and its talk, for a year (hardblocked, account creation allowed). Maybe that'll get the point across. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)05:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey Tamzin, trust you're well. Do you think the user with the username Civil Rights Movement is another Awolf58sock? Some things don't add up but some do ... there were so many ducks quacking around that account that I indefblocked it quickly after I found it. Their editing style just seems eerily similar to these edits by an Awolf58 sock and both accounts are obsessed with James Bevel. I din't really want to make this a full SPI but you've dealt with this user in the past ... Graham8713:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with that - I was just pondering whether to take them to ANI, or to start an arbitration request. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Tamzin, can you explain why you ban me. I was adding what was mentioned in the articles that love jihad is where muslim men target non-muslim women both Hindu and Christian. There are multiple sources mention it in articles. Also Popular Front of India was banned in 2022 for links with other terrorist organisation and accused of alleged love jihad by converting hindu women into muslim and marrying them with muslim men which was not mentioned in the "Love jihad" article. I just added the facts. I have cited reliable sources such as India Today, ThePrint and The Diplomat, which was reputable news outlets. So your claim about poor sources not hold ground. Can you explain what wrong I have done. Just I have edited words unbaisedly which ommited mention of Christian women and only mention hindu women. I accept I was edit warring which need discussion in talk page, but other party also involved. I think some editor are pushing one sided agenda in the articles by cherry picking articles and facts. Dev0745 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Dev0745. I just want to confirm that I've seen this. I should be able to respond later tonight, although there's a chance I'll be busy till tomorrow or the next day. But I'll be able to explain my decisionmaking process at length as soon as I have the chance. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)19:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
And, just like that, my appointment's running late. Alright, so, Dev0745, we'll start with the background:
In December 2022, Seraphimblade closed an AE thread as Dev0745 is given a formal logged warning for poor editing practices including synthesis and use of poor quality sources, and that if these issues continue sanctions are likely to be placed. Note that SYNTH is a form of misrepresentation of sources.
In your edit war today at Love jihad conspiracy theory, we can see the same issues that Seraphimblade warned you about, all as part of the same patterns that El_C described:
Poor quality sources: This is a lesser concern, but still relevant. While India Today is, I gather, a reasonably reliable publication, it's facially clear from the article that it is a biased source. While biased sources can still be used in articles, one must take great care to not inherit their POV. It is also in significant part a primary news source, as much of it is based on an undercover investigation they conducted.
Synthesis/misrepresentation: The India Today source does not say that the investigation is an instance of "love jihad". Rather, it refers to what has come to be known as Kerala's own love-jihad case—in other words, saying that some people have called a thing "love jihad"—and later quotes a figure in that case as denying that it is love jihad. The ThePrintsource likewise only says that people called that particular case "love jihad", in scare quotes.
Misrepresentation by omission: Immediately after referencing the alleged "love jihad" case, ThePrint says: However, the agency concluded its probe in October 2018 after it found no 'evidence of coercion' that could result in prosecution. That is an incredibly important detail to have omitted, and was the main factor in my decision to impose a TBAN. You re-added this passage with the edit summary PFI was accused of carrying religious conversion and marrying non-muslim women to muslim men which is dictionary definition of love jihad. It was accused incase of love jihad, in other words clearly intending to use a source saying there was no evidence of coerced conversion to support an implication that there was.
More synthesis: The statement that PFI was banned carries the clear implication that it in some way pertained to "love jihad", especially since, I will reiterate, you omitted any mention of the police finding of no coercion. The Diplomatsource does not mention love jihad or conversions once.
That you edit-warred to maintain this misuse of sources gets back to what El_C said in 2020: POV, tendentious, and disruptive. Even now you are arguing for a conspiracy theory—one that even your own cited sources refuse to characterize as a real thing. Given your history of disruption in the IPA topic area, I stand by my impression that the best thing for you and the project is to separate you from that topic area. There are millions of other articles to edit, and perhaps on them your judgment will not be as clouded by strong personal feelings. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)20:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I wrote what article say. PFI was accused of love Jihad and banned for alleged links with other terrorist organisation. I never wrote that PFI is involved in love jihad or banned for love jihad. PFI is the forefront Organisation in Kerala for religious conversion and accused of love jihad but banned for links with terrorist organisation. I have written factual things what source mention. You implications are incorrect and I never wrote your implication that PFI is banned for involved in love jihad. I think, It is your implications. I never written what you are implying. Your decision should be based on facts and evidence rather than implications. Thanks.. Dev0745 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Regarding verifiability and synthesis, my written sentence are based on verifiable sources and I have written what sources said in different sentences i.e PFI was accused of love Jihad. It is banned for alleged links with other terrorist organisation. It is straight fact stated in sources. There is no synth in it. Syth is combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. But I have written straight what sources say in different sentences. How can it be not verifiable soures with reputable news outlets like India Today, The print and The Diplomat. How can be it a Synth when it is two different sentences based on simple fact what state straight in source. I think you have different definition of Synth. I checked in synthesis and my written sentence don't fall in the category of syth since both sentences are based on verifiable soures and are straight facts. Dev0745 (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop by and say thank you for letting me know about this. Although I don't know if I should send a kitten to the creator after like 4 months lmao. Rejoy2003(talk) 11:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Tamzin. I was wondering whether editing articles about the 18th-century Khanates of the Caucasus, specifically the Karabakh Khanate, would fall within the scope of my topic ban on conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed. Neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan existed during that time. While I am fairly certain that it does not fall within the scope, I wanted your confirmation before proceeding. Thank you. — Goldencall me maybe?14:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@Golden: Have you ever heard of Ludger Sylbaris? In 1902 he was put in solitary confinement for a violent crime. Shortly thereafter, the entire city of Saint-Pierre was destroyed in a volcanic eruption, but he survived thanks to the very cell that had confined him.Maybe you see the similarity here, to someone spared a full TBAN in AA3 because they had complied with an existing narrower TBAN, when almost everyone else was swept away in the pyroclastic flows of broad ArbCom-level sanctions?Bearing in mind that you did still get a sanction that puts you one strike away from a "TBAN, go directly to ArbCom, do not pass AE, do not collect $200", I would counsel you to be very careful straying anywhere in the vicinity of your existing TBAN. So, to answer your question, the existing TBAN should be read to include conflicts of predecessor states to modern Azerbaijan and Armenia. It does not prevent you from editing about other aspects of those countries, just as it does not prevent you from editing about other aspects of Armenia or Azerbaijan, but, just... remember Ludger Sylbaris. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)18:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice and for clarifying the scope of my topic ban. I understand the seriousness of the situation and will continue to be cautious in my editing. The parallel you drew with the story of Ludger Sylbaris is powerful and I will keep it in mind as I edit. I appreciate your help and will take your words to heart. — Goldencall me maybe?19:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for helping me with my review. I also really enjoyed working with you. You have a great eye for detail, which I missed in my work, and you point out tricky issues that are genuinely helpful and improve the article. Please ping me when Novak v. City of Parma is nominated, there is a standing offer from me to review. If you would like to collaborate on retaliatory arrest, I'd be happy to! My GA's so far are all legal cases, which have sort of a "cookie cutter" skeleton to them; hitting all the right notes makes writing a decent article quite achievable with those. Retaliatory arrest is a much broader and more challenging topic to produce, I'm guessing! If you have any specific areas or sub-sections you want work on I'd be happy to help. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Heh, I was just about to mention Novak! I'm looking forward to getting it to GA because we don't have many GAs about lower-court decisions in the U.S. (Sidenote, I wonder if Whitmill is the least-developed case that gets any legal analysis on this wiki, seeing as it never even made it to trial!) But I want to finish my overhaul of the Bluebook citation templates before I wrap that up. No reason for that to be a blocker but I'm treating it as one to keep myself on-track.
By the way, you passed Tyson's tattoos before I could answer your question on "source says" versus "source said". Honestly... I'm not sure. Like the convention in scholarship is to use present-tense when describing what a source says. But then if the source's existence is more part of the narrative, past tense seems to make more sense, and that's what you see with like movie reviews. So my usual approach is, if the source's existence is part of the story (e.g. there's a back-and-forth of commentary), past tense, but otherwise present... But there's always times where it feels wrong whichever way I do it. If any talkpage watcher knows of some relevant bit of MoS, please let me know.
I just googled retaliatory arrest in Australia and got nothing except American references. I have never heard of this before. Open to learning! — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Aaaaah. The Riviera Beach case, which I reviewed with you, is an example. Hmmm. Can't really think of any examples that come to mind here. Happy to have a look around... — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I was surprised to know it doesn't have a page still after 2 years. Lately I knew that there has been a page in the draft space with many disputes after I made one in my sandbox. I moved it to Draft with other name later: Draft:Meesho (Draft).
WP:RFP brings me here. I would like to have some actions done by you regards this or an advice if I should make changes in the Draft for AfC since the the discussion has gone silent after the protection.
Oh, I mistakenly I moved the page to something else. Moving there seemed easier than copying texts to my sandbox. I did not know there had been an article. I usually draft pages in sandbox before moving to mainspace.
