Jump to content

User talk:Tamzin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least zero years.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:FRC&AND)

I don't like the idea of getting pings over someone putting a box on my page that says I did nothing wrong while vaguely insinuating that I did, so I'm just parking these here instead.

{{ds/aware|ap|gg|a-i|blp|mos|tt|ipa}}

Update 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC): You know what, screw it. Keeping track of which to list is more trouble than it's worth, and I don't need any one-hit immunity. I'm aware of all of them. Even the weird ones like the Shakespeare authorship question or Waldorf education. If anything, I'm more likely to think something is a DS topic when it isn't, than vice versa.

Selected WikiLove

[edit]
Chosen at random from the 37 barnstars at User talk:Tamzin/Nice things. [Re-roll.]
The Socratic Barnstar
This is now the second time I've found myself agreeing with a complex and nuanced group of arguments you've made on an issue enough to wish I could just give you my proxy. If not for that darn RfA Q14, I'd be urging you to stand for Arbcom. --GRuban (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

@GRuban: Thanks. :) You know, I have my share of regrets as a Wikipedian, but answering that question honestly isn't one, nor is giving the community the chance to decide whether that kind of disposition made me more or less qualified to be an arb. The answer seems to have been "less", and I'm quite content with that. Just means I'm too cool. ;) I've already been to the land of burnout and back—drafted and deleted resignation statements twice—and found new priorities both off- and on-wiki. I'm happy in my current niche, wandering back and forth between content-creation periods and projectspace periods. Maybe someday I'll be stupid enough to run again, and maybe that time the community will punish me for that folly by electing me.

P.S. I always feel like it's tacky to thank someone for !voting "per" oneself, but in this case I did less for the agreement and more because it's been ages since anyone picked the third pronoun option. I've been working today on a piece of fiction where a lot of the characters take Spivak pronouns, and was thinking about how neglected my poor neopronouns are. Thanks for looking after them... Maybe someday they'll fix the Echo bug that forced me to randomize the order in my signature. Or... hey, Sammy, would some sysadmin yell at me if I wrote a script to change my signature every minute? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would yell at you 😌 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Selected WikiHate

[edit]

Warnings from the late great Nosebagbear and whoever whomever whoever most recently edited this page

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm RoySmith. 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)

​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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Toki Pona in the wild? Mute olin!! :D Atomic putty? Rien! Atomic putty? Rien! 16:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Atomic putty? Rien! "Quantity of love"? :P (For "much love", use olin mute, or more properly mi olin mute e ni 'I love this', although 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Tamzin P.P.S. Apologies for my English, German’s actually my first language ^-^ Atomic putty? Rien! 12:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon 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)[reply]

f u delete this or im gonna tell the mods on u. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
tsk, really should have discuss[ed] the matter with the editor at [...] the [[:|article's talk page]] — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special talk:Diff/1148616329? Sounds like a good place for settling disputes TheresNoTime ;)
Talk pages for special pages when? /j Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-WikiHate against my mother of all people

[edit]

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 ), 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 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? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "whomsoever." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. :) ) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous abuse of power by Tamzin

[edit]
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)[reply]

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

Why don't you like being called Tammy?

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

RE: Would there be interest in a bot that makes a "watchlist" just for recently-edited pages?

[edit]

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

-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Watching my watchlist gets boring at some hours of the night. wizzito | say hello! 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C, TheresNoTime, and 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:
{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = <!-- Watch all pages linked from these pages, emulating Special:RecentChangesLinked for them. Separate by newline. --->
|source_user = <!-- Watch all pages edited by these users in provided timeframe. Separate by newline. -->
|user_days_back = <!-- How many days back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 7. -->
|user_edits_back = <!-- How many edits back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 200. -->
<!-- Either of `user_days_back` and `user_edits_back` can be set to None, as long as the other has a value -->
|namespace = <!-- Name or number of namespace(s) to watch. Use 0 for mainspace. Separate by commas. Default: All. Prefix with - to mean "everything but" -->
<!-- Days back, edits back, and namespace can be overridden per source page or source user, by appending a # and then `days=`, `edits=`, or `namespace=` to the entry. You can also use a `prefix=` parameter. -->
|always_watch = <!-- Will be watched even if not covered by the above parameters. E.g. Your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|never_watch = <!-- Will be ignored even if covered by the above parameters. E.g. your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|update_frequency = <!-- A number in minutes, or "auto". At "auto", the bot will update as frequently as possible, with the understanding that after each update you are moved to the back of the queue for updates, and the bot only edits once every 10 seconds. -->
}}
Thus mine might look like 
{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log
               User:Tamzin/XfD log
               User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable <!-- Open TPERs -->
               Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/ <!-- Only watch active RfD subpages. -->
               User:Mz7/SPI case list <!-- Active SPIs -->
|source_user = Tamzin
               'zin is short for Tamzin
|user_days_back = 2
|user_edits_back = None
|namespace = -Category, File <!-- I don't really edit these namespaces -->
|always_watch = User:Tamzin
|never_watch = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
|update_frequency = auto
}}
That would render as {{Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the {{{update_frequency}}} value.
Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"hint, TNT"—thank you but no -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what do I do? You're not my mom/s! El_C 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

[edit]

Hi, Tamzin! I was rummaging through the NPP archives and stumbled onto this discussion. First, my belated THANK YOU!! Second, please see 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)[reply]

Example male and Example female

[edit]

Hi Tamzin—hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you would be able to update User:Example male and User:Example female to use Special:GlobalPreferences to set their genders, instead of setting them locally? As an irrelevant aside, as I was writing this note, I realized I would ping both accounts. This made me curious: how many pings are they currently sitting at? Anyways, happy editing! HouseBlastertalk 22:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: Tamzin put this off for so long that I have gained sentience and done it myself. Example male (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope User:Example female gets possessed by the same spirit! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is as the prophecy foretold. Example female (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha please don't kill me but there's more to do. Apparently for the perference to take effect the account has to exist locally – would you be able to run m:User:Krinkle/Tools/Global SUL? #Sorrynotsorry HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Example male (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Example male and Example female, for your prompt response:)

Shame that meanie Tamzin couldn't do it themself and had to rely on your newly-gained sentience.[FBDB] Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article suggestion for talkpage watchers!

