User talk:Tamzin#Puzzled

{{hatnote|1=Chosen at random{{random number|41}} from the 42 barnstar sections at User talk:Tamzin/Nice things. [{{purge|Re-roll.}}]}}

{{#section:User talk:Tamzin/Nice things|{{random number|41}}}}

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm {{REVISIONUSER}}. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nosebagbear (talk)

:{{bcc|Nosebagbear}}Block me if you must, but you'll never catch my socks!

:(They're very cozy slipper-socks with like a stylized dog face on the top and then little fake ears on the side. Very cozy socks. AND YOU'LL NEVER CATCH THEM!) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

::Hello, people from the future. Confused why your name shows up here? See here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

:Toki Pona in the wild? Mute olin!! :D Atomic putty? Rien! Atomic putty? Rien! 16:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

::@Atomic putty? Rien! "Quantity of love"? :P (For "much love", use {{lang|tok|olin mute}}, or more properly {{lang|tok|mi olin mute e ni}} 'I love this', although {{lang|tok|ni li pona mute}} 'This is very good' is probably more idiomatic, since the colloquial English use of "love" to mean "like a lot" doesn't really translate.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

:::@Tamzin omg ur so right, sorry I’m rusty. I love finding ppl who speaks Toki Pona outside of the discord server, it’s like a little linguistics easter egg Atomic putty? Rien! 12:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

::::@Tamzin P.P.S. Apologies for my English, German’s actually my first language ^-^ Atomic putty? Rien! 12:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

----

File:Information orange.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at :Special:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.
Please note that such behaviour is distinctly unacceptable on Wikipedia. However, I realise you are still new to Wikipedia and learning the rules - please feel free to ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you are unsure about making an edit. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

:f u delete this or im gonna tell the mods on u. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

::I'm afraid, @Tamzin, that that statement is in breach of rule 1 of this talkpage listed at the top. If you do not retract the comment, I may need to tell this user about the poor behaviour by yourself. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

:tsk, really should have {{tq|discuss[ed] the matter with the editor at [...] the article's talk page|q=1}} — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

::Special talk:Diff/1148616329? Sounds like a good place for settling disputes {{u|TheresNoTime}} ;)

::Talk pages for special pages when? /j Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Re above: by itself, from whomever is correct, if that's the end of the expression, placing 'whomever' in the objective case, due to its function as the object of the preposition from. But, in the longer expression From who[m]ever edited this page, who[m]ever is not the object of the preposition from; rather, the entire noun phrase who[m]ever edited this page is the object, and that is an independent clause, containing a subject (who[m]ever), a transitive verb (edited{{hairspace}}), and an object (the noun phrase, this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in the subjective case (a.k.a., nominative case), thus it must be whoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, like they/them, then it would be whoever edited them). Upshot for this expression: it must be from whoever edited this page. See the first example [https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/pronouns/whoever-vs-whomever-revised/ here], for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right? {{wink}} Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

:I prefer "whomsoever." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

:I appreciate that you dug into the page history to find that I did originally have it right. My lovely mother, whom I will stress is a published author and editor and taught me everything I know about writing, concedes defeat on the matter, Mathglot. However, for questioning the woman whom brought me into the world, you've still earned a place in the WikiHate section, congratulations or not. (Also thank you. :){{hsp}}) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

;I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

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

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

:Outrageous, Tamzin. I demand you resign your patrollership. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there a personal reason for it? 2607:FEA8:FE10:80D0:19BA:6297:7766:A64 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

:Many brave Tamzins died in the Great Tammy Wars. Some find strength in looking back, but I find it easier to forget. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

OMG YES! El_C 14:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

:25px -- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

::I agree. Watching my watchlist gets boring at some hours of the night. wizzito | say hello! 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

:::{{re|El_C|TheresNoTime|wizzito}} Well, currently item 1 on my big-project wiki to-do list is some content work (gasp! I know), and item 2 is the second round of 'zinbot automatic patrol circumstances, which I got consensus for months ago but still haven't run with, but this is item 3. If anyone else would like to take a stab at it (hint, TNT), what I'm thinking of is something like:{{pb}}{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist

|source_page =

|source_user =

|user_days_back =

|user_edits_back =

|namespace =

|always_watch =

|never_watch =

|update_frequency =

}}

Thus mine might look like {{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist

|source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log

User:Tamzin/XfD log

User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/

User:Mz7/SPI case list

|source_user = Tamzin

'zin is short for Tamzin

|user_days_back = 2

|user_edits_back = None

|namespace = -Category, File

|always_watch = User:Tamzin

|never_watch = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

|update_frequency = auto

}}

{{pb}}That would render as {{tlf|Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{tlf|FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the {{param|update_frequency}} value.{{pb}}Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