I was admiring your photo and the description of the tattoo when I happened to notice there was room for bisexual representation in all the flags, but no representation for heterosexuals. Is there some reason why these groups are exclusionary to this particular group of people? No rainbow of celebration or pride for men who like women or vice versa? I've never really gotton into these discussions that much before, but my impression has always been that the LGBQT community has always had complaints about being marginalized, but what I'm seeing here is that they appear to actually be doing the marginalizing to themselves in a manner of speaking, or at the very least contributing to it themselves and perhaps not helping any more than anyone else might be if that makes any sense. It's really kinda twisted actually. Segregating yourself to the automatic exclusion of another group, and then pointing at the other group to say, "you marginalize us!". Huggums537 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
@Huggums537, if you're really not getting it: The point of pride flags is for LGBTQ people to show pride in what we are. They are not there to show unity with other groups. Most LGBTQ people do want unity with non-LGBTQ groups, of course, but that's not what the flags are for, just like you can wave a U.S. flag but still want world peace. Just like I can have a Star of David in that same tattoo but still want religions to coexist. For centuries LGBTQ communities have been told that we have to hide who we are, so there is an audacity in saying "No, instead we're going to hang flags showing it". That is the resistance to marginalization.Anyways, this is off-topic for Wikipedia. You're welcome to email me if you have further questions, although if you continue to take the tone you took in your first message, I'm unlikely to reply. (Friendly word of advice: If you want a sincere answer to a question about something you don't know much about, it's best not to then spend several sentences preaching about the topic you've just said you don't know much about. One might wind up saying something stupid.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)19:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I guess I really just don't get it, or the point of any flag for that matter. I don't get any patriots waving their own flag proudly exclaiming we are number one and everybody else sucks while complaining about not having world peace, but you are right as far as being off topic so I'll drop the stick because I'm just one of those weirdos who never will get it I guess... Huggums537 (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey Tamzin, I said I was going to drop this, but I've been doing some thinking about it, and your example about the U.S. flag has me thinking maybe I kinda do get it now because I was also thinking about what you said about "unity", "audacity", and "resistance". Well, that got me to thinking about how the first flag (and even the current one) was really made to represent the "unity" of the colonies and states with a kind of "audacity" and "resistance" to the British or anyone who might oppress us. The only problem I have with it is that we became friends with the Brits a long time ago so to me it seems like the justification for waving that banner isn't really warranted any more. It's kinda how a lot of people feel about the confederate flag, but I think most flags represent something outdated if you ask me. Except the copyright piracy banner. That one is still relevant! Lol. :) Huggums537 (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
If I may offer another data point (all IMO, though I think I'm in agreement with Tamzin and the mainstream on this): the point of pride flags is to show solidarity with marginalized groups. "Heterosexual", unlike any of the groups within the LGBT flag, is not a marginalized group--quite the opposite--and so is not relevant to a pride flag. Pride flags are not about demonstrating superiority, they're about visibility and solidarity. Being straight requires no help with either, as it's been the socially dominant group for hundreds/thousands of years. This is the same reason there's no "white history month".
Speaking of which, people don't have such strong reactions to the Confederate flag because it's outdated. People have strong reactions to it because what *it* represents is an explicitly white supremacist system that was founded and waged war specifically to preserve the chattel slavery and general social subjugation of black people, and anyone who flies it is implicitly yearning to go back to that system. Writ Keeper⚇♔12:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me like the pride flags in Tamzin's tattoo are representative of her own LGBT identities. I don't see a bi flag in the tattoo. I only see the rainbow flag, trans flag, non-binary flag, and agender flag. I'm not sure where you got "bi representation" from.
Is Tamzin bi? If she is, then she's not straight (unless she is bi-straight, but that's a different orientation from being just straight), so of course she's not going to have a straight flag in her tattoo. MinerGlitch25 (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The rainbow flag represents bisexuals (among others). That is where I got it from. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Updated on 13:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The only reason I picked bisexual as a comparative to heterosexual is because they both use the word "sexual". Just a random way to do a comparative. I could have chosen gay or lesbian, or even tried to assume what Tamzins preference is, but I just decided to go with the two words that sound most alike if that makes any sense at all. Huggums537 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Gays and lesbians are homosexual, and that's typically considered the "opposite" of heterosexual. But this conversation should probably end. Feel free to not reply. ––FormalDude(talk)14:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Haha. Right you are. Thanks for pointing that technically accurate fact out. You can tell it is obvious I'm not used to being on this topic at all... Huggums537 (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Asleep
Guess I've been asleep for a month or more. Didn't know about the various recent discussions surrounding editor DePiep and frankly, I'm sorry it's come to this. As someone who has known this editor for many years and who has had several fairly negative discussions with them, I would still have to agree with those who were concerned about their "net" contribution to the project. As well as having had several negative talks with this editor, there have also been several good ones. DePiep is actually an awesome template editor and not too shabby with modules, as well. I've seen him give inexperienced editors the "shirt off his back" to help them along. I wish I had known about the ANI talks; don't know if I would have made a difference. If I had known, this is what I would have written, so I thought I'd come to your talk page as the blocking admin and let you know. Honestly don't know if editor DePiep deserves another chance, but if they ever apply for one, I would wholeheartedly support an end to their being blocked!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there01:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
My goal is to "[e]dit about something else, anything else." And I don't mean a single edit at a non-r(o)uble-related page; I hope for some significant editing in other areas. I admit that "significant" is subjective, but I think a few articles would be an informal but appropriate benchmark.
Just because this request only covers Talk:Ruble does not preclude me from "walk[ing] away from the spelling of" r(o)uble elsewhere.
Please consider noting the self-requested nature of this block.