[edit]

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. This Time article gives an overview. Newspapers.comTWL has lots more. And there's scholarly coverage. My COI is relatively small (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)[reply]

bcc

[edit]

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

'zinbot question

[edit]

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)[reply]

Would this be a useful essay? Or is this topic either irrelevant or sufficiently covered?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Interesting

[edit]

[1] Drmies (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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.)
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, 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.
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)[reply]
I'd love to work on that cleanup project or start it! pauliesnug (message / contribs) 14:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent edit summary

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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 § Interesting for backstory on this. Feel free to join me! I'm starting with the results of this search. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a second opinion

[edit]

I am highly confident that 178.218.129.106 is a VPN server being abused by WP:LTA/BMN123, but before taking the somewhat intrusive step of reverts edits on a user talk page followed by a friendly advisement, I'd prefer someone else double check; frankly it might be better for a sysop to leave the advisement anyway.

As background, BMN123 has a habit of archiving talk page discussions that don't go their way which is to say all of them, and then placing NOINDEX tags on them. As just one example these discussions did not reach the result they wanted so they have been attempting to NOINDEX that page for some time, I suppose so that people are less likely to notice their slow motion edit warring against consensus. This is easily viewable in the page history. All of this is also documented on their LTA page. One of the more recent edits mentions the same user that 178.218.129.106 is attempting to influence. 103.115.17.30 also tried to NOINDEX one of the usual targets, and subsequently created the section 178.218.129.106 added to. The only slightly oddball thing is that 178.218.129.106 has been reused over a longer period than is typical of their non-mainspace use of proxies/VPNs, but that's not enough to cause me to doubt this one.

I think that's enough, but if you have some extra time you can feel free to review the LTA page in full. It's not as compact as say WP:LTA/TVFT, but the detail does serve a purpose and it even got excerpted in the signpost, so there's that. There's actually a lot more that was left off for various reasons, some of which is linked on the LTA talk page (e.g. [2], [3], [4]) along with many pieces that like this old AN discussion, there's other stuff on the LTA talk page too which I've used as a notebook of sorts until there's an edit request worth making, but it's a pretty deep rabbit hole, and I don't think you need to good down all of it to make the connection here.

Sorry to trouble you with this. Sideswipe9th was always the best at sniffing them out and is the first person I would think to ask, but their currently on wikibreak. Softlemonades and GeneralNotability were also at least as good as me, but they're not active either. I know you've managed to follow some incredible faint and confusing scent trails before so I trust your judgement on this.

If you need to follow-up I might be able too, but I really need to put my nose back to the grindstone soon, and the best way to avoid Wikipedia distraction is to go cold turkey, so we'll see. Thanks for any assistance you can render. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative culture

[edit]

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)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @JBW: I'd be interested in reading those thoughts. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@JBW: MY BROTHER! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: This is absolutely the place for it! :)
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.
"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 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Note: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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 <rule>. 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)[reply]
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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Some of us are much more approachable than others. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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. {{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)[reply]

Hamsa for you

[edit]
Hamsa for you
I am very happy to see you back. This Hamsa from Morocco will protect you from evil's eye. 👀 Maliner (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if the unblock process were good?

[edit]

Recent events have brought me to return to an idea I've tinkered with on and off since last September: completely overhauling the unblock system. I'm now ready to unveil User:Tamzin/wild ideas/Unsucking unblocks and begin workshopping it. Pings to @Deepfriedokra, JBW, Beeblebrox, Elli, theleekycauldron, Asilvering, Significa liberdade, Chaotic Enby, and MJL. Feedback welcome on the draft's talk page. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Special Barnstar
Thank you for alerting me of the problem with my mass importation yesterday. I'm quite new to this whole importing thing and probably would not have learned this quite basic fact without your help. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating the Fine Fare (disambig) page again

[edit]

There's a chain in the U.S. Aren't we trying to be encyclopedic and current? thanks Shelter3 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
For taking up the mop again. I knew you had your reasons for resigning the tools, and I didn't question them, but at the same time I hoped that one day you would come back to the admin corps, because you are in my opinion an unqualified asset to it. Only recently did I see that that day had come and I had somehow missed it. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

your close is fine

[edit]

I was mainly concerned at the potential dragging of the OP and typed that up very quickly. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 07:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for sure. I just didn't want to waste the joke now that I had it written out. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the joke, good humor. You made my day great. Cheers. :) ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 07:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That joke was good indeed, but you should be blocked because jokes have no place on Wikipedia.<ref>you</ref> The AP (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because jokes have no place on wikipedia.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Six months in the content mines for you! whip crack theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, @Claudia, you have no idea what you've just done. It's just now become set: The first person to block me on enwiki was Coren. Very shortly thereafter, he was elected to ArbCom. The next person to block me (on my alt that time) was HJ Mitchell. He ran for ArbCom a year or two later, and was elected. So that's a 100% correlation. Now, I know that on January 6 of your first term, the idea of a guaranteed reelection sounds like a blessing, not a curse, but... well let's check in in a year. Or after PIA5 closes. :D -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
noted! 'scuse me while i snag intadmin perms so i can make you go block yourself 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that one hundred percent of people who conflate correlation and causation eventually die? Beeblebrox Beebletalks 08:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

[edit]
It's indeed spelled "lede." 
The AP  (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey

[edit]

what the heck is the "evil eye"? Much wikieditor (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayin hara. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh dear Much wikieditor (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

End Poem FAC?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
oh my. Hoping you recover swiftly. BarntToust 21:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 scatterbrained. Again, my sincerest wishes for your speedy recovery! BarntToust 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Is 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)[reply]
@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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Washingtonian

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Tamzin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Washingtonian, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced and unbalanced editors

[edit]

Hi Tamzin, I've taken your invitation to your talk page as being broadly constructed, so here I am. As the mastermind behind the balanced editing sceheme (excuse the crude language, I'll refer to it as a scheme until put into use) is it possible to see any data on balanced and unbalanced editors, more generally? I don't know if this would need to be discussed elsewhere prior to making public etc, but a list of the most active users and how balanced or unbalanced their editing is in certain CTOPs would be interesting/useful if I'm honest. Even if only for personal interest based on my own editing habits for example. Maybe even just a search function integrated somewhere, somehow? At least if I remember correctly, you had some form of prototype in action, but I cba to find it again tbh. CNC (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor: Sorry for the belated reply here. You can use toolforge:n-ninety-five to query any editor's rate of PIA edits over other content edits, but due to technical limitations this doesn't work for any other topic area. -- 'zin[is short for Tamzin] 19:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fun fact