::::"{{tq|hint, TNT}}"—thank you but no -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Wait, what do I do? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXAx9LFkwnY&t=266s You're not my mom/s!] El_C 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Tamzin! I was rummaging through the NPP archives and stumbled onto this discussion. First, my belated THANK YOU!! Second, please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becamex_B%C3%ACnh_D%C6%B0%C6%A1ng?redirect=no this redirect] which showed up in the NPP queue as a result of: 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · ←Blanked the page and then reverted 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · Undid revision 1097374915 by Turtle-bienhoa (talk). Is there any way we can get the Bot to recognize that type of activity so that it doesn't remove reviewed status? Best ~ Atsme 💬 📧 14:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, talkpage watchers! If anyone's looking for an article to write, here's one that I think is really interesting, easily notable, and maybe has GA potential, but with which I have a minor COI: Edgar Labat, a Black man wrongfully convicted of rape in Louisiana in 1953. At the time he was freed (1966), he was the longest-serving death row inmate in U.S. history. He was the subject of protracted litigation throughout that time and became a cause célèbre, with lots of coverage. [https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,842712,00.html This Time article] gives an overview. [https://newspapers.com/search/?query=%22edgar%20labat%22 Newspapers.com]^{[https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/search/?query=%22edgar%20labat%22 TWL]} has lots more. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22edgar+labat%22&btnG= And there's scholarly coverage.] My COI is relatively small ([https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/465913941/?terms=%22edgar%20labat%22%20marguerite%20kelly&match=1 my grandparents advocated for him and he lived with them briefly]), enough so that I'd be fine assisting once written, but I shouldn't be the main author on this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know {{tl|bcc}} existed. I wish there was a list of semi-obscure and occasionally helpful Wikipedia features. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Tamzin. I was curious, would it be much effort to modify task 1 of 'zinbot to also mark pages sent to AfD as reviewed? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to you because of your excellent work on Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, as well as the discussion at Talk:F1NN5TER about doxxing. The question of how to treat sources that are at least somewhat reliable but are (rightly or wrongly) perceived as prejudiced (either broadly or based on protected class) has been repeatedly discussed on Wiki. Therefore, I think that writing up a „how-to-deal-with-this“ might be useful, titled something along the line of WP:PREJUDICEDSOURCES. What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_A._Meyer&diff=prev&oldid=1218094036] Drmies (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:@Drmies: Yeah, I noticed that too. Possibly better to leave the ES but yeet the IP, rather than the other way around, to leave a clearer record if anyone ever adds it back? (I'd suggest OS over RD; email me if not clear why.){{PB}} But yeah, seriously, at least the sixth time I've seen this with a BLPNAME violation being worsened when it turns into deadnaming someone and/or forcing them to overpublicize a transition. A friend's boyfriend, [https://people.com/all-about-cynthia-nixon-children-8583935 Seph Mozes], reached out to me years ago about the plight of being deadnamed in his mother's article but not having publicly transitioned. I offered to remove it as a BLPNAME violation but he was worried that, given his mother's fame, celebrity journalists would notice the removal. Not a likely event, given that most journalists can't even find the history tab, but I understand why he was that concerned after a childhood in the spotlight, and he shouldn't have been in that position to begin with. I would have been in the same position, during my 9 months of partial social transition in 2019, if Rms125a@hotmail.com hadn't had the sense to remove my name from my dad's article in 2013. In the past few years I've also run into the non-notable-trans/enby kid problem at Mike Tyson and Eric A. Meyer as you know, and also at Terence Tao, Bob Lee (businessman), and Tony Hawk.{{PB}} Not sure what to do about this. It's not a trans-specific issue, obviously, just more obvious there. BLPNAME violations are ubiquitous, possibly on more bios than not. Perhaps some cleanup project is needed, especially for minor children. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::I'd love to work on that cleanup project or start it! pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 14:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Barlow&curid=755424&diff=1258668083&oldid=1257041417 Great wording] on this. "Low profile" is just the term I was looking for. "Non-notable" (my previous go-to) sounds mean in that context. Joyous! Noise! 23:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:@Joyous!: Thanks! Taken from the wording of WP:BLPNAME and WP:LPI (an imperfect essay that works well enough here). I'm trying to do a cleanup of needless kid-naming in bios... 9 down so far, thousands more to go. See {{slink||Interesting}} for backstory on this. Feel free to join me! I'm starting with the results of [https://w.wiki/C8Rq this search]. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have just read the expression "my disdain for a lot of our administrative culture". That exactly encapsulates a lot of my feeling. If you spend long enough searching through my editing history you will see that just very occasionally I mention some of my feelings on this. What you will not see, though, is that on those occasions what I say is a toned-down, censored version of my true opinions. Every so often I seriously consider posting somewhere a diatribe giving something closer to a full account of my thoughts, but so far I have always held back, because I think on balance I will probably achieve more by just doing what I can without stirring things up. Who knows, though, whether one day I will decide to let rip. From things that you have said and written in the past, I know that your criticisms of the admin culture are not identical to mine, but there's a considerable overlap, and I feel that there's a similar overall character to them. (Having said that, I hope when you read this you won't be sitting there thinking "What does JBW mean by posting this crap? They are one of the worst examples of the noxious admin culture that I hate so much". 🥺) JBW (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{tpw}} {{ping|JBW}} I'd be interested in reading those thoughts. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Deepfriedokra}} Well, you have already read a "toned-down, censored version" on at least one topic, namely the way that certain administrators (not you, and not Tamzin) are so reluctant to give blocked editors another chance. What really frustrates me most about that is the way the system is stacked in favour of administrators who don't like unblocking: anyone who does not want to unblock can just decline an unblock, and that's the end of it; on the other hand anyone who does want to unblock can't do so without consulting the blocking administrator, and although the policy doesn't say so, in practice most administrators treat that as though it means that one is virtually banned from unblocking unless the blocking administrator agrees. And unfortunately there are administrators who deliberately use that situation to make sure that their decision stays no matter what, not to make sure that their opinion is taken into consideration, along with others, in making a decision.

