User talk:Tamzin/Archive/6

Belated responses, still belating

@Bishonen, BusterD, Deepfriedokra, GeneralNotability, L235, and Magnatyrannus: Well, I was hoping to respond to varying queries from all of y'all today, but my hospital stay has been extended one day (and hopefully only one day;  Kinehore) while we eliminate the possibility of a post-op complication. While I'm now off painkillers and could write long responses on my phone, I don't think it's responsible to do admin-related work from a somewhat disoriented state of mind, and will await my laptop, my sunny perch, and free access to chocolate egg creams. I do beg y'all's pardon, and will respond when able. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, alright then, I'll wait! I'm looking forward to your responses to both my undeletion request and question. Hope you get better! Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel better soon! ✨ — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Be well -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"Get some rest. If you haven't got your health, you haven't got anything." said Count Tyrone Rugen, The Princess Bride. I've just been recovering from the plague myself. Any snideness from me can be ignored. I don't get out much... BusterD (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Creative Common or usable in Wiki (public domain)?

Are these photos can be used in Wiki - https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/sajid-mir/ ? _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 07:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a police mugshot; those are really annoying to source. Even if it's from the FBI, there's a decent chance that they took it from a local, state, or international enforcement agency. I would go with a "no". Sennecaster (Chat) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE

Just a suggestion regarding Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE: perhaps {{TextDiff}} could be used to show a side-by-side diff of the proposed changes? (pinging User:L235) isaacl (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Ah, I didn't know that was a thing! We have the changes in red-lined form in the collapsed box titled "Redlined changes", but perhaps TextDiff is better. Lemme see. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl It, uh, doesn't look great. Alas.. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone used the template in a discussion I was involved in, and I thought it was just so much better than using underlining and strikeout. In this case, though, it seems like the changes are too extensive for the commonalities to be synched up in a readable way by the algorithm implemented by the underlying module (and probably not that easy by hand, either). isaacl (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Note

sock at the United States article; tried adding to the SPI but the edit filter wouldn’t allow for some reason, probably my code formatting wasn’t proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.98.98 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeffed. If you want to keep editing that article, you might want to consider creating an account; I'm a sock or two away from semi-protecting it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet IP at United States

I believe the IP user 96.76.218.85 is the same persistent sockpuppet user that has been plaguing the United States article for months. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Mmm. Yeah. Blocked, and also blocked our friend in the section above, who I already had my suspicions about, overlaps on two pages, and geolocates to the same county. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like I didn’t go back far enough in reverting; I was only looking for the point before this IP started editing. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Update please

Kindly let me know what is the outcome of my request WP:AN#Request_to_lift_some_restrictions. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 07:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@NeverTry4Me: I don't quite follow. You can see the same page that I can see. No one has replied since my comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

MPGuy2824 replied supporting your opinion. He commented here. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 07:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, good to hear! :) Well, I think there's nothing you can do but wait, for now. I'm sure that's unpleasant, but it's how it has to be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I just requested AfC removal for WP:GEO and WP:NPOL only. But the IP user and Star are in opine that I am requesting complete repeal of all articles. They haven't read it properly. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Question and request for help

Hi, Tamzin. I wanted to first thank you for saving my article from speedy deletion. I have been trying to improve it and need some advice. I have no relationship to the subject of my article, and am not receiving any compensation, and I have no conflict of interest. When it was first posted, an editor flagged it as too promotional, and you thankfully disagreed. The subject, “Emily Sachar,” is an undisputed notable journalist, and I have been making good faith efforts to improve the article and meet Wikipedia standards.

After the article was reviewed and accepted, that same editor who flagged it for speedy deletion returned and deleted large pieces of it, saying they were unsourced. When I replaced some of these, along with citations to document them, the same person returned and put up a Twinkle template implying that I have a conflict of interest or that I was compensated and didn’t report it. That is not true, and I find it very upsetting.

So, I went back into the article, removing anything that I thought could reflect bias or look at all promotional. My article was never intended to be promotional, and I hope now that it meets the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia.

I would be so grateful if you could take a look at it and advise me. If there are problems, I’m not asking you to fix them, but just to help me understand what I must do. This is my first article on Wikipedia, and I want it to be great. If you think that my latest revision is acceptable, can you please remove the Twinkle template suggesting that I am an “undisclosed paid” writer/editor.

Thanks again for your time and experience. Belltower57 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a link to my article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Sachar Belltower57 (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The !template we all needed

@Theleekycauldron, Ezlev, and BusterD, among others: Since Floquenbeam—who will now have three pings from me because I pinged him twice with a friendly "fuck you" when setting this up—decided to taunt me at DanCherek's RfA regardng his ability to summon the evil eye, and I had to improvise a quick digital talisman to save the day, I've now made a !template to simplify this in the future, which perhaps some of you and assorted talkpage watchers may enjoy:

• {{User:Tamzin/kinehore}} →  Kinehore

It takes a |px= parameter, because sometimes the khamsa needs to be extra-big for lots of evil.

(Tone indicator: Self-aware but genuine. I did the whole Jewish superstition thing for ages without really believing it, because it was nice to have a culturally distinct way to say "knock on wood" and stuff. But then, 100% serious, my RfA got me thinking maybe there's something to it. So much for Wikipedia turning people away from superstition. Khamsa earrings soon. Maybe tattoo too. Nape of neck would be cool.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

hmmmm.... I still prefer the term "jinx", since "evil eye" feels too malevolent. Also, I'm hoping "taunting" was intended humorously, as that was certainly not the intention. "Teasing", maybe. I was (attempting to) make fun of the situation, not you. Anyway, cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

love it :) my other culturally distinct "knock on wood" is "go outside, turn around three times, and spit", so I guess I have two now! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Everything I say is intended humorously. Well except the things that aren't. But this wasn't one of the things that aren't. See? Foolproof system.

@Theleekycauldron: As a theater kid in high school, I was once ordered to run around the theater three times and spit for having said "Macbeth". So there's a good one too (if a bit more demanding). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

OMG self-promo

I've been on a bit of an essay-writing kick lately, so going to take a moment to shill for them to all my talkpage watchers:

• Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive (WP:HATEDISRUPT / WP:HATESPEECH): On why we don't need any novel reason to block people who engage in hate speech or hateful conduct, or align themselves with hate movements.
• User:Tamzin/Lot's wife (in which an SPI clerk gives advice to sockpuppets): On keeping your clean start clean or your quiet return quiet.
• Wikipedia:Salting is usually a bad idea (WP:NOSALT / WP:DONTSALT): On why salting makes things easier for LTAs and harder for the good guys. Perhaps of interest to Deepfriedokra, Blablubbs, and Firefly.

Click here to block for self-promo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Good advice. Unfortunately, I am already a pillar of salt. casualdejekyll 20:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hunan201p and Ghizz Archus

I just closed a dispute at DRN, and a dispute at Third Opinion, between these two editors, who have a very strong antagonism. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Help

I just found a userpage with a first paragraph that was extremely ableist. Please can you tell me where I can report this so they'll hopefully change it? I'd look it up but i haven't got a bloody clue what I should Google Stephanie921 (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Just saw that u were recently unwell. I hope ur better now! Stephanie921 (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Stephanie921: Did you discuss it with them on their talk page? They might be wholly unaware of how they come across. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:Deepfriedokra Hello, I hope ur having a great day.