Also, if you do (graciously) decide to grant my request, please leave my TPA intact so that I can discuss non-r(o)uble-related issues with other editors. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, NotReallySoroka. I'd never before considered whether my self-requested block policy could include partial blocks. Having thought about it a bit, my feeling is that it does not, for the same reason I do not make self-requested tempblocks. I am willing to impose self-requested indefinite-but-not-infinite blocks if an editor feels that it is in the best interest of their mental health, but that is premised on the idea that they need to fully detach from Wikipedia for a period of time. If that's what you'd like, then I am open to that, but if you feel that you are in a position where you can continue editing, then a partial block should not be necessary, as you should be able to stay away from that page yourself. I hope that makes sense. If you are still interested in a self-requested partial blocks, there may be other admins in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks who are open to it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)02:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not active on Reditt but it seems that much of the on-wiki dispute in this topic-area is imported from, or at least reflected, there. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare: Yeah, I think this is mostly a war between two subreddits (r/PitBulls and r/BanPitBulls), which are always frustrating because they fall in a gray area with respect to WP:MEAT. The former subreddit's POV is significantly closer to the mainstream academic POV (at least, that's what BiomatrixBackup explained to me over dinner last night, based on her veterinary medicine classes), but both groups are being disruptive. I halfway wonder if this is one of those niche culture-war topic areas that would benefit from community general sanctions. Or maybe we should just consider this to fall under WP:FRINGE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)18:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
That's my (lay) impression too. What this area really needs is more attention from disinterested editors, i.e. ones who don't have strong pre-formed pro or anti- views. But that is easier wished than done. I don't typically edit/admin in this area but if you ever start a discussion about community sanctions etc, feel free to ping me and I'll be happy to add my observations. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Pitbulls and SPI
First, thank you for your interest in the ongoing AN/I thread. I've been reading through the Normal OP SPI threads here [1] and here [2]. Were any of these socks blocked on technical evidence? In many cases it looks like the main behavioral evidence was that they didn't like pitbulls. Does this mean people shouldn't be editing in that topic area for fear of being declared a sock? It seems like it'd be hard to maintain NPOV in the topic area, when editors with one POV in particular are blocked, largely for having that POV. Geogene (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Geogene: The initial tempblock of NO and indef of Cohere, plus the finding of meatpuppetry with Tangurena, were based on CU evidence. (N.B.: I am not a CU, so can't speak for the merits of any CUblock.) As you can see, in September 2021, after inconclusive CU results, I (then a trainee non-admin clerk) found that Platonk was likely NO based on behavioral evidence, but not likely enough to block on. In February 2022, Psychologist Guy started a new SPI, presenting much more extensive evidence than had been seen in the first. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Normal Op/Archive § Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments 3, I distilled the 4 key pieces of new evidence and presented a fifth piece. CU results were "possilikely", and in combination with the behavioral evidence led a CU to block. Now, in the most recent filing, a CU concluded the accounts were unrelated, and the account's subsequent block was for tendentious editing, not socking. So in summation, both blocks of NO sox have been based on CU evidence, and to the extent that behavioral evidence was needed to get the 2nd one to the necessary confidence level, it was very thorough behavioral evidence, not simply "They both hate pitbulls." So no, I don't think there's any reason to think that, by expressing anti–pit bull opinions, one will be mistakenly blocked as an NO sock. Although, depending on the strength of the views and how they're expressed, one might be blocked for tendentious editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)23:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, I think the super extended confirmed rule, that requires 500 edits and 30 days, that might be on the table with community sanctions would help to disincentivize socking in the topic area going forward. And help well-intentioned newcomers from possibly having a bad experience in the topic area. Geogene (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I had a look at the PartyParrot42 account, it was a disruptive account but not Normal Op. I strongly suspect that I have been following Normal Op/Platonk for over a year on a new account but I am not publishing my findings. He only makes the occasional edit on articles related to dogs and horses, he now focuses on scientology but he slipped up a few times in the past making mass removals on animal welfare articles like he did on Normal Op and Platonk. On his previous sock Platonk he focused on editing Ethiopia. Basically he will only make occasional edits on animal articles to avoid detection. The last SPI I filed took about 4 or 5 days to write. Before I filed that SPI I had about 2 weeks worth of emails with other users collecting evidence. I am not in the position to file an SPI again for this person it will take me days to write and collect evidence, it would be a drain on my health and time. He's almost given up editing on pitbulls and is not disrupting the website anymore (I couldn't care less if he edits scientology) so I am not going to waste time filing as it would be an extremely long behavioural SPI. This is the most intelligent sock-puppet I have ever come across and he wouldn't give the game away as easy as PartyParrot42 did. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Impersonation
Hi Tamzin,
I’m contacting you in regards to this user User:Snazzy the Optimist, that must be a fan who created the page with the artists name which is misleading according to Wikipedia:Username policy, please we want the user to be deleted to avoid further impersonation of the artist, i will really appreciate if you could please take out few minutes of your time and look into it and get the user page deleted, thanks. Sn123456789 (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sn123456789: Hi. If you feel that you or an associate are being impersonated on Wikipedia, please contact legalwikimedia.org, where a team of lawyers and paralegals will look into the matter. Such matters are above my paygrade as a site administrator. In the meantime, do know that the userpage in question is already excluded from search engine results. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@Mutt Lunker: SPIs are for determining whether the sockpuppetry policy has been violated. Since a finding in the affirmative will often give rise to a block, protocols are built in for issuing blocks (although they weren't always); but an SPI is not necessary for a sockblock, and a sockblock is not an automatic outcome of an adverse SPI finding. Does that make sense? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)04:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm trying to establish the practical implications in my mind. In WP:DUCK cases, where it is plainly evident that edits are being carried out by a WP:BE sock, thus disruptive, though individual edits may not be cut-and-dried vandalism, would WP:ANI be the preferred course of action to SPI, in your view? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Page protection against apparent socks
Some accounts which seem to be socks of the same person are adding OR stuff to the infobox of Siege of Pelium. I made a semi-protection request at the protection requests page and opened an SPI. However nobody has responded yet to the semi-protection request. Since you are both an admin and SPI clerk, can you protect the page and take a look at the SPI whether it really needs a CU or not? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'll be doing any admin work tonight (not much brainpower right now, mostly doing a JWB run on mental autopilot), but if I do I'll take a look. :)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)01:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No worries, the page is now semi-protected. Some of the sock accounts have been blocked, though the SPI itself is waiting for a clerk or admin to look at. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
As I have explained at ANI, I have been rollbacked/reverted 7 times. I consider all but one of those reverts/rollbacks to have been motivated not by editorial concern, but as an automatism (4 out of 7 have a summary along the lines of "reverting removal" without any justification, one has no summary). I would like for those undoings to be undone, that the page go back to the way I had put them.