[edit]

One time I voted almost the opposite. Polygnotus (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

[edit]

This is at FAR now (also courtesy ping for Guerillero). As an aside, I recently drove the Beltway for the first time myself - not a enjoyable experience. I know a number of people who seriously believe that Springfield, Missouri has some of the worst traffic in the country; I wonder what they would think of the Beltway. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not driven in D.C. since the day I moved away. It's Hell. I visit often, but I always drive to the Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Railroad Station and take the train in.
City driving in general, I hate. I really only tolerate it for brief trips into Atlantic City, Wilmington, and Philly, and I was regretting that today in Philly as I had five near-miss collisions in bumper-to-bumper traffic at the airport. Fuck city driving. The only traffic we get on my little island is along the Washington Street Mall due to pedestrians, and that can be driven around. (And to pay my tax on this otherwise FORUMy comment, I've just rescoped that article.)
Anyways, thanks for the heads-up. I've left a comment at the FAR. I'm not super active at the moment but I could see that being a good project to monotask. Guess we'll see. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having driven in several countries, I think the DC beltway at the peak of rush hour is a special circle of hell -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME vs MOS:GENDERID

[edit]

Oh great and favorite nonbinary admin who would probably make a good arbitrator except for the minor fact that it would probably kill them.... What's the current scoop on titling biographical articles where the common name does not reflect the current gender identity? WP:COMMONNAME seems to say "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)" while MOS:GENDERID quoth "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." Bolding mine, to point out that's pretty close to a contradiction. Which is it? Or do we Judgement of Solomon and title the article with the common name, while referring to the person with the most recent self-identification name inside it?

Specifically I'm worried about Rosalarian currently titled Megan Rose Gedris. I wrote them asking to release an image, and they wrote back saying what they really wanted was to be called Ro Salarian; yes, the two word form. (And haven't licensed an image so we can use it either, sigh... I am still going to try to help them, but I reserve the right to sigh about it!) The common name is MRG; I'm looking for independent, reliable sources for RS, and it's clearly less used (third, after MRG, first, and the single word form Rosalarian, second). I'm asking them for such sources that I couldn't find, but if they can't provide them? --GRuban (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: I have taken any gender-based preference in name (even if it's not a stereotypical M→F or F→M change) to trigger MOS:DEADNAME, and I have taken MOS:DEADNAME to trump COMMONNAME—at least, when the common name is a deadname—based on how strictly it is worded. I think that's how others have interpreted it at RM too.
For my thoughts on why this entire approach sucks, though, see User:Tamzin/wild ideas/Disfavored name. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 23:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Of course MOS:DEADNAME is the same shortcut as MOS:GENDERID, and a guideline, while WP:COMMONNAME is a policy ... but COMMONNAME only says "generally", while GENDERID does not. So I'll go with that. Can you cite a couple of those RM discussions? (I'm not happy with your Disfavored name suggestion, not least because of what we'd have to call half of the people on List of impostors, List of messiah claimants, etc., but that's a side matter.) --GRuban (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I can think of high-profile cases like Elliot Page, but there, the chosen name and the common name tend to equalize very quickly. For a case with a lower-profile person who sourced hadn't caught up on, Talk:Angela Zimmerman § Requested move 30 September 2021 is one that comes to mind. (She later changed her name again, and that time I just moved it boldly and no one challenged.) I don't do a huge amount of RM work so I'm struggling to think of other examples. It seems like the sort of thing @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist or @Funcrunch might know though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. My watchlist is currently dominated by Trump EOs and the like, but I'll let you know if I think of any relevant examples. Funcrunch (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article moved to Ro Salarian, citing her own website, hope it sticks. Thank you both. --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tarsier of Wisdom
Congratulations, you discovered the Tarsier of Wisdom! It looks perpetually shocked by its own insights. Polygnotus (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The SPI Clerk Barnstar
Yes... ha ha
ha... yes!
– SilverLocust 💬 01:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huge news! I was going to say your first trick should be sorting out the Galamore stuff, but you're one step ahead of my joke... HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i am agog, i am aghast / has tamzin returned to SPI at last? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are a ghast? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:O  theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Another one, for your great efforts with regard to the new SPI-case. Highly appreciated! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
You never cease to amaze me. Your depth of review and diligence in breaking down user behavior is insanely awesome. Thank you as well. I need to work on not seeing ghosts as you mentioned :) Appreciate you! Kbhatt22 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
I came here to send a barnstar for your work at SPI and am happy to see I'm not the first person to do so. 😊💎
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review a block

[edit]