:: That's for unblocking. How about placing the block in the first place? Again, the system is stacked in favour of administrators who like blocking. Here are two situations which I have enocountered probably literally thousands of times in my 14 years as an administrator. (1) I review a report at WP:AIV. I see that it is a new editor, and there are problems with their editing, but I think a friendly warning is appropriate for the present, so I go to the editor's talk page to post a warning, only to find that another administrator has got there first, and blocked the editor. I can't override that and impose my preferred outcome, because reverting an admin action merely because I personally would have done it differently is frowned on, and if I did it frequently I would be ArbCommed & desysopped. Maybe you are thinking that's just a matter of which administrator gets there first, and it could have gone the other way? Well, no, because here's the other one of the two situations that I mentioned: (2) I review a report at WP:AIV. I see that it is a new editor, and there are problems with their editing, but I think a friendly warning is appropriate for the present, so I go to the editor's talk page, and this time I'm the first to get there, so I do get to post my warning. Then along comes the other administrator, who, as before, has chosen to block, but this time has been a little slower than me; they go ahead and block. They are under no obligation to accept my prior decision, because posting a talk page warning is not an admin action. So, you see, it's not a matter of who gets there first; it's a matter of the one who likes to block always being able to get their way, if they choose to use the system that way. They don't have to do it that way, they choose to: they know I have chosen not to block (or they should do, because they should have checked the talk page before deciding to block), and have consciously decided to impose a different decision over mine. In that situation in reverse, where I am the one inclined to block an editor but see that another administrator has decided to just warn, I usually defer to that decision, and leave the editor unblocked. However, there's a large body of administrators who don't, and many of those are also the ones who aren't interested in listening to anyone else's opinions relating to unblocking. To be blunt about it, they are happy to use the setup to impose a blockist agenda. I can't help wondering whether the most extreme cases of that are people who impose and maintain blocks for sadistic pleasure, rather than to protect the encyclopaedia. (Yes, I mean that absolutely seriously.) I won't mention any names, but probably I don't need to.

:: Well, there's just a very small fraction of my anger about just one of the many ways that I think the whole administrator system works. A full account of my thoughts on the matter would take up a hefty chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation's server space, and Tamzin's talk page isn't the place for it. JBW (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:::{{yo|JBW}} MY BROTHER! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:::@JBW: This is absolutely the place for it! :){{pb}}One thing I've thought about a lot is how we have no real case management system here. I moderate a fairly large Discord server, and there, if a user reports something, there's a button I can hit that says "I'm handling this." It's not perfect but it's a lot better than nothing. Right now we have no way for an admin to say that they're composing a response to something, or for that matter that they agree a block is needed but are looking at evidence to decide what kind, or that they've responded and consider a matter resolved. One could imagine restructurings of AIV, UAA, and CSD that would address that, especially if some JS were added to MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js that lets us know "The user whose contribs you're looking at has a new talkpage message" etc.{{pb}}"Overruling" a no-block decision is tougher. I think I've done it a few times, when an admin seemed incredibly off-base, like giving a gentle username note to someone with a name like I-hate-gays or whatever. Then again, I've also overturned other admins' decisions to block a few times (and only landed at ArbCom one of those times :P). I think the root problem here is with WP:RAAA. It begins {{tqq|Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators.}} I mean. Fucking seriously? Every fucking admin knows that's a lie, because we've all had times where we deleted a page or blocked a user within seconds of looking. Usually entirely justifiably, because some deletions and blocks are just that obvious, but there's no world where that's "consider[ing] carefully". And in other cases, the lack of careful consideration speaks for itself. If an admin blocks two users as sox because they didn't know about the meme both were referencing in their usernames (actual thing I've unblocked over), they obviously did not carefully consider that block. Just like the admin who nolle prosses I-hate-gays (also based on a true story) has obviously not carefully considered that decision, because if they'd carefully considered it and still found no violation of WP:ATTACKNAME, that would mean they are either too bigoted or too clueless to be an admin.{{pb}}So I think the solution, or at least a major necessary step toward a solution, in all this, is replacing that presumption of careful consideration with something else. I'm not entirely sure what. I'm honestly not sure if we need RAAA-shielding for routine admin actions. If an other admin were to see some routine vandalblock of mine and think I was hasty, and wanted to just unblock, then more power to them, as long as they're the one who wears the responsibility for whatever comes next. RAAA is useful for, say, blocks of experienced users who might have an admin-friend in the wings, or keeping people from fucking with things they mightn't understand the full story behind, like sockblocks, copyvioblocks, and socking-based page protections. But it creates a latch effect on the simplest admin actions, I think often more than even the admin intends. I think the solution starts with fixing that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

::::In part this harks back to the recent Graham recall debacle. Perhaps that could have been avoided if I'd voiced my concerns with some of his blocks. Speaking up and speaking out are the only tools we have now, but they are useless when we don't use them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:::: Goodness, Tamzin, what you have said is very interesting, and raises a whole load of points that I have thoughts about. However, here are just a couple of them.

::::* You say that you have "Overruled" a no-block decision "a few times". I have done it probably more than just a few times (though of course that depends on what you mean by "a few") but a very small proportion of the number of times when I have decided not to. Most often it's just a question of a different personal judgement, and I accept that they have as much right to decide as I have. There are also very occasionally the "incredibly off-base" cases such as you mention, but far more often there are in-between cases, where I think there's a serious misjudgement, but not completely off the end of the scale. Those are more difficult to judge. I think in that situation I far more often than not leave things as they are, but not absolutely always. It depends on various factors, including what particular administrator it is; there's one in particular who has an astonishingly extensive history of not blocking for reasons which (in my opinion) can only possibly mean that he hasn't actually checked the editing history of the relevant editor beyond the last day or so, and I tend to be less inhibited against taking action in that case. However, this is drifting away from the topic of administrative culture and onto issues of individual administrators' approaches.