The paragraph reads: "Man, userboxes on here really suck. Most of them seem to be have been made by actual autists (no hate) just to show how "quirky UwU" or "geeky UwU" they are, I legit didn't find much that truly fitted me."

So they're definitely aware of how they come across but just don't care, as evidenced by the "No hate" bit. If that wasn't there I'd discuss it with them but that bit shows them trying to deflect criticism Stephanie921 (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Stephanie921, I'm not sure if Tamzin is able to respond yet, but the most likely to be relevant guideline is WP:POLEMIC. (I started writing this before Deepfriedokra's and your responses, you can skip to the bottom for more specific advice based on the new information you provided) Advice on this would vary depending on the exact content on the page so I'll try to cover as much as possible. You can follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process for conduct disputes, WP:RUCD, by leaving a message on the editors talk page. For this, you can write your own message or use a template like {{subst:uw-userpage|2=the first paragraph [[WP:POLEMIC|appears to be ableist]]}}.

If this has already been discussed with the user, by you or someone else, you can consider further steps in the dispute resolution processes, like WP:ANI. If after a reasonable amount of time the user does not respond to a talk page message, either by replying to you or modifying their user page, you can consider making the modification yourself.

Depending on the severity of the user page's content, it may be appropriate to remove it yourself, without any prior communication. If you do this, you should leave a message on the user's talk page explaining why you modified their user page.

Please make sure that you assume good faith wherever reasonable and that any messages you leave are civil. Unless unreasonable, you should assume that the editor does not know the paragraph comes across as ablest, does not intend it to, and isn't aware of the relevant policies and guidelines.

Since you mentioned that you didn't now what to search for, here are some links that might be helpful for you in the future:

• WP:PGLIST - Wikipedia's policies and guildelines
• Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines - A table of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, often at the bottom of each policy/guideline page
• WP:DR - Dispute resolution processes
• WP:NOTICEBOARD - Information on, and a list of Wikipedia's noticeboards

Advice based on your response to Deepfriedokra: I'd suggest removing the content and leaving a short note on the user's talk page explaining why and referencing the guideline. I'd still recommend assuming that their intent was not to offend anyone and that it's possible that they don't realize the issue. PhantomTech[talk] 12:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:PhantomTech Hi and tyvm for ur advice. I have done as u told me to. They responded by threatening me and reverting my excision:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1108085775

@User:Deepfriedokra In case u wanted an update here it is Stephanie921 (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the threat and warned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you very much! Stephanie921 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Revision deletion

A person put his phone number in my talk page. Can you erase that? Mehedi Abedin 12:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I will -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Decline of G11

Hey Tamzin! I saw you declined my G11 on a draft. I'd just like to give you my reasoning for the G11 in the first place, usually if the user creates a draft or article of some sort that is the exact same as their username then that usually indicates self-promotion, hence why I put G11 on it. I do agree that the actual contents aren't all that promotional (tho just barely) so I'm not here disputing your decline. Just wanted to give you my reason for putting it on there in the first place. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: I understand. It was a close enough thing that I don't think you were wrong to tag; as you say, >95% of the time, a situation like that is spam. The main reason I declined (and was also disinclined to block, although I see ToBeFree has, and that's within admin discretion) is that there is a line in the draft that seems to reflect negatively on the company, making me think this is an enthusiast who chose the company's name as their username, rather than someone working for the company. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the draft, I Do see what you mean, although it is only a few words and most of the article speaks positively (whatever the product may be because most of it is just complete marketing nonsense that makes no sense to the average human). Oh well, thanks for explaining. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

(Hi Tamzin and Blaze Wolf, thanks for the ping – I had seen the speedy deletion tag too and didn't delete the draft for the same reason. That's also why the block is without a limitation on account creation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

update -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, that happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't happen, per WP:CSD, but I have better things to do than argue over a draft with a <1% chance of ever making it to mainspace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This message

is a test message to see if {{subst:anchor}} works like some say it does. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Appeal

Hello Tamzin. I wanted to empathize that my OP was never intended to discredit anyone for their background. Rereading it, I see how it could have been misinterpreted that way. But I was only pointing out the possibility of iVoting and of how the RfC failed to attract any outside input, as the RfC information page states it is intended for. The WP:DISPUTE policy acknowledges such things as “external input”, “outside help” and “uninvolved, interested editors”.

If I misinterpreted these policies, I apologize, but please assume the good faith that my words didn’t have any disguised ill intention and were instead based on my understanding of the policies I took the time to review in order to learn how best to resolve disputes. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: I appreciate your clarification of your intention. However, I don't think your concern about insufficient outside input adequately explains why you saw it as appropriate to focus on other editors' ethnic backgrounds. That is, frankly, something I would indef for in many circumstances; I stopped short of that here only because I understand how things get heated in topic areas like these. Given the previous warnings and TBAN/p-block you've received in this topic area, I am hoping that a longer, full TBAN will give you some time to work on unrelated articles, reflect on how you've been editing within the AA2 area, and gain a better understanding of the importance of civility in contentious areas. With that in mind, I am not convinced that lifting the TBAN would be a net-positive, and must decline this appeal. You are welcome to appeal at AN or AE instead, but I hope you will consider that there are 6,551,166 articles, and that there is no deadline, and that perhaps some time away from AA2 might do you some good. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Perfect and ded

Because of my comment on an AFD, I was referred to you. So then I started looking at your user page. You are now my most favorite Wikipedian, and I'm so jealous I didn't think to create [capuchin needed] before you made [cetacean needed]. (I formed WP:PRIMATE so many years ago...) Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: Aww flattered. I'm not sure who came up with "cetacean needed" originally, but its best-known usage is at List of cetaceans—where, as Tigraan noted recently, it's the only joke with consensus support to exist in mainspace. On a featured list, no less! WikiBlame suggests that the person to add it to the list originally was 76.121.171.103. I wonder if they know they're the funniest person on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Does this constitute a topic ban violation?[1] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) My TBAN is for conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed and Tamzin clarified that I may edit articles so long as I don't make additions/changes to any sentences pertaining to military conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan (at least, that was my understanding). Since this is a city in Iran with no connection to any conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, I don't see how it could be a violation of the topic ban. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Per Golden, unless there's some connection to conflicts that I'm missing, there's no TBAN violation here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

SPI investigations

Hi, Tamzin. Hope all is well.

I have some concerns to leave here for you. There have now been two SPI investigations[2][3] filed regarding Ghizz Archus, and IMO they haven't gotten the attention they merit, in spite of their looking like obvious duck cases. Maybe this is because SPI is so busy, but this is a really prolific LTA and it seems like they're hiding in plain sight.

I am dropping some more evidence here for you. See the unusual malapropism shared by Ghizz Archus, Vamlos and DerekHistorian, in which they mistakenly use the word "properly" where they should have used "probably".

• [4] ... "Thanks. I want to say racism is properly partly involved."

• [5] ... "I'm using only few examples here. Non-sop edit warring he is properly going to do this for years. Either a troll or have clear strong agenda."