What should I do? Should I ask the admin at their talk page to justify themselves editorially? Discuss on all 7 article talk pages? Revert the admin's reversions/rollbacks without discussing, since their actions was simply based on the false premise of me being disruptive ("I saw that guy had received blocks, so anyway I started reverting")? Veverve (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Tamzin, I have some HERE considerations about brand-new user Knitesmire (talk · contribs)[noping] (3 career edits). It's premature to do anything now, but can you keep an eye out? First ran into them at Talk:Cotton ceiling, and checking their user page, I can't tell if we're being trolled by their last paragraph, or if it's a clear RGW statement implying NOTHERE, or maybe it's merely carefree and ill-advised. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mathglot: First, wow that's a horrible article. I wonder if it would be better as an {{r with possibilities}} than... this. (I've been speaking Toki Pona all weekend and having trouble switching back to English, and the word that comes to mind is nasa, sort of meaning "foolish", or the non-literal sense of "crazy".) As to the conduct issue, I'm about to step out for the day, but perhaps a talkpage watcher has thoughts. If not, I'll be around tonight/tomorrow. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)15:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
They may never return, so effort on the poss. HERE issue at this point may be premature, but bears watching.
As to the article itself: it was Afd'd and deleted upon first nom in 2019, and then recreated in Dec. 2022, and survived second nom. (My original arguments in favor of non-notability/deletion from the now-deleted original talk page were partially preserved in quotation by User:-sche in Afd-1.) I missed the 2nd nom and would've voted delete; for example, the vast majority of book refs are about commodity prices, and the few remaining ones imply the existence of a vogue word that made an appearance, and then was rarely used post-2017 or so. Not every cute blog expression that was once trendy rates an article here, and imho, it very clearly fails WP:PAGEDECIDE as it will never be expanded to a full article. It also fails WP:NOTDICT, although conceivably it could live on as a one-line entry in some jargon list somewhere, perhaps at LGBT slang. Mathglot (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Tamzin, not sure where else to go with this but saw this convo pop up on my watchlist so it seems an appropriate location. There seems to be a similar but even more transparently NOTHERE account, Bincturd, who joined yesterday. They thanked me for removing the wikibreak template from my userpage and then < 5 minutes later populated their userpage with very transparent trolling of nonbinary editors. When I'd checked last night I'd only seen their teahouse question (which I thought was a nuanced question about neo-pronouns but on further examination appears to be trolling), but I was wondering why a day old account would be watching my userpage so checked again this morning and voila, trolling. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. And I'll say sigh about the situtation as someone who took a bit of time to give them an answer at the tea house. Skynxnex (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Socking or Meatpuppetry
Hi Tamzin, I've got a few users, either socks, or more likely, meatpuppets. They are User:Dhan643044, User:Ogresbaku and User:Shashwat185. On IRC a few days ago I believe one of them said Shashwat was their little brother, so either it's socking, or probably meatpuppetry. But behaviorally they are all the same. Yours, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AlisonW and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
I know you meant well taking this to ANI, but I can't help feeling this has backfired a bit, and I just wished you'd had a word with Alison about WP:INVOLVED out of the way on their talk page. You'd have probably have reached an understanding and I dare say educated them on appropriate admin conduct during disputes.