Hello, would you be willing to review the block I received? I believe the admin should have been considered too involved as we have had in disputes in the past. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: I can take a look, tonight or tomorrow; obviously can't promise that you'll like my answer, but I do believe a claim of involvèdness should be taken seriously. Could you elaborate as to which disputes y'all've had that make him involved? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The block is gone so there is no hurry. I won't list every single content dispute [5] [6] [7] but these are the ones where I believe a low opinion of me is presented through either an edit summary or the content. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Those do look like content-based disputes. Reverting content edits that one perceives as disruptive can be a bit of a gray area on INVOLVED, but I would personally consider this to be on the wrong side of that gray area, at least from my initial look here. @Schwede66: I know you to be a good admin, so I'm going to loop you in here and ask if you have thoughts, in search of an amicable solution. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tamzin, New Zealand is a small country where people know each other. I reckon I know about 100 editors in person through editathons, online meetings, or WikiCons. This out of an active editor base of currently 480. People know that I’m an admin and they frequently come to me directly with their Wiki problems. Traumnovelle is the number 1 editor who I receive complaints about. The other week, I had two editors within 24 hours complain about them on separate issues. I’ve tried many a time to convey to them that their aggressive style is causing concern, but the complaints keep coming. This is a shame as I see a lot potential in Traumnovelle being a great editor, they would just have to funnel their energy to useful work rather than creating all that trouble. If they took up Gadfium's suggestion, many of the concerns would go away. Schwede66 13:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: It may well be the case that admin intervention was needed here. I'm not familiar enough with the background to question your or Gadfium's assessment there. I'm more querying whether it would have been better to take this to AN/I given your past interactions regarding content. That's a genuine question; I haven't really formed an opinion of this yet, just trying to understand the dynamics. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much as possible, I try to stay away from the drama boards. My preference is to sort things locally, i.e. within NZ. Whilst I have certainly had discussions with Traumnovelle about content issues in the past, I issued the block because of the ongoing disruption caused by the aggressive editing approach. As such, I felt that I was not INVOLVED. However, if others (e.g. you) think that this isn't the case, and it either falls into a grey area or even tends to be more on the INVOLVED side than not, then I shall issue an apology and refrain from further admin actions. Schwede66 04:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: I hate the drama boards too, so I get that. I think my assessment here is that it's not always INVOLVED to take admin actions against someone whose edits you've reverted, and it's not always INVOLVED to take admin actions in a topic area you heavily edit content in, but doing both at once is probably INVOLVED. I'm not going to sit in judgment—it's up to @Traumnovelle whether they want to ask for some community review of the block—but I personally wouldn't have blocked under the same circumstances in a topic area I edit heavily. In practical terms, it's one of those things where, if you're right on the merits, probably people don't care, but if you're wrong, it can wind up at ArbCom. And I don't pretend to be able to predict the whims of AN(/I) to judge which of y'all (or both) would be judged in the wrong here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just closing the loop on this. I have issued an apology and Traumnovelle has accepted it. Thanks for looking into this, and for sharing your wisdom. Schwede66 21:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin, we've chatted briefly on IRC a few years ago. You can see on Traumnovelle's talk page that they have been warned for disruptive editing by both myself and Schwede66, and also by several others. I suggested to them about 9 days ago that they "consider a voluntary agreement to avoid redirecting, renaming or nominating articles for deletion", but their reply did not address this request.User talk:Traumnovelle#Taipa-Mangonui I think if they continue on their current path they will see an escalating series of blocks. I would regret that necessity, as they do add good content.-Gadfium (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal closed

[edit]

I know you saw, but in case it needs documenting somewhere, your self-imposed ban raised pursuant to your RfA is removed with the clear support of the community. Question, is xeir the appropriate possessive pronoun? Google seems to indicate it varies per person (despite preferred pronouns turning into a dogwhistle), and I know you're comfortable with on wiki usage of the they suite so went with that for clarity. Please do let me know if you'd like me to edit that Star Mississippi 03:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to be an influencer, but for the record:

  • Credit for introducing this to Wikipedia does not go to me: Special:Diff/7001612
  • Credit for introducing this to Wiktionary does not go to me: wikt:Special:Diff/737371
  • Credit for coining these definitely does not go to me, despite what I've seen said over the years.
  • Wiktionary initially had these traced back to the 1990s. However, Don Rickter xyrself (wikt:User:Wordwrestler) came directly to Wiktionary to correct that: wikt:Special:Diff/6460384
  • Rickter died last year. Xyr obituary credits xem with the coinage.
  • Our article on neopronouns is missing most of the 1960s and 1970s. Rickter would be disappointed in us, especially as xe once pointed out 1970s coverage of these things in TIME. I do laugh at people still regarding the 1970s as "neo".
  • Our article on gender-neutral pronouns credits Rickter whilst citing a 2000s source that does not have Rickter's name in it. It could be improved by citing Mario Pei who actually named Rickter in 1978 in Weasel Words. Pei also told us how they were pronounced, almost 50 years ago.
  • I would like to see that 1973-05-01 edition of United Nations World, to see what it said and who wrote it, and whether Pei got the name of the magazine wrong. United Nations World (rather than Unitarian Universalist World) seems to have been a magazine in the middle 20th century, lost in the noise of many later publications. In any event, Rickter claimed an earlier first use in 1971. So I suspect either that, as Pei implies, that United Nations World is actually a 1973 source documenting Rickter from 1971, or Pei misattributed Rickter xyrself writing in 1973 in Unitarian Universalist World (although Rickter said 1971 for that).
  • By the time that they reached me, and as recorded in that 2000 source, Rickter's "xen" and "xes" had become "xem" and "xyr". I found the 1997 quotation for "xem" that is still on Wiktionary today, and I suspect that "xem" and "xyr" are Usenet coinages from the 1990s that displaced Rickter's original objective and possessive forms. I had no clue that they existed when I learned "xem" and "xyr".

Uncle G (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • [8] Fram (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cohen 1976, p. 159 is a useful source, and it cites Silverman 1973, pp. 235–236 as its source. But there's an independent record of Rickter's actual proposal that concurs with Pei 1978, p. 145 on the spelling of the objective case:

      The following are excerpts from letters to The Unitarian Universalist Christian:

      "I propose a new word "xe" (pronounced zee) meaning "he or she." It is the singular form of "they," which is of indeterminate sex. "Xe" is not sexless: "it" is the neuter pronoun. The objective case of the new pronoun is "xen" (zen) and the possessive, "xes" (pronounced zez)."

      "I propose that the husband of Ms. Jane Smith be referred to as Mrr. Jane Smith (Mrr. is pronounced Murrer)."

      Thank you for your time.
      — Donald O. Rickter, Arlington, Massachusetts

      — "Retorts & Reactions". American Laboratory. 6. International Scientific Communications, Incorporated: 86. 1974.
      And if you track it back, it seems like this is a mistranscription by David L. Silverman in an earlier Word Ways. Silverman wasn't used to the words of course, and used "xemselves" instead of "xemself" too, as corrected by a correspondent in Silverman 1974, p. 55. "them" → "xen". "themselves" → "xenself". It does hint that "xem" might have been around earlier than 1990s Usenet. So clearly the challenge to others is to beat my find of 1997 running prose usage. ☺

      I've used Rickter's original, preferred, pronunciation that xe related to Silverman, by the way; again before I even learned about Rickter.

      Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


A little help

[edit]

I've imposed a balanced editing restriction in PIA, which I've logged, and then I looked for instructions on whether I was supposed to do anything else to make the edit filter work as intended? I looked for someone else imposing one so I could go quietly copy what they'd done, thereby allowing me to pretend I knew all along what I was doing, but didn't find one. Valereee (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Nope, you appear to be the first! So, the filter works on its own; nothing for you to do technically. I'd just make sure that the user understands that 1) outside of the four listed namespaces and their own userspace, this is a TBAN, 2) the percentage part doesn't apply till 30 days from now, and 3) they can use n-ninety-five to track their percentage. Percentage is defined in technical terms, so n-ninety-five is strictly correct, not just an estimate (unless I fucked up the coding on it...). Also it needs some beautification—none of the arbs/clerks took me up on my offer to transfer ownership, so I guess I've gotta do that—but it should get the job done for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe should put this in a template somewhere, but just jotting down some serviceable copy for now.

You are subject to a balanced editing restriction for the next <TIME>. Please read that section in full, and keep the following points in mind:

  1. The topic-ban portion of the restriction, which applies outside of the main, talk, draft, and draft talk namespaces, except in your userspace, applies immediately, and works like any other topic ban.
  2. The percentage-based portion becomes relevant 30 days from now.
  3. You can track your PIA editing percentage manually, by dividing your hits on Filter 1339 by your total edits to the four tracked namespaces; or with the tool n-ninety-five, which automates that process (source code).

This action is appealable to <VENUE>.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re point #1...I'm trying to find discussion of this, what's the reasoning behind 'this is a topic ban that applies everywhere outside the topic itself but within the topic only applies to the percentage'? Valereee (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Idk if it was discussed on-wiki, but I think the reasoning was that on a technical level, it would have been much harder to track whether projectspace/etc. edits were PIA-related, and someone who needs to have their PIA content editing restricted probably shouldn't be spending much time in internal discussions about the topic area either. Courtesy ping Elli. (That said, not sure what you mean by "everywhere outside the topic itself".) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: everywhere outside the topic itself -- I was thinking places like AfD, NPOVN, RSPN. Valereee (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee The idea was basically that there's some editors who, if they can, will spend a lot of time arguing in the topic area and doing nothing particularly productive -- avoiding the line of "clearly disruptive" but not on net improving things. Lowering the rate of their edits in the area would therefore hopefully improve things, while still letting them contribute to an area they care a lot about. Given these concerns, it's preferable to make them focus on content instead of on backroom debates. Hopefully that makes sense. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you! Valereee (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, @Valereee, I think technically you can't just put "appealable to AE". In PIA, ArbCom has exceptionally given us the option of making blocks appealable to ARCA only, but I don't think there's an option to allow AE but disallow AN. I was thinking about this the other day, because in my block of Nutriiguy (talk · contribs) I didn't think it was a good case to go to AN review, but would have been fine with letting it go to AE... But, my options being what they were, I chose ARCA only. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm...the reason I put AE was exactly the same as your thinking: not a great case for AN, but an excellent one for AE and wouldn't really require ARCA. Pinging @Barkeep49 and @ScottishFinnishRadish as likely to have this info at their fingertips, can you confirm that it's not kosher to designate a BER as appealable to AE (obiously implying not to AN?) so if there's going to be a designated appeal spot it must be ARCA? And would "to AE or ARCA" also be ruled out? Valereee (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least at the,moment I'm unaware of any way to allow ae but not an and so yes you should probably go arca. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Guidance

[edit]

Hello, since you are an administrator, I would appreciate your guidance. I have nearly 3000 edits on faWikipedia and I would like to focus more on English Wikipedia for a while. I have a question: where can I find edits related to wars and historical battles that interest me? Is there a way to use the content translation tool on English Wikipedia without having confirmed access? Additionally, I want to improve an article from faWikipedia to a good article status on English Wikipedia. Can you guide me in this process? Delta-light (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Delta-light: Your first question is a great one to ask at WP:MILHIST. As to content translation, I believe you can use Special:ContentTranslation if you set the target page as something in your userspace? Then you can move the page to article-space once you've fixed all the errors that tend to come up in that process. As to getting an article to GA, well, write the article first, and then I can take a look. Although one of the MILHIST people may be better equipped to help you on that too. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. That article is not related to the war and has existed before. I am currently editing and aligning it with the Fa version.Qabus-nama Delta-light (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPI investigation

[edit]

Hello, I just recently (few hours ago) found out that there was an SPI investigation about me. You closed it as "Closed per above, without prejudice against reöpening/rehearing if more detailed evidence is provided."

I am not saying your close was wrong under the circumstances and I think you were acting in good faith. However, I do disagree with it.

Like I wrote on the SPI case topic, if you look at my IP, you will see I do most of my edits/posts from a static residential IP owned by an ISP. Sometimes I edit from a phone, so all the mobile edits should be from an IP range owned by the same ISP/telephone company (different than my residential ISP). They will all be in the same geographic range. Sometimes around the holidays you might see edits from a different geographic location. Which brings me to my second point, if you look into my contributions you will see I demonstrate knowledge of two languages other than English, and both languages correspond to the geographic areas of my IPs. [9] [10] It would be a crazy coincidence if the person banned for sockpuppetry also spoke the same three languages, but I don't think that is the case.

I think the SPI case against me should be closed with extreme prejudice and I kindly ask that my name be taken off the cases list so as not to prejudice other editors against me in the future.

This is a serious allegation and I feel it necessary to defend myself against the accusation. On the SPI case editors are talking like it could be possible and pointing to edits in same topic areas broadly construed. I know for a fact how ridiculous the accusation is, but then I read editors taking it seriously, so I hope I have said enough in my defense to put the matter to rest. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who accused me of being a sockpuppet has also made a close request on an ANI involving me, saying "This case is ready for administrative resolution and should be addressed promptly, as it could impact multiple recent closures. Thanks!" I feel they're trying to rush the process to get the desired result that they didn't achieve with the SPI.
On the SPI topic they made the comment "The way things are going, I suspect this won't be an issue much longer."[1] I take issue with how gleeful they sound. I haven't done anything to this person, like what the hell? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TurboSuperA+: Since I reclosed one of the RfCs at issue, and the RfC issue and SPI issue seem to be getting intertwined, I'll be recusing from anything further at the SPI. That said, I'll throw a ping Nemov's way to express my view, just one editor to another, that that SPI comment was uncool. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I respect your wish to recuse yourself from the discussion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax#c-Nemov-20250228132500-Pbritti-20250226163900

Why was my article delted

[edit]

you deleted my article on User:LesleyPerales/sandbox and I am not sure why there is no advertisement. This is a page for George Prajin the record label executive his artists have wiki pages about them (Peso Pluma, Tito Double P, Santa Fe Klan, etc). I am not promoting music or anything besides providing information on how George started his career and became the managers of these artists. LesleyPerales (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LesleyPerales: Sorry, I have a personal rule that I don't use my volunteer time to give editing advice to people who are paid to edit. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. If the PR firm you work for is unfamiliar with those policies, you should ask your bosses to read them too, before the next time they assign a task like this to someone. Before you make any other edits, you need to come into full compliance with the paid-contribution disclosure rules. Once you've done that, if you would like advice on non-promotional writing, please see The Teahouse. Many editors there don't mind helping paid editors. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker, eh?