• [6] ... "For Turkic women it was properly even more common"

If you want me to post this at my SPI case, I will. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Hunan201p: I'm afraid all is not as well as would be preferred. I suppose if the SPI is still open you should confine evidence posts to the SPI. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, jeez, Deepfriedokra, thanks for pointing that out... I just now read the pertinent talk page dicussions above this one... Sometimes I just get so tunnel-visioned with my own pursuits. Apologies to Tamzin for my carelessness, and many thanks to you for keeping watch around here. Best wishes for you both. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Archived SPI

Gooday, I don't think we've interacted before, but I saw you were active in a recent SPI, can't recall what it was. I want to add two names to a 2020 archived case; I realise this may be too stale but I should go ahead for procedure. I don't know how to re-open a case, if you could direct me? I don't use any utilities, such as TW. I am away from home and have only slow wi-fi for the next few days, and so can't load the pages to search through the wiki-process easily. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: Hi, this is one of the messages I lost track of while on the road. Seems as soon as I left my house, everyone wanted to ask me things. :D If this hasn't already been resolved: There's usually no need to add account to an archived SPI case. If you tell me what the accounts and case are, I can determine whether it makes sense to add sock tags to their userpages, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin - I don't have time to get into it now, but I have kept an eye on the 'new' sock account whose editing has, as I anticipated, fizzled out soon after the 'new' biography had been established - one person on a mission. It was initially a 2020 bio, recinded via local talk and changed to a redirect. The new SPA knew where to find the redirect and how to convert it into an article. The subsequent 2022 AfD closed as no consensus 23 June - too few participants, IMO; the new account was ranting and bullying an admin for extending the AfD and claimed to have requested mentoring from another, although there was nothing visible (to me).

I intended to search and show comparitive keyword/diffs from the previous (2020) Talk discussion and add to the 2020 SPI, to get them memorialised for posterity, as ending with no consensus means it could be re-established. I'll work on it gradually then send a new message. Apologies for the length. Muchas.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

"Retire"

So I've seen other admins claim that "retired" is only for users in good standing(here's an example). 331dot (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would note WP:RETIRE is not a policy. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@331dot: I respect both you and Yamla a great deal, but I strongly disagree with that interpretation. (And if RETIRE is not a policy, then how can there be such a thing as being ineligible to retire?) Per WP:BLOCKBANDIFF, a blocked-but-not-banned user is still a member of the community. In the case of a banned user (including the language recently reädded to BLOCKBANDIFF about "de facto bans"), I agree, they can't retire because they've already been shown the door. But if someone is still a member of the community, then it stands to reason they can retire. And, maybe more importantly, if retiring post-block is the little bit of face-saving someone needs in order to part ways gracefully, I think we should let them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) FWIW, I agree with Tamzin.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I respect both of you as well, so no problem there. :) I guess the concern here that "retirement" might be used as a cover by a blocked user to subsequently sock.("I didn't sock, I "retired" my old account") I don't know. A lot to think about. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Retired says, under the template usage notes, "Do not use this template if you have been blocked indefinitely." I think that very strongly supports my position. I can imagine a workable change to the template usage notes. I'm imagining we continue to disallow usage for banned users and strengthen the wording to note that you don't get to "retire" if you are actually just evading your block with another sockpuppet, but get to use the template if you are just blocked indefinitely. To be clear, though, if anyone here thinks I'm misreading the template usage notes, please let me know. Also very open to Wikipedia changing what we think is acceptable use. My main sticking point here is users who basically use it to say, "you can't fire me, I quit". Maybe Wikipedia would be less contentious if we just shut our eyes to this entirely, but it does annoy me. Thankfully, lots of people disagree with me and make the world a better place. :) --Yamla (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) "Maybe Wikipedia would be less contentious if we just shut our eyes", even more so — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 21:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yamla: It looks like OlEnglish added that in 2019, in response to a 2017 query by Andy Dingley. Given the inconsistency with WP:RETIRE, I have invoked WP:BRD to partially revert it, changing "indefinitely blocked" to "sitebanned or have engaged in sockpuppetry or other serious misconduct after being indefinitely blocked"; happy to discuss further at Template talk:Retired § Use by blocked users? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Works for me. Now to remember this change. :) Let's hope it works out! --Yamla (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I've definitely seen that line before, but I feel like, if someone's at that point, nothing's going to deter them. (And they inevitably^{[sampling bias]} run into Lot's wife problems.) If one wants to take a shot at deterrence, one can always leave a message to the effect of "Just so you know, you can mark yourself retired, but you are still ineligible for a WP:CLEANSTART." But overall I think I see things in the opposite direction: A retirement banner can allow a user a narrative wherein it's their choice to not edit, and removing it might make them decide they might as well sock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking yesterday...

about how horrible the RFA process can be, and then thought to myself, "I'm only at half a Tamzin at this point... Fuck." You got grit, milady. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess an upside to such an RfA is that your name gets enshrined as a unit? Can't think of anyone else like that except for Jimbo (or to be precise, 1% of Jimbo). Elli (talk | contribs) 10:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec) horrible, yes, but not yours :) - we lost the author of Franz Kafka to RfA, and I am pretty sure we won't loose you, so all is well (until we look at the real battle grounds) - I was told "chin up" in 2013, but I believe you have it up anyway --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: There is a reason I maintain people should not RfA until the system is fixed or, better yet, thrown out entirely. If I were a POINTier person perhaps I'd oppose every RfA with that reason, but I empathize too much with the candidates for that. @ScottishFinnishRadish: Yeahh. To be honest it's all a blur. I think somewhere in there I'd resolved that if it passed 100 oppose, I'd withdraw regardless of the supports, but fortunately we only passed that mark after I'd mostly stopped following the votes. If your RfA does succeed ( Kinehore), I'll say: A very well-respected admin said something to me sometime before my RfA, about how it really changes how you go about adminning if you have a controversial RfA. You wind up not taking it for granted that the community will back you on things, and having to earn your keep and establish a narrative of trust that other admins come out of RfA with. It's stressful, but may well make for better admins. If you look at who's been in or just above the discretionary range, it's pretty good company to keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

And you'd be also in good company not passing the first RfA, take 28bytes. His second was the first I voted in, and passed securely. Having said that, I think that crats can think, so at the moment I think you may not need a second. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the question part is actually the worst part, because each person only gets 2, and it's tough to know what part of your experience and thoughts they'd like to hear about your left putting together a general answer. I've always thought that a conversation works much better to reach mutual understanding than a quick answer. For instance, knowing what I know now, is probably expand on the difficulties I had at Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed dealing with a fairly obvious coi editor who was later blocked for upe. They're were coin threads, BLPN threads, ANI threads, and no support despite a fair consensus along the few uninvolved editors that their editing was a problem. With no administrative action, things escalated to edit warring, and then I gave up, removed it from my watch list, and gave up improving the page. Knowing what I do now, I see that that response would have addressed concerns of some editors better than what I provided.

Unfortunately, actual discussion is generally frowned upon at RFA. I'm already concerned about reaching out to SandyGeorgia, since I'm pretty sure that's normally not good during RFA. On the other hand, if two questions wasn't the rule things would spiral into a horrible hellscape even worse than it already is. I don't know that there's a very good solution. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I stopped asking questions when the 2 qs limit was installed. Until then, I usually asked what a candidate thinks about "talk before you block" (on my user page). I have an easy approach now: precious or not, and you are not the first where I had to look. I knew Tamzin before, that was easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Been there; done that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

And now, it's nearly as long as Tamzin's one as of 5 days, 4 hours (300kb, 274 !votes). Some people has pressure after failing the first one, especially it's a contentious RfA in the discretionary range. Thingofme (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

CSS code

Regarding this edit, just a note: It wasn't very clear what is being promoted. Someone who knows CSS can figure out that it's illustrating how to display messages that are by default only shown to users with specific roles, but for anyone else, there's no description of this.