I'm usually a strong supporter of kicking out admins that passed RfA before I created my account when they do egregiously bad actions, and I'm also unhappy about people who don't assume as much good faith as I do on disruptive cases, and I'm wondering why I'm just not feeling the same about this with AlisonW. I think part of it is unlike just about every other "out of touch admin" case I've seen at Arbcom in the past few years, they're trying to listen, explain their thoughts, and understand what the disconnect is. So I still think with a bit of education, their tools are salvageable and not a complete lost cause. Anyway, it looks like the case is probably going to be accepted, so we'll just have to sit back and see what happens. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Part of me thinks, oh, I should have waited and talked with her after unblocking, but 1) I wasn't the wronged party here, and I thought better my calmer AN post than somebody else taking it to AN/I immediately gunning for her bit, and 2) I do think fundamentally the community has a right to know when something like this occurs, especially when the admin persists in the policy violation after being called on it by one uninvolved user (Pbritti). I did everything I could to soften the blow: I unblocked before posting, because "should we unblock?" threads tend to see hotter tempers than "I just unblocked" threads; I picked AN rather than the fierier AN/I; I didn't submit a definitive conclusion as to whether she was involved; I didn't ask for any remedy.I get what you mean though, about wanting a way out of this for AlisonW. Something does feel different than the standard "My way or the highway" out-of-touch admin cases. She seems to get that she's out of touch, but just not how important that is—seems to think that an involved block, without warning, for actions within editorial discretion is something that reasonable minds can differ on. If she could come around on that, maybe there'd be room for something here. I'll think on whether there's anything useful I can say at the A/R/C in that vein. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)15:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I went through and reviewed Alison's comments, and I think the discussion at AN was at cross purposes. Essentially, she mistook Veverve's edits for vandalism and applied revert, block, ignore, and her comments explained what she thought was the correct thing to do, based on that faulty assumption. It's correct that WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply for vandals, and she was explaining policy as it applied to vandalism. By the time the AN thread opened, everyone knew the edits were in good faith, and were arguing from the correct assumption - ie: reverting an editor, dismissing their comments and blocking them without warning is an absolute no-no, which is why so many people were cross at AN. And that's why I think the hostility increased, because people thought - reasonably - that Alison was explaining she'd still take the same actions.
As far as "differing minds" go, my take on it is Alison doesn't like people walking up to articles and deleting content without discussion, which I sort of get, though I don't agree with entirely - indeed, I agree with Veverve's view that "In popular culture" sections are a cruft magnet that don't really give much benefit to the reader. But I'm not completely convinced she'd defend that viewpoint to the extent of abusing the administrator toolset. And she thinks the appropriate action to an admin making a bad block mistakely is not being dragged off to Arbcom for a desysop. Which I sort of get.
I'm not sure I can say much more at the Arbcom case. I think Alison has said enough for now; no fresh views are coming forward, and at least one Arb has already said "I wish you'd just said that in the first place, we wouldn't be here". If the case is accepted and starts up, I can probably try and come up with some supporting evidence. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Collective responsibility article
Hi,
I actually agree with your deletion of the article. It was a bloody mess from WP:NPOV and I did not feel up to the task of fixing it all especially with sanctions over it. But your comment raises a question: I've been inactive for quite some time and... did I lose my extended confirmed status while I was away??? Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Simonm223: No, all is well! I've always interpreted "no substantial edits" under WP:CSD G5 to not include as "substantial" those edits that remove content for being inappropriate. Otherwise, there's a perverse incentive where removing part of a problematic article then makes it harder to delete. But perhaps I should have written "all content", not "all substantive edits", since your removals were substantive, just not new content; apologies for the confusion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)17:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No worries, LOL, a lot has changed interface wise since I was last here so I wondered if there had also been account changes. All good. And thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
You probably noticed that I've been sorting through some of the redirects created by Invasive Spices. I was reading this discussion [3] and wondered how so many awful redirects had been created without anyone noticing.
It turns out they're on the redirect autopatrol list Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. On the basis that they've had a redirect G10'd as an attack page, a multitude of redirects R3'd as completely implausible and you've just snow deleted a load of their creations at RFD I think this pseudo-right should be revoked - their creations could clearly do with manual review.
I have a question about the topic ban you placed on Golden for "conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed". Aren't the following edits a violation of the topic ban?
Blue Mosque, Yerevan, a mosque in Armenia's capital that Azerbaijanis claim, although few agree with them, as detailed in the Controversy section.
Svante Cornell, who is an infamous lobbyist for Azerbaijan, who's evidently extremely Armenophobic (as detailed here and here).
Golden editing these articles is especially concerning, given that you had previously advised the user to be very careful about the articles they edit; these seem like they should've known not to go near these articles. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
On the one hand, Golden, I wish you wouldn't get so close to the bounds of the TBAN. On the other hand, Kevo327, I don't see that any of these pertains to conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaian, nor that any is on an article so inextricably tied to those that unrelated parts of it can't be edited. Especially given that the first two are reverts of unexplained IP edits (arguably exempt under WP:GS/AA, actually, although no one seems to enforce that regime) and the third is a BLP issue. I'd maybe feel differently if the Cornell article mentioned the Armenophobia you reference, but it currently does not.So I do not personally see a violation here. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at WP:AE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)14:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
apologies for taking your time, but I wanted to clarify; Kalbajar District article contains territory that is de facto controlled by the Republic of Artsakh, and was fuly controlled by the later before 2020 (when it changed hands). Wouldn't that make it inextricably tied to conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan? And while not mentioned on the Cornell article currently, the Blankspot source for the text that Golden edited does detail Cornell being a paid lobbyist for Azerbaijan against Armenia as the criticism. Golden also edited the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic article, which contains entire sections dedicated to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Could this also be inextricably tied?