[edit]

Interesting article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I suppose I tempted fate by saying here that no one had ever contacted me for a quote based on knowing me personally, because, a few days later, I got an email from Margaret, who's a friend of my mom's. When she said it was official business for The New Yorker, I was hoping she wanted to talk to me about my love for diaereses, but no, just boring Wikipedia stuff. We talked for like an hour. Interesting that, of all the things I said, the two quotable bits were explaining how the volunteer editing works and talking about how it's not fun to block good-faith editors. I had some spicier comments about the way we cover politics, but I guess that didn't fit the direction the piece went in the end. Not that I'm complaining. My only complaint is that she had an easy chance to write something about Wikipedians "coöperating" but didn't.
P.S. Todos: The New Yorker style guide and The New Yorker fact-checking department. Not sure where they stand on PAGEDECIDE, but both definitely pass GNG. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Swedish people, "coöperating" looks very weird, and my immediate assumption is that there's probably some humorous intent in writing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've been stalking @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: today, regarding Mike Howell {https://www.heritage. org/border-security/commentary/how-feds-use-charities-hide-the-true-cost-the-us-border-crisis} {https://www.heritage. org/staff/mike-howell} and the New Yorker article, but came here for the diaeresis. Coöperating is almost exclusively a New Yorker thing these days. I might have seen a "reelected" (with the thingee) once or twice, but can't remember any other word with it. It is very old-fashioned in any case. My first exposure to it was way back in 5th grade. My new school district was replacing FDR-era civics (or social studies) textbooks and gave away the old books to students. "Coöperation" was everywhere in it! In the old school they'd gone back to the Nathan Hale/Johnny Appleseed version of civics, so this was completely new to me (including the spelling). It was funny though, the next year they gave away a textbook from the Progressive era called Heroes and Heroines. It was the first time I ever heard of Jane Addams or Horace Mann, but they didn't use either version of coöperation. I figured the word was only invented after 1920 or so.
Tazmin - if you want to comment for The Signpost about the Mike Howell comment in the New Yorker, I'd love to see it (or about anything else in the NYer article). Please send 1 or 2 sentences to my talk page, or better yet, via email. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Tamzin's video, coöperating suddenly makes sense. Without the dots, it's just one of those English spelling/pronouncing things you have to know by heart. Sean Bean had a spleen-machine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Join us! (Also as confusing actor vowel pronunciations go, Moon Bloodgood /muːn blʌdgʊd/ beats Sean Bean.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continues at User talk:Smallbones § In re Howell. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones Another word with "it" is naïve. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although that's a loanword, so considerably more common than the old-timeÿ usage for prefixes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an old-fashioned diacritic usage that The New Yorker is almost unique in retaining. See [11] for a good overview of how it differs from Swedish or Germann, and [12] for its usage at The New Yorker. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was strangely interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For fellow talkpage stalkers: the article in question is "Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia". Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