::::* You have said "Right now we have no way for an admin to say that they're composing a response to something, or for that matter that they agree a block is needed but are looking at evidence to decide what kind, or that they've responded and consider a matter resolved." Well, that's true in the sense that there's no formalised way of doing it, but there's nothing to stop one from doing it informally. In relation to AIV, for example, I have quite often thought that it might be worth posting {{AIV|n}} I'm investigating this, and hope to make a decision soon. JBW (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC) while I'm checking a report. There are reasons why I've never actually done that, but they aren't really compelling reasons. Probably the main reason is that far more than 90% of cases just don't need it. I don't know whether you ever look at UTRS, Tamzin, but that does have a button to click for an administrator to click to reserve a report that they are dealing with. (Since Deepfriedokra has taken part in this discussion, I will mention that he knows all about that, being one of the most active administrators on UTRS, maybe even the most active one.) JBW (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:::: Just one more thought about blocks. You are of course right in saying that accounts with deliberately offensive names such as "I hate gays" should be blocked on sight, but apart from that kind of thing I absolutely don't understand why anyone would consider using a block for just a username. Someone comes along to contribute to Wikipedia, and, like most of us when we start editing, doesn't know about the username policy, so, in perfectly good faith, they create a username which is against policy. Am I missing something, or is it totally gratuitous biting of the newby to slap a block on them, instead of giving them a friendly message explaining the situation to them and asking them to change their username? As far as I remember I have never blocked an editor for a good faith username policy violation, and if I have it was a long time ago, and I don't expect to ever do so again. However, I see other administrators doing it all the time. Why? I honestly can't understand the mindset of someone who would even consider doing that. If any of those administrators reads this and thinks there is a good reason for it that has escaped me then I will be really interested to be told whatvit is. (To avoid any possible misunderstanding, I'm referring specifically to the situation where a good faith username policy violation is the only reason for the block, not where there is any further problem, such as continuation of editing under the unacceptable username after being told about the policy.) Bizarrely, I have seen these good faith username blocks even from administrators who will refuse to block outright malicious vandals unless they have been warned several times. Why????? JBW (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::@JBW: Lots to think on here, but just to get the easy bit, I feel like the username-softblock situation could be solved with a warning that says "Your current username is in violation of . Please request a change before you continue editing, or you may be blocked from editing. You may also simply abandon this account and create a new one. Or if you think your username is not a violation, please explain why below." Then have a bot that replies to that message with "User has requested a change" if they request one, or reports to UAA/BOT if they keep editing without doing so. (The bot would have to have global renamer rights to see the queue, but I feel like we could probably get that cleared on Meta if it's read-only, or get a custom group made for it.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Well, reading this does make me feel less like I might become some kind of bull in a china shop with my developing unblock habit. Or at least perhaps that the china shop delenda est.

:::As for {{tq|I can't help wondering whether the most extreme cases of that are people who impose and maintain blocks for sadistic pleasure, rather than to protect the encyclopaedia. (Yes, I mean that absolutely seriously.) I won't mention any names, but probably I don't need to.}}, uh, seems bad? We probably shouldn't be able to joke about and active admin like that, let alone say it seriously. Is there a reason we're ignoring the missing stair? -- asilvering (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::: It's only an impression of mine. It may not be so, and whether it is or not I have absolutely no evidence that would stand up at ANI or ArbCom, and I have no intention of making what would amount to an unsubstantiated personal attack. JBW (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Some of us are much more approachable than others. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I should really carefully read all the policies and try to memorise their content. I have just discovered that the username policy says the following:

:A user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors – especially when made to their own user space or to articles about the company, group, or product – can be blocked from editing Wikipedia...

(Emphasis of "both" and "and" in the policy.)

I have always thought that blocking for an organisational username and no other problem is not only unjustified but so obviously unjustified as to make it bewildering why so many administrators do it. However, I did not know that policy specifically indicates that the username alone is not justification for a block. Will that now justify me in reverting all these unreasonable blocks when I see them? JBW (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{yo|JBW}} I'm just now seeing this (you've got some fans over at WPO, by the way) It's like you described in advance the exact issues I have been grappling with for the last month or so.

:I've been trying to push the idea that we ought to be warning instead of blocking in more cases and that the choice to do so is in fact an admin action that should be respected and the user shouldn't be blocked unless they actually do something else to earn it.

:I've also been trying to get admins to be more open to second chances and to reject the idea that a blocking admin always has some special insight that must be heard before unblocking, but for some reason they will not share that insight unless they are explicitly asked to.

:And I've been pushing the idea that discussion with blocked users is only helpful if the admin doing the discussing is also willing to actually do something with the unblock request.

:The amount of pushback I've gotten from other admins had been, frankly, depressing. I'm not sure when so many admins decided that this authoritarian act was the way to go.

:So it's nice to see someone expressing the same ideas and others agreeing with them. It gives me a little more hope. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Beeblebrox}} There's a lot more I could say about this. When I first became an administrator, in 2010, one of the admin tasks that I put most time into was reviewing unblock requests, but I found it such a frustrating and unproductive experience that I was largely put off doing it. I have read a statement by another administrator (unfortunately I don't remember which) who had a similar experience, and was totally put off from the task, and has never done it again. I wonder how many more there are. Unfortunately, what happens is that anyone more inclined to unblock gets put off, while those inclined to keep editors blocked remain; that produces positive feedback, ensuring that the block culture is maintained.