On a separate note, I suspect not many editors would want to enable this all the time, without some easy toggle (perhaps different ones to control the visibility for different roles). A Javascript front-end to manage enabling or disabling the CSS rules would be helpful. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Request an account

Hello. I would like to make a request for an account. I have already done three times there, to no avail (did not even get a response on my e-mail once). If you could help me with this, I would be more than thankful. Thank you in advance for your time. 46.177.143.81 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Any account you use will quickly be taken to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07. The editing history of that SPI page shows your disruption using sockpuppets and the IPs 46.177.136.204, 176.92.20.227 and 62.74.6.222. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Well spotted, Binksternet! See, that's the thing. If I ignore something long enough on this page eventually one of my talkpage watchers will figure it out for me. :D Blocked the IP 1 week, then looked closer and blocked the /19 for a year. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You rock. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sock?

I287 appears to belong to Awolf58. Banging up on Randy Kryn's talk page like the other socks, mentioned Founding Fathers of the United States (Which you protected from sockpuppetry by Awolf)[7]. Editing the same article as sock Mayson.Jones [8] as well as Allreet, an editor who he impersonated using a sock [9]. Looks like a duck to me, but I'm a little reluctant of opening up an investigation. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And it got blocked. Nevermind then! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity: Heh, yeah, I asked GN to take a look since it was a hair below a duckblock. No surprises there, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Warning to PaulHammond

Hello Tamzin,

Did someone report my greeting to GorillaWarfare or ask you to look into it and talk to me? I mean, I'd hate to offend her, but it seems like she hasn't been around much and maybe hasn't even seen it yet, or at least has been too busy to react. Just for the context of why you've posted a warning to me. --PaulHammond (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@PaulHammond: Someone (not GW) asked me if I'd seen it, although they did not ask me to take any action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I figured she hadn't been around much. But I did also worry that although she hasn't been around, she specifically could have felt my greeting as harassment and asked someone else to have a word. Considering what she spends time on, she's got enough of that sort of stuff to be dealing with.

I'll take your warning in good faith too. Guess I was being a touch flirtatious, though given the fact that she identifies queer on her userpage, plus she's a bit young for me, I'm not trying to chat her up, except in a "you seem like a fine person, lets be friends" kind of way. Cheers. --PaulHammond (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello, Tamzin,

I've seen you active at RFD and I was wondering if you could over the contributions of this newish editor. It seems like some new editors go on a tear, creating dozens of new redirects when they become active and are able to create new pages. I deleted a couple obvious redirects that I didn't think would survive RFD and I'm hoping that you could spot any others that you thought were not appropriate and tag them for speedy deletion or delete them yourself. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Liz. R3'd a few more, RfD'd one, and gave a general warning. (Mostly with prejudice against further R3s, but definitely not with prejudice against further RfDs.) We get people like this with redirects from time to time. Sadly, a very low rate of rehabilitation after warning, but hope springs eternal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, another matter but I'll just put it here. When you revision delete after an editor has an offensive username, like at War Thunder, make sure that you also revision delete the edit summaries of those editors that reverted their edits, as the offensive username is usually included in their edit summaries. By the way, it's nice to see how busy you are, helping out, I'm so glad that your RfA was successful as it really has benefitted the entire project. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

Hello. Exactly two minutes after the restriction placed on Death of Mahsa Amini was lifted, it was moved to a rather ridiculous title without a proper WP:RM. Can you please revert it back to the original title? Or must I request it at WP:RM under technical requests? Regards. Keivan.f^Talk 07:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like the issue has been resolved :) Keivan.f^Talk 07:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Keivan.f: In general, you'll probably get a faster response from WP:RM/TR than from any particular admin. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Usually, yes, but sometimes that takes a long time as well. User:Tamzin happened to be online moments ago, which is why I decided to ask. Keivan.f^Talk 07:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. She is usually quite responsive (and so are her talkpage stalkers, it seems). Elli (talk | contribs) 08:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @Keivan.f: I actually would have had to decline action here, since moving is a content decision and I'm trying to maintain my neutrality as an uninvolved admin here. I did make sure to extendedconfirmed-move-protect the page after Red-tailed hawk moved it back, though. Also, just so you know, I'm pretty sure you would have been able to revert the move yourself: Any autoconfirmed user can revert a move so long as the redirect created at the previous title has not been edited since the move. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Death of Mahsa Amini

Hello, I created this article Death of Mahsa Amini and at first it's name was Mahsa Amini. I believe this Mahsa Amini or Mahsa Amini (Jina) is the correct name for this article because she is famaous now all over the world and she is the symbole of freedom for iranian people and women and girls. please move the name to Mahsa Amini and protect it from moving any more. Caravaneternity (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Caravaneternity: With people known for a single event (including where that event is their death), we usually have articles about the event rather than the person, unless the article about the event gets long enough that it makes sense to separate the content about the person to its own article. With that in mind, if you would like to suggest a move, you may do so at Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini by following the steps at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Going forward, please bear in mind the note I left on your talk page: You should only move a page without discussion if you do not think it will be controversial. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

[cetacean needed]

Hi, I just came across your signature on the Teahouse and was wondering what [cetacean needed] meant. Is it an in-joke, oor...? Thanks, — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

fail whale Cabayi (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

cetacean sounds like citation, though actually, she has plenty of whales. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Grateful

I'm not at all bothered about the silly CSDs on a subpage of mine, but something smells of fish with this editor. With luck your short acting block will wash the fishy smell away. The editor's diff at AfD suggests a true corporate account or multiple editors. Their editor history also reeks of paid editing, albeit very poor grade. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with joe-jobing

I didn’t mean anything bad for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. I was, in no way, being disruptive in the SPI. I only pinged GeneralNotability because if a non-admin can’t move an SPI case, then an admin (including GN) could move the case. Sorry for the inconvenience. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 12:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Magnatyrannus: Hmm? You didn't do anything wrong here. (Well, for future reference, clerks/CUs don't need to be reminded to merge cases usually, but it wasn't an unhelpful suggestion.) Joe jobbing, the way we use that term on Wikipedia, is the act of posing as someone's sockpuppet—the thing you were a victim of here. So I left a note at your SPI in case that happens again, as we've had cases in the past where a skilled joe-jobber got a user blocked, and I wouldn't want that to happen to you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for my misunderstanding. You mean, the sock tried to frame me in an attempt to get me blocked? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yes. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Excessive redirect creation

You warned AistisXD about three weeks ago about creating redirects for alt capitalizations that aren't very useful. They seemed to have ignored this. I just looked at their contribution history and found they have created nearly 500, must of which are also not very useful. I was going to list this at ANI until I saw you were already somewhat involved. MB 01:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@MB: Whew, thought that this was gonna be about me for a sec, and was thinking "Heyyy, I only make a few a week..." But yeah, thanks for flagging this. I've given a more direct warning, and will keep a closer eye on them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that helps. What about alt languages. It's common to have redirects from other languages when they are relevant, like the native language of the subject. But this user is also creating redirects from unrelated languages. I just RFDed Biblija (Bible in Serbian-Croatian) - the one that started all this, and Литва́ (Lithuania in Bulgarian). MB 01:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@MB: If you want to add an additional note about that, feel free, but for now I'm more curious to see how this develops on the communication side. If they don't heed my latest message, it sort of doesn't matter whether you or I explains any further redirect norms to them. Anecdotally, bad-redirect-creation warnings seem to have a very low success rate (i.e. usually end in indefs). Hopefully this doesn't go that way, but we'll have to see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Redirect