I won't pretend that I'm not still bothered by what you wrote here and here because it very much in fact does. I still don't understand why you would treat me like that. It hurts and I expected better from you. I've been told that you're hurting too and I'm sorry for that. I wish none of this ever happened. My sense of pride seems to have lost me a friend today and that also hurts. Wikipedia meant so much to be on a personal level and I don't know what to think anymore. I just want to stop feeling like this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: I also wish none of this ever happened. I was sick to my stomach for days after this, and it still stings thinking about it now. You're a good person, a good editor, and a good admin, and so I don't want to see you in pain, and I don't want to see you in a position where you feel you need to stay away from something you enjoy.
As to why I made those comments, I'd encourage you to reëvaluate our interactions surrounding the article from the perspective not of us being friends, not of us being colleagues, but of you being my biographer, someone in a position of great power over my reputation. Let's also acknowledge that both of us were in a difficult position at the moment things fell apart: The article was being actively trolled by a sitting administrator (not a personal attack; by his own admission his goal in worsening the article was to upset me), and that's not a situation I've ever been in before, nor, I imagine, one you've been in. Hell, just writing it feels incredibly 2008. So, going back to power dynamics, the talkpage comment you take issue with came when I felt the most powerless, because that same administrator was arguing that I shouldn't even be requesting corrections to the article, trying to take away the only power I had left in that situation. There's nothing I said there that I think was inappropriate for a BLP subject to say in advocating for themself, but the harshness of my tone was directed about 99% at him. I'm sorry if it seemed I was as upset with you as with him. I was somewhat upset with you, but it's roughly the difference between how you'd feel toward someone who accidentally trips you and then doesn't help you up, versus someone who runs over and kicks you in the ribs while you're down.
That's answering as your biography subject and as your colleague. If you want to talk about this as a friend or acquaintance, you know how to get in touch with me. No pressure. But I hope you know that at no point in this have I been upset with you as a friend. So if you want to talk, I'm around. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing I said there that I think was inappropriate for a BLP subject to say in advocating for themself is something I disagree with. I think how you acted was a possible WP:ADMINCOND issue. I do not want to talk to you in private in any capacity because quite frankly, I do not trust you to treat me fairly. You crossed lines with your comments. I've tried to be understanding because you're clearly upset and there are mitigating circumstances, but that doesn't mean stuff like this should be thrown out the window. Being a biography subject doesn't give you the right to act like you're not a Wikipedian... I've never acted that way. Part of why I thought it was a good choice for me to be the person to write about you in the first place was because I didn't consider you a friend and I did not vote in your RfA (which was relevant for a few sentences of the article). I also have the experience of being written about on Wikipedia. You had every right to change your mind and request deletion as a borderline notable figure, but that doesn't make everything else okay. In the future, I'd suggest that if you don't want someone to think you're upset at them instead of someone else, you don't vaguely threaten just them with ANI. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Wikipedian, Hannah. Not first and foremost. First and foremost I'm a mostly-private person living on a small island in New Jersey who you chose to write a Wikipedia article about. A person with a family. A person with a reputation. A person with enemies, some deserved, some not. A person who has already been mischaracterized twice in scholarly and news media. And you were my biographer, with a sacred duty to get the facts right. You need to realize how much power you have. As a biographer, as an administrator, as one of the most respected members of this community. There is no equivalence here. One of your best attributes is how down-to-Earth you are. Here, though, you need to realize that you are important, that I am not your equal, not when you're dictating how the world will see me when they Google me.
Maybe it's hard to see yourself that way. Maybe you're not used to being the one with great power and great responsibility. But you are. I hope you can accept that great responsibility. If not, you should let go of that great power until you can. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed realize how important it is to write about BLPs accurately and it's why I was so diligent in addressing any feedback you had to the extent that SD0001 said that "Tamzin is essentially writing the article by proxy". [13] You have to realize that you are not the most neutral observer about yourself and that's alright. None of us are. But while it is important to get the facts right, I did not act so terribly that it would harm your reputation. I spent so much time trying to fulfill that "sacred duty" until you implied I was incompetent and had to take a break for the sake of my own wellbeing. When I provided an explanation for why I suddenly stopped responding to feedback because you were obviously frustrated about that too, you implied I had somehow done something worthy of action at ANI. I am not failing to accept some "great responsibility". I was serious about how your actions could constitute an WP:ADMINCOND issue. I encourage you to ask for other people's opinions because obviously I have a stake in this too at this point. I think that enough has happened that this can safely be filed as a "occasional mistake" but it was indeed a mistake. I can tell you were upset by everything, really I can. You have no idea how much I was affected by all of this too. What I shared with the world was but a small sliver of it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both. Can I suggest you both draw a line under this thread? I don't see this discussion generating an outcome that either of you want. A decision has been reached on the topic, and so what we're left with is the hurt. Take a step back, take whatever time you need, leave each other be until you're both in a better place. WormTT(talk) 12:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Agree. This situation deserves some time and a continued application of good faith from the entire community. Dropping the stick is highly suggested. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was already planning to step back after I wrote the comment above. I wrote what I needed to say for a sense of closure, since I still care about this like a month later. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible 1RR violation

[edit]

I believe this is a 1RR violation, but I'm not entirely sure.

Could you check if it is? Thank you. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1RR enforcement is not my specialty, especially in cases like this where the question is whether a removal counts as a revert or not. I recommend asking another AE admin. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will do, thanks for taking a look. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of Provisional Topic Ban

[edit]

Hi Tamzin,

I hope you are doing well. I am reaching out regarding the provisional topic ban imposed on me concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. I apologize for my lack of response in the arbitration enforcement thread; I have been traveling in Asia, which has limited my ability to engage with the community.

I understand that there are concerns about my editing patterns and the allegations of potential sockpuppetry. I want to assure you that I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and contributing constructively. My recent increase in edits was not intended to game the system, but rather to engage with topics I am passionate about. I recognize that my editing style may have raised flags, and I am open to feedback on how I can improve my contributions.

I would like to respectfully appeal the sanction and request the opportunity to reopen the thread to provide my perspective on the concerns raised. I believe that with clearer communication and understanding, I can align my editing with community expectations. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response. Best regards,

BePrepared1907 (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, like I said, this is a no-fault topic ban. People have lives off-wiki after all. Speaking of which, I can't reopen the thread at this exact second, but I'll sort it when I'm back home in a few hours. (To be clear, though, the provisional TBAN will stand till the thread closes. I thought about making it just till it reopens, but then the issue is, what if you go inactive again?) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claytonxyz Sock Puppet Investigation

[edit]

Hi @Tamzin I see that your messaged me there. As it's now closed, I'll reply to you here if it's ok. Sorry that I didn't use the correct protocols, it was the first time I was contributing to a SPI.

There's a lot more to this than a regular SPI. I didn't know anything about any of this and only stumbled upon it by chance because I added something to the BLP noticeboard and there was something about Gaurav Srivastava immediately above it which I read while I was there. It led me to spend too much time down this rabbit hole and this is what I've been able to ascertain:

2 business partners had a falling out and it turned ugly. In terms of Srivastava there were news articles about him last summer highlighting his misdeeds and this culminated in the Wall St Journal piece. This allowed the anti-Srivastava camp to create the Wikipedia article that was called "Gaurav Srivastava Scandal" and also add negative content about Srivastava to a bunch of other articles here. But then Pro-Srivastava UPE/Sockpuppets (Acmeism.Data & TurkishElsa) tried to set the record staight and were blocked. So the scandal article stayed up until it was taken down by Smartse in January. Just after this, Joaquienstallfesh, rebooted it and this is basically where we are now. There is also a draft page pertaining to the other person in the story Draft:Niels Troost which was also plagued by sock puppets editing it.

No one here is innocent and the real victim is Wikipedia as they use it to throw shade at each other.