It wouldn't really make sense to ban someone from the topic of conflicts between two countries, as opposed to the broader topic of the countries themselves, if we're going to say that that ban covers any article about those two countries that has anything to do with conflict. I chose to give Golden a limited TBAN so that he could continue to edit other parts of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic area, and I still don't see anything in the diffs you've presented that shows him straying into conflicts involving Armenia and Azerbaijan. Like I said before, the Cornell case might be different if the article established a connection to conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, but it doesn't. We can't really judge an editor based on facts that weren't in the article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)23:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom ban template
Hi Tamzin. In our recent discussions at the ban policy talk page, you talked about how ArbCom had stopped using visible templates for banned users because of the drama. You can see from what I just posted at the ban policy talk page, that I asked ArbCom about it, and one of the Arbs told me something different. If you're aware of something that contradicts what he told me, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Actually, someone else just posted that it may in fact be as you said, because of the template setting. I'll admit that this is getting very confusing for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
That is an essay, which is silent on IP closures as far as I can see. WP:Deletion process is a guideline and includes RM as a deletion venue. If you wish to ask clarification at some appropriate venue, feel free. In either case, it wouldn't change the fact that your close was procedurally and substantively invalid for other reasons. If you think the page should not be moved, go ahead and !vote that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)20:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you're actually right that RM is covered by the deletion process policy (or at least it's ambiguous in that page), the text of that section describes there being six deletion venues, the table lists 7 places, including requested moves.
That being said the closure by the IP was really bad, and it should have been reverted purely on that basis. The article is highly visible, on the topic of a breaking news story, on the main page and is admin level move protected [4], so this is not a good candidate for a non admin closure by an IP. The closure rationale is a supervote, not an attempt to establish consensus. Most of the previous votes were to the effect of "wait, we need more information", so closing the discussion on the basis that the information became available makes no sense. There was no good reason for an early closure here. The discussion was active, including a section dedicated to comments after the news broke. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mdewman6 Yes, that is the exact section I mention in my comment. The text says Deletion venues (or deletion forums) are the six places to propose a page not eligible for speedy deletion be deleted, but the table contains seven entries, so it's ambiguous whether requested moves is covered by the deletion process policy. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I am not sure why RMs are included there, since any pages deleted as part of a RM are speedy deletions (i.e., you can't propose a deletion there), maybe Tamzin has some insight. But regardless, consensus is that IPs should not be closing any discussions, including RMs, as there is no way to ensure the closer can be reached for discussion about their close. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mdewman6 If you really want to get into technicalities, the current consensus is that an essay on discussion closures should contain wording disallowing IP closures, "IP's can't close discussions" isn't actually a part of policy AFAIK (though the distinction between policy, guideline and widely accepted essay is fairly meaningless in my view).
I do find it slightly odd that we don't have a central policy on "closing discussions", given the amount of basic principles that apply everywhere (don't close discussions in which you have expressed an opinion, don't close discussions in which you are involved, you should be willing to answer queries about the close at your talk page...) instead we have the same content repeated multiple times in slightly different wordings across a range of policies and information pages. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Late arriving general comment. Unregistered closing of discussions is a tricky area. I've closed a number over the years. As a matter of actual practice, closing discussions that could as easily be closed by a bot is fine. Stuff like helping someone withdraw a nomination when WP:SK#1 applies, cleaning up after a page is speedied, or terminating obvious sock disruption though that can often be handled through reversion or G3/G5 deletion of the discussion page is all fine. If your IP is reasonably static, clearing away the extremely obvious keeps (excepting AFD) once you're a few hundred edits in is fine, there's one unregistered user I recognize who periodically does exactly that to keep RFD flowing, or used to anyway. However, if it's at all controversial, and early closes usually are, it's best to leave it to someone else. As always there are exceptions, and there are some historical cases where IP closes of tense AN/ANI discussions have stuck, but that is far from usual.Given the particulars of the case that started this, I'll add that closing discussions (or sometimes even commenting on them) within your first few edits on a new IP is rude. If someone does revert you it's usually best to just let the matter drop unless they come to your talk page. Perhaps one day I'll write an essay on IP discussion etiquette, but as is so often the case, the biggest thing is using common sense. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Update
My confidence and energy to report possible vandalism has returned. I don't plan on doing more username reports. I honestly didn't know it was four violations because no one pinged me. I understand that won't have me unblocked from username reports, but it does not matter anyway. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Nableezy: I think here's a pretty good place to ask, between me and some clerks/CUs who watch this page—such as Blablubbs, who's indeffed both of these. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)21:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed. A note: you accidentally wrote that you blocked .106 (the unrelated IP) rather than .191 (the related IP with only one edit). You also wrote 2 weeks but the block log seems to indicate 1 week? TompaDompa (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, good eye! Comment adjusted. Think I meant to go for 2 weeks, but tbh it's kind of arbitrary what to go for on an IP that's only edited once, so I'll leave it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)22:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I will (very slightly) AGF this isn't deliberate impersonation of the real bot, but either way, unapproved bots get blocked. Any admin is free to unblock if it turns out to be a misunderstanding. Perhaps some watching CU wants to take a look here, though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)23:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I saw the name in new users. I know there is a legit bot with a similar name. Seemed suspicious that it showed up in new users. Plus the editor it says is running it, hasn't edited in a while. Knitsey (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fram: Thanks. Blocked. Perhaps one of my talkpage watchers knows which long-term or short-term abuse case this is. "Meerkat" reminded me of "Merkle" (Atac2), but the main party behind that account has kept to their word about retirement, and so far no one else has taken up the mantle, so probably someone else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)10:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
If you're available, would be willing to post a notice on Yae4's talkpage letting them know that they are CBANned (the latest post just says they're blocked)? I'd do it, but it seems like it should come from an admin. Thanks! -- RockstoneSend me a message!18:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Lourdes closed the AN/I discussion, so I'll ping her. Probably also best to procedurally reblock, so there's no confusion for an admin reviewing the block log. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)18:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Many systems[a] will have some parts who are incapable of editing and/or engaging in discussion in a competent manner. It is those systems' responsibility to make sure that they don't edit when those parts are fronting. This is no different than for singular people: Just as a singular person may have to learn to not edit while in a bad mood, or while drunk, or while exhausted, a plural person may have to learn to not edit when certain system members are fronting.