Regarding Romanzen, I'm not sure to redirect to the specific cycle is a good idea, because it misses Composer - period - context. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda. :) I retargeted that page after running into a mention of it at Works related to Federico García Lorca, a list I split recently from its parent article and am trying to whip into shape. Usually, when a redirect is about a subtopic that has a dedicated section in an article, I target that redirect to the relevant section. My main reason for that is that usually if someone is typing in such a term, they are probably looking for information on that specific thing; since it's specialized knowledge, they may well be familiar with the general context, and if not, scrolling up to the top of the page is easier than finding the part of the page they were looking for. There is also a benefit to editors. With it this way, I can link to Romanzen from Works related to Federico García Lorca, and if someone later writes an article at Romanzen, the link will point to the right place. Whereas if I link directly to Song cycles (Killmayer)#Romanzen, that link could fall out of date if an article is written at Romanzen. So I do think that it's better to link to a section in a situation like this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of creating Romanzen (Killmayer) as a redirect? With the composer mentioned, the specific place is fine, but from a broad concept, I find it tricky to land in the middle of an article, - too much of a surprise ;) - Should I move, and then Romanzen could be used for a dab or a different redirect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

September songs

In your list: you may want to sort poets by last name, for example using {{sortname}} where you can write first name|last name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I made a few edits in the list, but have no time for more (another Recet deaths article waiting), generally for music

• genre as precise as can be (opera, song cycle), - not "set to music" unless we really don't know what kind of music
• small works in quotation marks (songs, motets), but larger works italic, so a Suite probably better italic
• I see no need for a leading "a" or "an", just "Opera" etc
• what's "based around"?

see you later --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Oh, everything there is still very preliminary, still slicing and dicing it from an under-sourced and over-detailed list that was previously at Federico García Lorca. Sort values are on the to-do list but for now the priority is just removing things that shouldn't be there, adding sources, and getting it more readable. You're right on the indefinite articles, though; I'll drop those going forward.

And good points on Romanzen; I'll get back to you on that in a bit. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Okay, so, Romanze redirects to Romance (music), and I think it would make sense for Romanzen to do the same. I was going to create Romanze (disambiguation), but actually Romance (music) does a fine job at disambiguating "Romanze" and "Romanzen" even though it's not a DAB, so I think the best approach is:

• Retarget Romanzen to Romance (music)
• Create Romanzen (Killmayer), targeting Song cycles (Killmayer)#Romanzen
• Add link to Romanzen (Killmayer) at Romance (music).

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

excellent! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

found In seinem Garten liebt Don Perlimplin Belisa --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Great! I'll be sure to add that when I make my way to Fortner. I swear, finding sources for this list will be the death of me. It's not that there's any shortage of sources, but it's a new journey to find the one or two sources needed for each entry, and then I have to start over again. Really all I'd wanted to do here was split off the damn bloated list from the main García Lorca article, since someone had taken the step of collapsing it rather than either paring it down or splitting it. But then I realized that I'd be creating a new article full of unsourced statements, and I couldn't bring myself to do that, even as part of a split. So now I'm pulling teeth, one cite at a time. But I'll get there! Eventually... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess the consolation prize here is that it keeps "Take This Waltz" constantly playing in my head, which is a pretty nice mental soundtrack to work to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

travel and strings sound --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Tamzin. Thank you for creating Deep Song. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the D page. You should consider granting yourself AP. Happy editing.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Eh. I'll wait for someone else to see fit. I think my slow drumbeat of DABs plus the occasional article isn't up to AP yet in terms of quantity, although I do hope I'm there in quantity. Thank you, though. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the revdels

Oshwah too. I was actually wondering in that case if it's acceptable to just delete the talk page, since it's block notices and then revdel material. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I have, on some of my own blocks under similar circumstances—usually if I block someone whose username I don't want showing up as a search suggestion. Depending on who's edited the page, I see it as a mix of G7, G6, G3, and maybe a touch of IAR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I'll see if there's any other input. I know that CSD is pretty by-the-book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish - You're welcome! :-) And yes, like Tamzin stated above, I've done it many times before and still do so in circumstances where the user talk page belongs to an account with an obvious, blatant, and highly egregious username that violates Wikipedia's username policy without question. I just use my judgment; if the username is bad enough that I would absolutely not want anyone who could be potentially offended or emotionally affected to stumble onto the user talk page, I will delete it. I also extend this to any logs that contain the username as well; I'll revdel the action/target information from the block log, the username from any edits and other logs, and both the action/target and the username from the user creation log (you need to revdel both the action/target and the username/IP from the user creation log if you must hide it, otherwise it'll still be visible and fully viewable via the API). If it's a highly offensive and egregious username, I don't hesitate and I'm not afraid to do what's necessary to make sure that it can't be found. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Had a question...

about this edit at Robb Elementary School shooting that you approved. In my opinion the added statement

[On May 14], the same day a mass shooting occured in Buffalo, New York, [Ramos sent a private Instagram message reading, "10 more days".]

is an editorial tangent in Wikipedia's voice and Buffalo does not appear within the cited reference. I do not think that the statement contributes to more knowledge about the children and teachers killed at Uvalde or to more knowledge and understanding of the murderer or to more knowledge/understanding of the overall event. The statement has no bearing upon any of the persons associated with the event. While tragic and sad, the Buffalo shooting could be said to be emblematic of an overall societal issue with guns and violence but it is still a coincidence that had no clear bearing on Ramos or the Uvalde event.
I started writing this out and just went back to check and realized that another editor has reverted the statement so perhaps my post is moot. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Shearonink: First of all, hi! Excluding a talkback, this is the first time I've had the pleasure of having you on this talkpage since you welcomed me almost ten years ago. Thanks for that! Pretty sure I'll stick around. ;)

As to the matter at hand, I accepted the edit because it met the pretty low standard for accepting articulated at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. I did consider whether to revert as simply tangential, but it seemed at least arguably relevant context, and thus best left up to the normal editorial process, rather than the more cursory "sanity check" that pending changes reviewing is meant to be.

So, in the future, if you see me accept something but object, by all means, feel as free to revert as if I hadn't. (Although I review things quite rarely, so it might be another decade.) Also, I have now taken the time to look deeper at the edit from a content perspective, so I will say, I don't object to MarioProtIV's revert, but I think his query and your objection do have an answer: The IP was highlighting that the "10 more days" message was made the same day another high-profile shooting happened. That then raises a WP:SYNTH problem, and perusing some sources I don't see any drawing that connection explicitly. But, if only pedantically, I don't think it's unrelated or tangential. But again, none of that analysis went into accepting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Jerome501

Having in mind that you and Bishonen deleted some "creations" of Jerome501 (talk · contribs) from their userspace according to WP:G3, I should say that basically everything in that userspace may warrant speedy deletion. —Sundostund (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sundostund: I'm 10 in and have only found one that clearly required action—User:Jerome501/Countries by dictator, which didn't fall under any CSD IMO, but which I blanked as a BLP issue. User:Jerome501/Black population by thingy sounded like it'd need deletion, but "thingy" here seems to mean "state", so, it's fine. Could you give me a list of the ones you think need deletion, and which CSD criterion/a (or BLPDELETE if applicable) apply/ies? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, upon reviewing the wording of CSD G10, I have deleted Countries by dictator. Marginal, but Jerome has lost the benefit of the doubt. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say that these seems like particular candidates for speedy deletion:

User:Jerome501/Userboxes/Mountain separatist (I already nominated it at MfD)

User:Jerome501/Userboxes/Mexican Gnome (it could very well be interpreted as anti-Mexican)

User:Jerome501/Userboxes/No Tourism Ever (basically pure nonsense/trolling)

User:Jerome501/allah (just its name could sound problematic, beside its racial composition of Kansas)

User:Jerome501/Sandbox2 (do we really need to keep this racial composition list of schools?)