:: Here's another point perhaps worth mentioning. At a very early stage in my admin career, I would often see a new editor who in perfectly good faith had created an account under the name of their business to write an advertisement about that business. I would post them a friendly message explaining that doing so wasn't allowed. One of two things would then happen: (1) Another administrator would then come along and block them, with an appalling block message, very long and intimidating. (The version of the "spam username" templated block message which existed at that time.) Or: (2) Another administrator would then come along and block them, but, probably because the spam username block message was so intimidating, would instead give another one of the templated block notices, which was less intimidating, but which explicitly said "your username is the only reason for the block". So either the editor would request an unblock and rename, and see that request declined, with a response telling them how unacceptable unblocking a spam account would be, or else they would create a new account and continue editing in the same way, only to be blocked. I remember the sense of bewilderment that some of them then expressed: they had been explicitly told by an administrator that the only reason for not being allowed to edit was their username and they were welcome to carry on with a new username, and then they were prevented from doing so by other administrators. Eventually I came to the decision that the only way to avoid this problem was to get in first, by blocking and giving a less stupid block message. Also, if I made the block I could easily accept an unblock request if I judged it suitable, without being up against the culture of not allowing unblocking without the blocker's approval. Thus, for both of those reasons, I found myself bring pushed into blocking editors when I didn't think a block was the best thing to do, because the alternative was likely to be even worse. That is depressing. Things have improved to some extent since then, as the templated block nessages are not so bad, but the situation is still broadly similar.

:: There are several problems there, but a significant one is the idea, held by many editors, including administrators, that the existence of a set of pre-written templated messages means that one has to choose one of them, and if none of them is appropriate one has to settle for the least inappropriate one. Of course it means nothing of the sort; it just means that someone thought that some messages are sufficiently often appropriate that it's worth having them pre-written to save time on those occasions when they are appropriate, and when they aren't, one needs to write a message which is appropriate.

:: Well, there's a few more samples of my thoughts on this. Sigh... 😕 JBW (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Up until fairly recently, I was doing the same, but I've come to believe that blocking someone who is obviously just lost and doesn't know how WP works is counterproductive. {{tl|uw-coi-username}} gives the same message without blocking them. If they haven't spammed in article space I've been doing that instead. It is also perhaps a bit intimidating, but it's not a block, so it seems better to my mind.

:::I remember reviewing unblock requests as being a fairly simple thing, but it seems some admins prefer to make it far more complicated than it needs to be, with long discussions and quizzes. This was what I was trying to push back on nearly fifteen years ago to the day when I wrote WP:ROPE. The struggle continues. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I held off on asking you if we should do additional prep to get End Poem up to FA consideration state, as I'd had one article myself in that pipeline & I'd not wanted to bite off more than I could chew and have two up at once. Now, that one I mentioned earlier didn't go anywhere, so I'm down to do whatever process you'd like to do with End Poem like a peer review, if you wish, knowing the ultimate goal would be getting a shiny gold star. If not, then perhaps another time.

Hope you've been well.
"And the game was over and the player woke up from the dream. And the player began a new dream. And the player dreamed again, dreamed better. And the player was the universe. And the player was love.

You are the player.

Wake up." – Julian Gough The universe. BarntToust 18:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:In recognition of this, I've made a pass at greatly expanding the whole "creation" sectiont—the highlight being that I wrote about how Gough believed that the universe took control of him during inception and basically wrote the latter half of the poem. I have no idea if there are any guidelines about writing about spiritual content on Wikipedia, lol but I'm sure trying my best. BarntToust 20:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::Hi! I'm in bed with a fever right now, which means I've got lots of time to stare at a screen but am very scatterbrained in doing so. Might reply to this in like 10 minutes. Might be a few days. We'll see! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::oh my. Hoping you recover swiftly. BarntToust 21:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh if you're wanting for something to stare at on a screen, I suggest you check out the movie Inception if you haven't already, or if you have, it's a good film to rewatch since on Netflix along with a bunch of other Christopher Nolan classics. I was just reminded about it because I was just writing about how it compares to the End Poem, and I have to say that it would be the craziest experience to watch it while {{tq|scatterbrained}}. Again, my sincerest wishes for your speedy recovery! BarntToust 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::That sounds like a horrible idea, for the exact reason you think it's a good idea—said in the nicest possible way. 🤣 A few years ago, when I had pancreatitis, and spent like a week feverish, in extreme pain, and/or high out of my mind, I sort of found this inner state of perpetual half-dreaming. This was, no doubt, related to my dissociative identity disorder, and since that time the parts of me have coalesced in a way that makes me for most purposes not multiple... but that dreamworld remains, and looms large at a time like this. Maybe that makes no sense, but I think it actually has a lot in common with what Gough says about the End Poem. So yeah, something like Inception sounds like playing with fire haha, tempting the awesome power of whatever strange headspace lurks within me. I do like the movie, though! Old enough to have seen it in theaters when it came out, and I think again at some point since then. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::"Is {{em|all}} that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?"

::::::— Edgar Allan Poe, "A Dream Within a Dream" (1849) BarntToust 00:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:@BarntToust: I really like your idea of talking more about the poet's craft! Our articles on art are often weirdly silent about the actual art part. It's great to get into that. I do worry that this is a lot to source to an interview. Are there any secondary sources that talk about Gough's craft? In either case, I have pared things down a little, just some details that were excessive or repetitive in my view; let me know if you disagree about any of that.{{pb}}As to FAC, hmm. It's not the kind of article that I would personally be bringing there on my own. But if you want to bring it there, I'll do my part. I think our biggest weakness is going to be the amount sourced to Gough (either directly or through the Chatfield interview). So if you can spot any opportunities to reduce our reliance on those primary sources, that would be great. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::the concerns you've shared about the primary sourcing are what I've figured, so yep, I think there are a few refs I can use to cut back that. The use of Substack has largely been relegated to the copyright section, so I'll be reading up on all the good sources that cover this.