On that note, I've logged out out of my admin account for a bit. Might still do non-admin work on this alt, because the issue is only with familiarity with admin tools, not anything else. In the meantime, other admins have my blessing to modify or reverse any blocks or sanctions, including CTOP/GS ones; no need to ask me, and in fact I'd prefer not to be asked.
Wanna be clear, I've been really happy with my relationship with Wikipedia lately, and this isn't in response to any on-wiki stressor, nor is it really a bad thing at all; just something that happens occasionally when you've got more than one consciousness bouncing around in a head, and some of them know all the admin policies inside and out, and some of them have other sets of skills that do not include that. Might be back to admin work in a day, might be a month, not sure yet. Happy editing all.
Thanks, UtherSRG! There's a few admins who are aware of any "pending business" I have (users or pages that may need admin action soon but not quite yet, or are LTA targets). If you wanna chip in in venues that might be missing me, in addition to generalist admin tasks I try to close a few RfDs a day and to chip away at the SPI backlog. Also been doing my part to keep AE from getting backlogged again. Oh, filter 1200, that's a good thing to keep an eye on too. (Public filter, anyone can help!) -- 'zin[is short for Tamzin] (she|they|xe) 19:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
As you probably know, I was the blocking administrator in 2021. I noticed on the talk page that you may be reaching out to a journalist. I wanted to let you know that I am willing to comment. The Daily Beast did a poor job on this. You would think they would reach out to the blocking administrator for comment, but no. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@Cullen328: The Beast, to their partial credit, has sorta updated the piece, although they weirdly hedge with attributing the unblock to a PR person for Lawler, even though they're able to verify it through the pages they've already linked. They also say that "the site" unblocked, so I've been joking today that I am now Wikipedia according to a halfway-reliable source, at least until a more reliable source says otherwise. :PI did reach out to someone at a publication that ran a piece on this (not the Beast; not saying which because there's BLP implications if I name a name and then they don't update/retract), but just a quick DM on Facebook to an old friend. No word back, but if the person does reply, I'll absolutely let them know you're available. Feel free to shoot me an empty email if you want me to have your email address on file to refer them to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)18:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Tamzin/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I just saw the notification you placed on Doncram's user page. I can't believe we've lost another one of the greats. This is very very sad news indeed. Netherzone (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Incivility in ARBPIA
Hi, re Tomba's indefinite Topic Ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, you mentioned sink/swim and civility. The person who opened that AE request personally and baselessly directly accused me of racism, based on absolutely nothing. Multiple times he has accused other editors of "anti-Palestinian Racism". He has received absolutely zero punishment.
Could you please explain why baselessly directly calling someone a racist receives no response, multiple times, to multiple users, but Tombah's assertions (which are also unacceptable) received an instantindefinite topic ban?
Today, SelfStudier, who posted in that AE, directly stated that "Assuming GF here is pointless."
I'm all for having strictness for civility in the IP topic on wikipedia, but there is massive incivility in this space, if it's going to be enforced, it should be to all who violate the rules. Drsmoo (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
It looks like Onceinawhile received a logged warning as a result of that thread, which absolutely is—well "punishment" is a loaded word in admin contexts, but absolutely is a sanction, and is the sanction I initially proposed for Tombah. Tombah chose to double down and argue that multiple (perceived-as-)pro-Palestinian editors working together is inappropriate. At a glance, it looks like Once was significantly more conciliatory in the 2021 thread. And Tombah's topic ban was not instant. I and RegentsPark both made clear we were unhappy with his conduct, and he chose to continue in the direction he was already going. Finally, indefinite is not infinte. Tombah is welcome to appeal the TBAN at such time as he can show that it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. I hope this answers your questions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)01:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Highly likely or better along with Tlukay (talk · contribs) and Spiritual Transcendence. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mike Tyson's tattoos and Talk:Mike Tyson's tattoos/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
wikimedia.org, where a team of lawyers and paralegals will look into the matter. Such matters are above my paygrade as a site administrator. In the meantime, do know that the userpage in question is already excluded from search engine results. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Done. In the future, please refer such matters to Oversight. (I've done so here.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