User:Jerome501/Heavenly Mandate of Divine Knowledge (this preaching may be quite unnecessary)

User:Jerome501/Predicted unemployment rates after robot introduction (could be seen as a fringe conspiracy theory)

The other ones may not be so controversial, but they still are a waste of server space IMHO, especially now when the user got indef block. —Sundostund (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I G3'd the fourth as seeming to push some sort of racial agenda, and the sixth as trolling, but the rest I would rather let run their course at MfD, or you can just blank them. That said, no prejudice against Bish or any other admin deleting them under any applicable criterion. (Oh, as I write that, Bish got #3. I'll leave this in her capable hands.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the seventh (added after prev. comment) just barely crosses the line as a hoax, so gone. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Tamzin. Thank you for creating Hurricane Shark. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Query about COI

Hi @Tamzin:

I was going through WP:COI and had 2 questions: 1. If an editor is a published author/researcher, can he/she cite his/her own works as a reference in a Wiki article? I am asking this, knowing that Wiki prefers secondary scholarly sources that are not self-published.

2. If an editor happens to know a person personally who has a Wiki page as notable person, can he/she edit that page, as in, adding references to news articles or fixing grammar? I am aware that puffery or editing in favouring of the subject is strictly discouraged.

Thanks in advance. - (Panchalidraupadi (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) @Panchalidraupadi: as to your first point, WP:SELFCITE is part of the COI guideline and explains what is and isn't allowed - generally, you are allowed to cite your own works, but only if those works would otherwise be considered reliable sources. For your second point, you are allowed to do so, though for substantial changes it's recommended to use an edit request instead (using the template {{Request edit}} on the talk page of the relevant article). Fixing grammar or reverting vandalism would be pretty uncontroversial, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Elli: Thanks :). -(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC))

UTRS appeal #63662

If you could have a look and make recommendations to the user, they would likely benefit. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion at Physicians Mutual

Of an IP you blocked this summer. WP:LTA. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• /64 blocked, RD1'd, PCP'd a year. Thanks for reporting. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Why no tools?

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Physo172. The {{socklist}} isn't generating the tools links on that page. Do you know why? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: It was a malformed filing originally, and I guess the |tools_link=yes didn't get added when that was corrected. I've added it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that should be the default? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well it's generally only desirable when used at the start of an SPI report, which is the most common use case of {{sock list}}, but also 99% of the time is generated by {{SPI report}} rather than by hand, so it seemed easier to make the default in {{sock list}} to exclude, but the default in {{SPI report}} to include. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

85.238.101.64

I'm starting to lose this my patience with this IP editor. It seems more like they have an axe to grind[10], which is what I originally suspected. Any suggestions? BlueNoise (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Curious...

...that this brand new account's one and only edit is to try and delete this tp thread, much like this account sought to do just before you blocked them. Just sayin'. Cheers - wolf 22:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Annd they've tried again. (fyi) - wolf 04:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Dealt with. - wolf 15:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Revdel

Can you remove the phone number from that link? Mehedi Abedin 14:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I happened to see the thread title "revdel" on my watchlist, so I stuck my nose in and did this myself. In general, it's better to ask for this by email, to avoid a Streisand effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Your help is needed on Nayyara Noor

You have blocked User:Magnatyrannus for edit war and sock puppetry. He is doing again and don't let me add reliable references for nayyara noor. I tried to talk to him on talk page but he is reverting again. 116.71.10.181 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not true. This is another attempt of a sock to joe-job me. I am innocent. This user is hopping IPs. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 16:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Sir he is not letting me add even a reliable reference on ethnic bases. Admin User:Cullen328 blocked him for indefinitely but he survived and now doing it again.

This is incomprehensible. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, as stated on the top of her talk page, please do not call her a "sir". Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to add this reference https://dailytimes.com.pk/984742/singer-nayyara-noor-passed-away/ from daily times news which is very reliable. Why he is reverting?

I literally explained in the edit summary and on the article's talk page. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, I'm sorry that you received this post. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for disruptive editing. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Appeal to be removed from sanctions

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

---

As you said I could appeal on ANI or your talk page, but I chose your talk page first. Can you please remove the sanctions from me on Uyghurs? I am only stating facts on Draft:Uyghurs in Afghanistan per the sources. They seem notable to me so that is why I added it. I didn't there were as such brual sanctions on this topic even when discussing topics unrelated to the Uyghur genocide. Can you please remove the sanctions? Thanks. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Muhafiz-e-Pakistan: We expanded the Uyghur genocide DS to all Uyghur matters because ideological disputes about the genocide—which you have stated on-wiki you do not believe is a genocide—were spilling over into other related topic areas. Which is what it appears has happened here. But I am open to discussing this. Do you see what the issue is with statements like Uyghur militancy are where most Uyghurs in Afghanistan are involved in, unsupported by any citations? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean by the sources I see on the internet, that is as far as what I see. You can search 'Uyghurs in Afghanistan' and you will see Uyghurs who came to Afghanistan to fight the Chinese government during the Chinese conflict, while a minority of the sources conclude some Uyghurs came as refugees or previous descendants. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are there any reliable sources that say, explicitly, a majority of Uyghurs in Afghanistan are militants? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No, but sources indicate so indirectly. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

So, that would be a WP:SYNTH conclusion, and I don't think even a correct SYNTH conclusion at that. [11] [12] The difficulty in reaching the correct conclusion via synthesis is, after all, why we forbid that practice. It's too easy to look at the sources and make them say what you want them to say. Now, under normal circumstances, my response here would be to explain SYNTH to the user, warn them about how "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and leave it at that. But in this case, you are known to have a pretty extreme POV here. And editors are allowed to have such POVs, but they are expected to keep them out of their editing. So the most charitable explanation here—the one that stops short of saying you deliberately misrepresented sources—is that your strong feelings about Uyghurs prevented you from being able to judge the sources fairly, and led you to state something unsupported and likely untrue in the encyclopedia's voice. And if that's the case, then you should not be editing about Uyghurs. I'm afraid I cannot lift this topic ban. There are many, many things to edit about on Wikipedia other than Uyghurs. I wish you the best of luck editing about them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As a note, the user has also contributed to Uyghur Wikipedia, on which I am an administrator, and the user has previously removed common Uyghur alternate names for Xinjiang from the corresponding article's lead. While GS is limited to enWiki conduct, I do think that there is something more going on here than a simple misunderstanding/misreading of RS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk Why does it say "Majority of the population is Gay"? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Muhafiz-e-Pakistan: With reference to ياكى شەرقىي تۈركىستان ۋە ياكى ئۇيغۇرىستان, a quick latin transliteration would becomes yaki sherqiy türkistan we yaki uyghuristan, which is quite obviously not "Majority of the population is Gay" and is (roughly) or East Turkistan and/or Uyghurstan in English. Are you saying that this phrasing is indicating that the majority of the population is gay, that content elsewhere in the ugWiki article says that the majority of the population is gay, or that the draft does? I'm not able to find it, so, if so, would you please quote it and indicate what you're talking about? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