::I'm not as concerned with the Boing Boing interview, as WP:RSPLIST says that besides no consensus for the site's overall reliability, there are stories and pieces done by subject matter experts, and I'd wager that interview conducted by Tom Chatfield falls well within the lines. Before that, I probably should flesh out the part about his personal crisis, reclusion to the Netherlands, shroom trip and subsequent meeting with the universe. I think there's more there for me to write about, so long as it received third party coverage.

::Once the overall sourcing concerns are resolved, I think I'll at some point put it up to peer review. Thank you again for all your work with this! BarntToust 12:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Welp. Not a great day when you wind up at two noticeboards at once, but at least they weren't two of the scarier ones! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Wife, glancing over: "Were you hit with some kind of fish?"

:Me: "... Yeah."

:Wife: "Was it for breaking Wikipedia?"

:Me: "... ... yeah." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, sorry for throwing too much stuff at you. But now you can have trout for supper... {{small|(no, give it back! I'm hungry 😭😭😭)}}! Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, I wanted to let you know that I've recently put together User:KevinClerkBot/ArbCom_word_counts, which is an updated list of word counts at (among other places) AE. It's not fully fleshed out yet, and in particular it still counts hatted words as words, but (a) I'll iron out those out over time and welcome your feedback but (b) hope this will be a useful tool for you. Note also that the bot recognizes extensions given using the template {{tl|ApprovedWordLimit}}. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather respond to you in the thread, but it's been closed down. It's meaningless to demand MP make us "sure this won't happen again". It's an impossible condition. Nothing human is certain, save human fallibility. You are demanding the impossible. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tpw}} I have 0 tolerance for threats of violence, so I think an indefinite block is quite reasonable and necessary. The blocked user for his part does sound contrite and mortified, but what it would take to ensure that such an incident does not recur is not something I'm bright enough to see. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Editing interlock device. EEng 19:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Is that actually available for (not) posting stuff via computer and cellphone, or does one have to be an EEngineer to craft it? I think Tamzin just wants to hear a bit more, but, yeah, there's not much one can do in the blocked colleague's situation in addition to explaining why it happened and stating that 'it won't happen again'. And I think we all must try not to encroach too much on our fellow editors' habits and psyche. If I were an admin, MinorProphet's reply to all this would have been enough for an unblock, let alone a reduction to "a temporary block of 6 months" as requested by the blockee. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:@DuncanHill: I'm not asking them to make this never happen again, which is indeed impossible. I'm asking them to explain why they're confident this won't happen again. There are many possible good answers to that question, and also some bad ones. Might I suggest that you just let MP respond and let's see how things go? I'm not trying to be a hardass here, but I also can't unblock without doing my due diligence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Your words were "I'd still like to hear more from them about how we can be sure this won't happen again". You can't be sure. We can't be sure. It's an impossible condition. There is nothing they can say that would make you or anyone sure it would not happen again. All we have is words on a screen. If MP saying it will never happen again won't convince you, then any other words MP uses to say it won't happen again won't either. DuncanHill (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That was a summary of what I'd already said to them, which was {{tqq|Could you elaborate a bit on how you intend to avoid this happening again? I mean on the one hand, it hasn't happened before (I assume?) in 16 years, so you have that going for you. But on the other hand, it did happen this time. So I'm hoping you can speak to that.}} Like I said, there's any number of good answers to that question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::We all have our shadows. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee this won't happen again. But at least, missteps can make us aware of our shadows. In this case, I'd think that a second chance is warranted, with the provision that if it happens again, there won't be a third chance. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'd unblock right now if it wasn't a threat of violence. A long term user who made a horrible mistake. Could always buck it up to the Community, but . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That would be an excellent idea. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{re|Deepfriedokra}} "Buck it up to the Community" - It was being discussed by the Community, while that was happening one admin decided to change the block to indef, another decided to close down the discussion. So there we are. DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{yo| DuncanHill }}. Yes, that was a separate issue from unblocking and makes unilateral unblocking without discussion all the more questionable. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The extension wasn't the result of a discussion, it shut the discussion down. So a unilateral extension makes a unilateral unblock questionable? Ridiculous. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Khamsa.jpg

I found the secret survey link:

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1XiNLmcNJxPeMqq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Simple_summaries:_editor_survey_and_2-week_mobile_study