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

P-blocks regarding Libertarian Association of Massachusetts edit-warring

Hi Tamzin. Thanks for placing those partial blocks on the editors warring over Libertarian Association of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, two of them on the talk page have declared that they will immediately revert to their preferred version when their partial blocks expire [13], [14], even though Jon698 has not agreed to it (I don't agree to it either though I have only just learned of the dispute; it goes against our sourcing policies). Could you please warn them that they need to reach consensus before making further reverts? Thank you. Tartan357 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I won't revert to my preferred version, it was merely a suggestion from the other p-blocked user. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Tamzin, I think the other user (Datmof) needs a warning. Tartan357 (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

me and magnus used talk and discussed what our issues were @Tartan357. we both did do multiple reverts to different versions. we came together and looked at the different versions and he agreed that the best version was the 24th june the one version I had changed it back to from your edits. I have on the talk page explained why with links. we are discussing the changes as wikipedia rules allow editors to do. we did reach a consensus we were at odds and now we agree. Datmof (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You have not reached a consensus, that is inaccurate. The user you were reverting, Jon698 disagrees, and so do I. One other person agreeing with you is not consensus. Tartan357 (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

and we are working on it @Tartan357 you were not part of the talk when me and magnus came to a consensus on it. But please report me to @Tamzin asking for us to have further warnings. this is what the Talk Page is for. we do not need an Admin to admonish us. I did not se jons disagreement on there. so please stop Datmof (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That's Magnatyrannus to you, not "Magnus". Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

sorry Datmof (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

help for alt account

Hello, Whats the right way to disclose about alt account (inactive for years) that was not disclosed for privacy reason? Acc was barely used, certainly not for vandalism. Please advise. 2405:201:800A:A843:F8BA:A745:65DD:487E (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Nancy Davis (business woman)

Hey, Tamzin,

I hope you are having a good weekend. I was surprised to see that you deleted this article as a CSD G5 as plenty of other editors had worked on the article besides the page creator and it had just survived an AFD discussion. Typically we don't delete articles as G5s if there are non-sockpuppet editors who made contributions to the page (unless they were just minor edits). Were there any other as-yet-unidentified sockpuppets interfering on this article?

Thanks for considering my query. I will just add that I have had more discussions with editors about the G5 criteria on my user talk page than any other form of deletion. Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. I did a full G5 eligibility review before deleting the page. My finding was that all edits by non-sox were to correct issues with the sox' edits, without adding any substantial content in the process. At Special:Undelete/Nancy_Davis_(business_woman) we have, in order: four category changes; two minor copy-edits; an orphan tagging + minor copy-edit; then a series of 14 edits by Hipal, 8 of which were basic fixes, 5 of which removed promotional content, and 1 of which added an {{unreliable source?}} tag; the AfD tag being removed at close; a move and defaultsort change; a two-word shortdesc addition; and a second move. In other word, the most substantial addition to the article by a non-sock would be a three-way tie between the orphan tag, the unreliable source tag, and the shortdesc of "Business Woman". It has always been my understanding that merely removing noncompliant content added by a sockmaster does not qualify as a substantial edit for the purposes of G5. The alternative would be a perverse incentive by which, in removing such content, one insulates the rest of the article from deletion.

As to the past AfD, per WP:CSD § Pages that have survived deletion discussions, an AfD closing as keep does not preclude G5 if the AfD participants were unaware of the page's G5 eligibility. (I suppose in this case 3 participants were aware, but that's because they were part of the same sockfarm.)

I hope that addresses your concerns. Thanks as always for keeping me honest. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. What's the proper way to get it undeleted then reviewed by a larger group of editors? I spent a great deal of time reviewing the article, and it appeared to me to be salvageable, with a subject that met BIO by the refs identified at the AfD. --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Deletion Review#Instructions provides some instructions related to seeking a community review of a decision to delete an article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal: Per WP:PROXYING (somewhat a misnamed bit of policy), if you're willing to take responsibility for the full content of the article, I can restore the article—to mainspace, draftspace, or your userspace, as you prefer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you restore it into draftspace, where it will get a good review before being considered for mainspace? I'm not very familiar with deletion review, and my experience with it suggests the focus would be on why it was deleted rather than if the content is worth restoring to mainspace at some point.--Hipal (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal: Draft:Nancy Davis (businesswoman). (Took the liberty of changing the disambiguator to a more standard spelling.) I trust your judgment as to whether to publish directly or send it through AfC. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the mess surrounding it, I think AfC is the way to go. --Hipal (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal (talk page stalker) I've just looked at the (unsubmitted for review) draft. As a reviewer, ignoring any prior brouhaha and the threads up to now, I feel it not yet to be in a position to be accepted. Were it accepted in the current state I think it would head for AfD very fast. There is no real content, and the references seem to major on what Davis says, not what others say about Davis.

As long as those wishing the draft to be accepted make it acceptable there should be no issues going forwards. At present, though, it looks like a UPE piece. YMMV, of course.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the submitter. We want to accept articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

So it's not overlooked, I've been noticing a number of situations like this. I didn't think much of them until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 24. I found Nancy Davis Quadratic while looking at the scope of the problems with the Naveen Jain AfD. I've been planning to bring some of this up at WP:COIN to see if others are aware and if it's a large problem that might need a large effort to address. --Hipal (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Your block

Regarding this block. Please also see this editor. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Magnolia677, and the rollbacks. Blocked and added to the open SPI; feel free to add any more you find there (and to ping me if you do). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I have 22,386 pages on my watchlist, and I just start seeing patterns. Hey, cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Statistics

Thanks very much for posting Athaenara's RFX statistics. I had been thinking about her record in this area myself and wondered. I'm still left wondering why she attacked Isabelle so viciously, though, now. It's almost like she (Athaenara) was pissed at something and didn't give a shit about the consequences. It's possible that this was a cumulative thing, but seems unlikely to me. I don't know her at all, even a little, so am probably not in the best position to judge, but that's my take. Anyway, thanks again for the research.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I was also weirdly fascinated by the RFX statistics - in a macabre sort of way, I guess. I have noticed, Bbb23, that when it comes to people in this social sphere, people over time have become more likely to speak out their mind, as if they are oblivious to the consequences. I've been friends with people in the right-of-center camp who seemed to suddenly snap and become almost militant in their beliefs. I don't know if it applies to this specific scenario, or if that also is just a form of confirmation bias that I'm experiencing. In this case, it was such a decisive and unmistakable comment that there couldn't be any doubt in my mind that Athaenara acted with total malice aforethought.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's one theory. As we all know, it's hard to impossible to pass RfA if you've done anything controversial or conflicted with other editors. So the people that pass RfA, by and large, have never had to deal with big conflicts. That's either because they're the sort of people who can defuse a situation calmly and gracefully enough to not let conflicts escalate (good), or because they've never done anything that invites strong criticism, and don't know how to react when it turns up (not good). There have been a whole bunch of "legacy admin" disputes in the last year or two that have wound up with an Arbcom desysop, and the fall from grace experienced by Neelix when we found he was a de-facto vandal isn't really necessary to repeat in full here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Note

I know the ping was accidental, but might as well take the opportunity to confirm I'm trans, in case you were wondering. I say this 'cause GW had that same doubt, afaik. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: It's funny, the persistent ambiguity that comes from being nonbinary, or presenting oneself in a way that implies that one is nonbinary, without going into further detail. Kinda in the opposite direction from this, every now and then, someone comes to know that I'm nonbinary without knowing that I'm trans (discounting the extent to which nonbinariness falls under the trans umbrella), and it kinda amuses me, the thought of being mistaken for a fem-presenting AFAB enby, which is like, a whole different set of stereotypes.