So yeah. Do you know the best way to spread this message far and wide? Polygnotus (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Polygnotus. I'm recovering from a fever and am pretty out of it. Not sure I've got wiki-politics in me right now. I trust you to find the right approach though. This is definitely something that needs community attention. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Wiki-politics is like a fever dream some days. I am constantly confused that I share a planet with people who experience a completely different reality. Get well soon and thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Apparently there's this new virus going around the past few years, Corvid-18 or something like that. Gotta say, not a huge fan. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Whatever it is, I feel it. Three or more corvids may be a murder. Oh, and Eid mubarak and all that of course. Polygnotus (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Parlez-vous français? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Deepfriedokra: A gentleman as ever, but you can tutoie me. :) Replied. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::dank -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Deepfriedokra, you have perhaps unintentionally told this editor that you are a a member of la Francophonie. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh darn, did I make mine an admin comment instead of something public? Fml. I'm rusty with UTRS. Yeah, DFO, if you delete that, I can repost as my own. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::merde. Je ne parle french -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Tamzin, I don't think it's possible to delete, but you can simply respond to any follow-ups yourself and probably the blocked editor will forget all about DFO's accidental solidarity. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I will not buy this tobacconist. It is scratched. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Alright, hopefully that should sort things. Just as the sleepiness hits and the WiFi craps out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Not holding my breath. That's not how he's done things of late. Maybe ever. SMDH. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to support a blurb regarding Marc Garneau's death. I did, and I self-reverted, because I thought this would be a violation of my TBAN (on American politics, but you know how much those two are intertwined now). I made a mistake. What now? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:@LilianaUwU: Unless I'm missing something, there's certain aspects of his bio that would be subject to your AMPOL TBAN, but he is not overall an AMPOL topic. Still, I thank you for being cautious with this. Feel free to restore your edit—again, unless I'm missing something obvious here—although just as a general note I'll caution that calling something "obvious" in a !vote is rarely helpful. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gooning&redirect=no Gooning] 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 {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 6#Gooning}} until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI I just created User talk:Tamzin/Archive/16 to get rid of the crap (which I believe is no longer relevant to you) between 2023 and 2024. I'm not sure how much to archive though. (I personally have an archiving schedule of exactly one user talk archive per year, which seems to be about the right frequency for enwiki; not sure whether you have one or not.) Duckmather (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Duckmather: I appreciate the boldness, but there is in fact a reason that many of those were still up. I'll do another archival run sometime soon, probably when I'm not sick. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't have struck-through the sock's post if I'd noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1294213267 you'd hatted already], hope I haven't left confusion. I'm slightly amazed my timing wasn't even worse and I didn't accidentally revert you. NebY (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's fine! All works out in the end. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick thought. Do you think it would be okay to set up a separate subpage to review Bbb23's blocks, rather than jamming up WP:AN every time we want to review one? It may take some time to go through them all, and the proportion of blocks that I would have also made is still at least 95%, so it'll be a slow, but hopefully worthwhile trickle. Obviously this is not a grave dance, but just a way of trying to get the right editors back, if we can. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tpw}} Splendid idea. Great minds think alike. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Ritchie333: I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but my concern is interest dropping off, which could both cause efforts to stagnate and call into question the strength of the consensus to reverse blocks by someone who, at least at this moment, remains an admin, and could tomorrow decide he wants to stand for RRfA after all. Last time we did a big review of an admin's blocks, it was with Lourdes. Obviously not an identical situation, but we did a much more comprehensive review, and ran that whole thing through AN. OhanaUnited did have the idea of subsectioning by username there, which might be a good idea here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::This is more a suggestion for the long term. I'd be inclined to leave it for now, it's possible that a week away leads Bbb23 to have some introspection, has an RRFA, addresses the issues, helps with the unblocking, and passes Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Meh. I got a good impression of Bbb23 when I was discussing (or trying to) unblocks of his blockees. Bbb23 is neurodivergent (socially inept to a degree) and likely depressed. I don't expect him to be able to overcome his own sense of futility. Or his inability to accept criticism. Or his wounded spirit. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Deepfriedokra: I wouldn't want to speculate too much about any editor's psychology, although I'll always put in my plug for User:Tamzin/On mental health, which I recently renamed to emphasize that it's applicable to everyone, regardless of if they've ever been diagnosed with any mental illness.{{pb}}Btw, sent you an email earlier! Let me know if you didn't get it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Composing and pressed for time. Many thanks, though. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree. No analysis on other's psychology please (and we're unlikely to be professionals to properly diagnose). @Tamzin Funny that I was also involved in Lourdes' review and unblock process. Maybe I found a niche area to focus on? Anyhow, {{noping|Riteinit}} was blocked by Lourdes as suspected sock, but you had some [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FMgkfact&diff=1123565264&oldid=1123319277 reservations] on the sock finding. But any discussion was shortcircuited by the sockpuppet block,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive427#User:Riteinit_reported_by_User:Lord_Belbury_(Result:_Indefinite)] including subsequent review on Loudres' block.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive357#Riteinit] Since you looked into this before, do you think this is another case of bad, old block that deserves another chance? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If there's appetite for a comprehensive review of Bbb's blocks, subsequent to a desysop, I agree that should go on a subpage. It'd be quite an effort, though. Lourdes was fairly careful to only make noncontroversial blocks, most of the time; Bbb, on the other hand, is second on quarry:query/91557 (my best effort at a numerical proxy for "significant" blocks), with a half-again lead over the next-hardest-blocking non-CUs (me & Cullen). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::No objections to creating a subpage. It makes it easy to point to discussion and analysis. Your query only shows 27 users with 1000+ edits being blocked by Bbb23 that needs a second look. Shouldn't take too long to go through (and I would have done it myself if I had spare time, but alas not this week). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If there is anything I can help with from a non-admin point of view, I am available. I recall at the AN thread that there may be opportunities to help out with regard to good-faith unblock requests. If a subpage were to be made, I would use that to help me navigate potential cases, so I also like the idea of one being created if at all possible. Patient Zero^talk 22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Query from someone who has been following the Bbb23 hullabaloo only in the broad strokes: how long does Bbb23 have to decide whether to run an RRfA before he loses his advanced permissions? I can't recall if, during the discussion formalizing the admin recall process, the community established a timeline for how long after a successful petition the impeached admin has to file their RRfA, before removal of the tools becomes automatic? Xtools seems to indicate Bbb is still in the administrator user group, and if we didn't set a deadline in the original admin recall discussion, I would assume that this came up during or subsequent to the petition process? (Bbb23 is our first community de-sysop candidate, I believe?)SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Bbb23 is the fifth Recalled admin. Practice at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard has been to allow 30 days from the certification of the petition for an admin to decide if they want to open a reconfirmation RfA. CMD (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ec}} @Snow Rise: 30 days from time of petition certification, plus or minus a bit at the discretion of the bureaucrat team. Bbb's actually the 5th recall; one of the previous four took the interesting approach of prospectively resigning, forward-dated to the 30-day mark, which the 'crats honored. (IMO, under RRfA a forward-dated resignation should be taken as confirming that an RRfA won't be "started within a reasonable time frame" and should lead to speedy desysop, but there also isn't much harm in just letting the clock play out, so I get why the 'crats chose to honor that request.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Five already? Shows how out of touch I've been this last year. I have to admit that, after giving full-throated support to the need for a community recall process for years, seeing that figure is a sobering reminder of the downside of having it, during an admin retention crisis. I'm glad you re-adopted the bit, Tamzin. Thank you both for bringing me up to speed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::WP:RECALL is a handy outline of the process with links to closed petitions, RfCs about recall, and more. NebY (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I've put the article under partial A-I CTOP due to her attempt to help Gaza. This is attracting a lot of new editors and II am struggling to keep up. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You have said that you are available for advice on bringing cases at AE. What do you suggest I should do about this edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilesVorkosigan&diff=prev&oldid=1295145410]? The background is this discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull#Description_of_slogan] where I have now been called a liar:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull&diff=prev&oldid=1295145043] . Sweet6970 (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sigh. @MilesVorkosigan: If you have evidence for the claim in that edit summary, please start a thread at WP:AE. Otherwise, please retract the accusation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::There already is a thread at AE including this editor, they're one of the edit-warriors attacking YFNS who has been repeatedly cautioned about making claims that are not backed up by the diffs they post. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@MilesVorkosigan: AE threads are limited to the person who files them and the subject of the thread. If you're going to call someone an anti-trans POV-pusher, you should be prepared to present evidence to that effect somewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have now been accused of (1) bad faith template abuse (2) anti-trans POV-pushing (3) lying (4) being an edit warrior [above]. There has been no retraction, and I see no sign of an intent to make a formal complaint against me. What should be the next step? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::You can take the matter to AE (or AN/I if you want the same thing but worse). Or you can forget about it. Both are valid approaches. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. The official name of DC is seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020-08-28_Trump_padron_for_Alice_Marie_Johnson-alice_marie_johnson_clemency_warrant_8.28.2020.pdf here], which inspires me to add the full form of the region's name (as used by the federal government in constitutionally binding documents) for information purposes on the corresponding Wikipedia entry. Could you please help me with this? Thank you. Cfls (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Cfls: That is a document saying that Trump issued the pardon at the City of Washington (which is no longer a legal entity, but persists as a geographical name) in the District of Columbia (a legal entity). It doesn't establish that the formal name of D.C. is "the City of Washington in the District of Columbia". The formal name of D.C., used in documents of the D.C. government, is "the District of Columbia"; the only exceptions I've seen are some things that just say "Washington, D.C.", like [https://dcist.com/story/23/07/05/d-c-revamps-drivers-license-design/ driver's licenses]. If you can show evidence of "the City of Washington in the District of Columbia" being used in things like the names of agencies, on letterheads, or other contexts where it's not just a geographical reference, you should post that to the article's talkpage, and we can discuss the matter farther. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Tamzin. Got it. Thank you for your insight! It is very helpful! Cfls (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, while I see what you're getting at and respectfully have some disagreements, I want to ask if you may want to specify "early pediatric" to better convey your point? Pediatric is <18, and while there's nuanced debate on ages ~10-~14 (pre-puberty - early adolescence), late adolescence and adult trans healthcare are packed together (gender dysphoria and gender incongruence each have 2 subdiagnoses, the normal one for adolescents and adults and with an "in childhood" specifier for prepubertal youth). The nuanced MEDRS debates that do exist rarely seem to focus on those around 16-17 because medically speaking, there isn't a real difference between a 17 and 18 year old, and most CPG's benchmark competence for medical decision making at around 16.

Letting you know here to keep my wordcount low. I might be wrong and you may have meant everyone under 18, but thought I should raise it in case. Hope you've been doing well, this was not on my bingo-card for our next interaction! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's accurate to say that there is not a global scientific consensus about pediatric transgender healthcare, even if there are some aspects of it that are in relative terms less controversial than others. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Tamzin, is there anything I can do to avoid the topic ban? I understand that the second AE report was wrong and I shouldn't have done it so soon after one previously closed nor followed M.Bitton on that full Western Sahara rabbit hole or follow editors to unrelated topics in general, even if I think there is a policy violation. Furthermore, I understand that sentence was WP:WEASEL and I will attribute controversial claims to their supporters instead of merely saying they are a common position without qualification. I'm a relatively new editor and I've got a lot to learn so please advise me. Thanks! Closetside (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Closetside: I'm afraid I don't have much to say. ArbCom gave the AE admins a clear mandate to be very aggressive in moderating ARBPIA disputes, and so that's what we do. Topic bans don't last forever; appeals after 6 months of good behavior often have good odds. I don't think you're a bad person or necessarily trying to do anything wrong here. But you do seem to have gotten in over your head, and an enforced break from a topic area often does an editor a lot of good in that regard. I'm sure that's small solace from where you stand right now, but it's all I can say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

In view of "{{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|prev|1296923741|attacking my person could come with fees}}", are you sure that 72 hours is sufficient? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:@SarekOfVulcan: Honestly I just took that comment as a less than lucid remark, rather than trying to guess what on Earth they meant. If their response to the block is to more clearly make a threat of any kind, I'd have no objection to an indef. But I'd rather let this play out, rather than indef them till they take back something they might not have actually said. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Fair enough. :) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)