Anyways, rambling. Please continue to be well. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Advice

Hi.

I sincerely believe you are acting in good faith and think you are doing good things for the project. As I've said elsewhere, I have seen some the abuse and vile shit that transgender people have had thrown at them, and completely understand why you might want to turn the air blue over it. However, comments like "Are you trying to speedrun the "DS alert → AE thread" sprint?" come across to me as being more aggressive than concillatory and look like intimidation. I know Chris Troutman has made some sub-optimal comments, but that doesn't really give you the right to yell at him. People who don't understand the issues about transgenderism need education, not browbeating. As WP:CIVIL says, "No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse." I see other editors have bludgeoned that conversation at ANI too, but as an administrator, I think you should be able to set a good example.

I'm sorry to have to write this, but I think I need to before things get worse. You were given the administrator toolset after a lengthy and contentious debate with people prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I urge you not to throw that good will away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree here Tamzin, it's just not worth it… take it on advisement from someone who is about to find out — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I don't think this is quite fair, Ritchie - Tamzin's within their rights to reply to discussion points and their reply to Chris' point was much milder than Chris' original posting was. Why does Chris have the right to "yell" in his initial posting replying to Tamzin's proposal while Tamzin doesn't have the right to show any emotion when "yelled" at? Did you go to Chris' talk page and counsel them to not yell? While I don't agree with the use of RfA voting stats to argue for a site ban - Tamzin's been quite civil and restrained in the whole situation - certainly not even approaching the angry/emotional/bludgeoning line that I'm seeing from others. I'd suggest that perhaps your efforts might be better placed counseling others to back off a bit, rather than Tamzin. Of course, that's just my view. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of education, please don't use the term "transgenderism". That's often used to imply being trans is an ideology and a choice rather than a natural state of being.

Speaking as a trans person myself, I don't think editors like Troutman or Athaenara are interested in being educated on these issues. Funcrunch (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to speak to Chris Troutman as he has already been adequately rebuked for his comments by others. I get on with Tamzin (or least I assume I do!) and I'm confident they'll take my message in the spirit intended. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333. Thank you for reaching out on this. I want to stress, first and foremost, that I'm not acting in an admin capacity in that thread. I'm clearly INVOLVED as the initiator. I'm aware that admins should always lead by example even in non-administrative capacities, but at the same time we are not forbidden from speaking with passion, nor from making clear to users that if they persist in a particular behavior we will seek administrative remedies against them in the same manner that a non-administrator might. Part of the reason that I mentioned the DS alert is that, when I gave it to Chris, he responded with incredulity as to what he had done to deserve it. So when I saw him pop up at AN/I showing clear familiarity with relevant GENSEX conflicts, I'll admit, yes, I had little patience for that rhetoric—rhetoric that, I'll stress, was only a hair's breadth away from outright advocating for the exclusion of, or discrimination against, trans people on Wikimedia and in general.

There are plenty of times where I'm happy to educate someone based on a misunderstanding of trans issues; in fact, if it weren't for the personal-attack angle, I'd have reached out to Athaenara to do the same, as she doesn't strike me as a "die-hard transphobe", but more someone who's picked up a particular perception over the years and come to a regrettable conclusion about it. (N.B.: "Person should not be in our community at this time" and "Person could potentially be dissuaded from the views that make them unwelcome here" are not mutually exclusive positions.) Chris, frankly, does not strike me as a person I could have that conversation with, at least not on the current footing he's on. If he'd ever like a frank discussion of trans issues—noting that I'm far from a "partisan" on one "side" myself—he (or any other editor!) is always welcome to reach out off-wiki, subject to my emotional availability. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Addendum @Ritchie333: Today I learned {{involved comment|admin=yes}} exists, and seems very underused. I know you didn't accuse me of breaching WP:INVOLVED here, but I do think I'll make use of that template in the future where applicable. Although, @GorillaWarfare, thoughts on making the template say something like comment from involved admin in non-admin capacity or just comment in non-admin capacity, to avoid any misunderstanding of what "from involved admin" means? I could see a newer user—or an experienced user looking to cause trouble—taking it as more a threat than a disclaimer.

Also, CC @El C, as related to a past disagreement. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the template! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, while I haven't read the above discussion closely yet, having only skimmed it, even still, I'm not sure I understand how any of this connects to our past disagreement. Because it wasn't about being un/involved (I don't think, I don't really remember it that well tbh), but rather, a warning you issued that I felt was especially poor in a number of ways. Nor, for that matter, was it about trans-anything (I don't think, again IIRC). BTW, I didn't even know you or TNT were trans until it was mentioned in your RfA. Likewise, I didn't know Isabelle Belato was trans either, until it, too, was mentioned in their RfA. But once I found out, it made no difference to me. That's not something that matters to me, not in any meaningful way, at least. El_C 18:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

New sock same as the old sock

As you were the admin who banned a disruptive editor, User:Awolf58 and various sockpuppets (e.g., MrBeastModeAllDay), please be aware of his return under the guise of User:NeutraI—with an "I," not a lowercase "el". He just began to recolonize the article United States as he always has: with multiple edits that add unnecessary WP links while inserting "stealth" changes with petty rewording. After he took offense at a few of my grammatical edits a few months ago, he created a username close to mine (Mayson.Jones) and undid a few of old edits. As he now rejoins "United States," he's taken an odd interest in another WP article I've monitored since 2006, adding several unnecessary changes there on the same day. As a project, WP is grounded in good faith and consensus, but bad actors abound. Awolf58/MrBeast/NeutraI once asked you not to temporarily block him because, he said, "I was still a minor back then." Later, when he was permanently banned, you suggested he might "find another hobby." Actually (I smile as I type this), I will find another hobby. Unlike Awolf58, I do have other interests besides WP and this site is toxic. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: Was just getting ready to block and then zzuuzz beat me to it. Alrighty then. Guess I'll go G5 some stuff. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry (ish) to steal your thunder. I figured it might save a little time and paperwork. No obvious sleepers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz. No complaint here. The main thing that was taking me time was deciding whether CU would be needed or if I could duckblock, so, thanks for simplifying that haha. I've G5'd everything worth taking the time to G5. Guess now it's time for the much more frustrating task of sorting out banreverts... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed socks are extremely rare (with the exception of my sock Patachonica), so is that a problem? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it's a problem, yes, but it is what it is. I have a few more admin tricks up my sleeve. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Elizabeth the Great (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Elizabeth the Great (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• I know the target was a disambiguation page when you created it: I'm just dutifully pressing Twinkle buttons ;-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Shhhnotsoloud: No worries. I'd've gotten it myself if it had occurred to me. I mean, uh... you darn deletionists! /s -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  :-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)