There was an article in December where Srivastava said he was a victim of a disinformation campaign but at this point it's more or less impossible to know what is going on. It's all such as mess which is what Apocheir said when creating the SPI. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

[edit]
For cleaning up and hiding some very creepy revisions in Talk:Nina Dobrev. I hope this pie fills your brain with enough calories to keep going! OpalYosutebito (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CTOP vs ARBPIA5

[edit]

So, working at AE has opened up whole new vistas of things I don't understand well enough. Before I do something that gets me desysopped, I'm trying to wrap my head around what I can and can't do as an individual admin action, and the difference between Arab-Israeli conflict as a CTOP and ARBPIA5 as a non-CTOP arb remedy such as this kind of thing is making my head spin. So if you'd blocked this editor instead of warning, I as an individual admin couldn't, say, respond to an unblock request because I need your explicit prior affirmative consent, is that what I'm beginning to grasp? And that's true only for individual admin actions placed as non-CTOP arb enforcement? Which confusingly enough sounds just like AE, where CTOPs are handled, but is not the same. Valereee (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Dear Lord. I've gone cross-eyed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It took me ten minutes to even write that. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I don't doubt it. I dabbled in that CTOP/AE stuff, but no more. Life's too short. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like the work, but there's definitely a lot to understand. Valereee (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I'll preëmptively drop a ping to Barkeep49 in case I misstate this, but my understanding is:

  • Most admin actions can be overturned by any other admin, although prior discussion with the blocking admin is advised, and consensus is required if the user has already been unblocked and reblocked with no intervening change in circumstance.
  • Direct enforcement of an ArbCom remedy (e.g. ArbCom says "user X is banned"; a clerk blocks) can only be appealed to ArbCom.
  • Discretionary enforcement of a case-level sanction (e.g. ArbCom says "user X is TBANned"; I block for a violation) can be appealed according to that case' appeals provision, which are almost(?) always Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: appeals and modifications. This provision requires the blocking admin's consent or "clear and substantial consensus" at AE or AN.
  • A discretionary CTOP sanction (e.g. ArbCom says "Y is a CTOP"; I block user X for edit-warring in Y) can be appealed according to Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. While procedurally unrelated to the standard appeals provision, in practice it's almost identical. It also requires the blocking admin's consent or "clear consensus" at AE or AN (note the slightly lower standard).
    • ArbCom also can modify this for a given CTOP. I think the ARCA-appeal provision for PIA is the only time they've done this?
  • There's a few other kinds of block that can't be overturned unilaterally, but none relevant here.
Sidenote, to any arbs

blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions in the standard provision should probably say blocks placed by administrators for violation of committee-imposed editing restrictions. While I know what is intended, if read literally, 1) it's unclear how that scope differs from the subsequent sanctions directly authorized by the committee, the language used in the next clause to define what isn't covered, and 2) it leaves out blocks that enforce restrictions imposed by motion; I've made at least one of those.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all reads correctly to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think the Committee has ever departed from the standard appeals and modifications provision. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all! Extremely helpful! Valereee (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wiki? and You've got Mail

[edit]

Hello, I shot you a email last night and just wanted to notify you.

I also ran across your profile on the simple.wikipedia.org page and noticed you may want to update this I was an admin here from May 2022 to February 2024. since the end date isn't correct anymore, obviously :-)

Oddly enough, the Wikipedia app on Android saves Simple Wikipedia articles alongside en.wikipedia articles, so when I ran across an article that had been removed here as an attack page but was still partially showing there but equally as bad it created a lot of confusion until I realized it's two entirely separate projects.

Awshort (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a few emails behind right now, but will get back to you in the next few days. And thanks for the heads-up; I've updated meta:User:Tamzin, which the simplewiki page transcludes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

I’ve read several of the articles you’ve written, and am now more surprised and saddened than I was a few hours ago.

There is not a syllable in what I wrote that should have made someone as bright as you think that I had commented on whether or not deaths might be saddening -- or tragic, or heartbreaking. I very plainly suggested that an editor weeping over his workstation might be an editor who doesn’t comply with NPOV, and further that when a weeping editor has no hesitation in making his feelings known in writing, it shows at least some disregard for the appearance of allowing emotional values into their editing work. If none of this came through then I’m just a shitty writer -- something I’m very open minded about.

I’ve read your comments multiple times and what comes across is your genuine outrage that anyone would have an issue with people being sad about human death. And who wouldn't. Truth is, “every man’s death diminishes me (etc.)” I’m not asking for your clemency as much as I am asking that you yourself have another read of what I said -- to search for what I think is the very unremarkable take, that I was merely saying that WP is not a place where your emotions should play a role in your editing, and that this might provide some rationale for the other items in my report.

Good luck. Nice meeting you. Johnadams11 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Johnadams11. If you have comments related to the open AE threads, please leave them at AE. The thread about you is probably the better one to post this in, even though the comment at issue is in the thread you filed, since the former is where the decision will be made on whether to sanction you. You're already past the word limit, but I grant you a 238-word extension (the length of the above comment) to respond on the topic of the "sadly" diff and your reaction to it; that can be a repost of this comment, or something new. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typos mass deletion from the past

[edit]

Hey Tamzin, hope you're well. I can't find the discussion that happened before, but, if I recall, you deleted quite a few typo redirects at one point that a user was mass creating, as they were deemed unlikely (I believe). If I recall properly, they were essentially switching letters around in words and I've found a similar thing happening. I wanted to get your thoughts on whether some of the redirects listed here should be sent to RfD or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Special:DeletedContributions/Raynore329? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one! Thank you! Some of those match the kind of redirect that are being created by this new user, so I'll probably end up making a nom at some point at RfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may remember Kyle Keeler

[edit]

I noticed he got a little shout-out in this report: "Separately, there have also been similar campaigns to erase Native American history." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted!

[edit]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Trouted for putting everyone under BER BED! (Filter 1352) Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

N-95 tool

[edit]

It seemed stable before, but the latest version is not working as expected on my browser. For one example, pressing query multiple times gives different results. Drsmoo (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(passing-by user) I tried seeing what is wrong with the code, unsuccessfully, but I did find out that a lot (most) of the last results in the list it generates for you are filter hits by TarnishedPath, not by you... that certainly seems like a bug, not sure if they're related. – 2804:F1...7F:79A0 (::/32) (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what the problem is. Some variable's unintentionally retaining the last query's output. Gimme a sec... -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
v1.0.3 live. @Drsmoo & 79AO: Please let me know if you see any further issues. Other than the known issue with the moved-namespace edge case, which is... a whole thing, and above my paygrade now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA question

[edit]

Hi Tamzin, are GANs on current topics permissible? I'd like to nominate Kočani nightclub fire in a month or so after the media cycle has calmed down, but the fire took place on 16 March, so would that be too soon? Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher). Yes they are! The stability criteria of WP:GA? is actually relatively lax. The only thing that's needed is no edit warring. (Sometimes reviewers go beyond the criteria and argue against current events. If this happens, feel free to ping me). When you write about current events, do think about the WP:10YEARTEST test: are all the details still interesting if someone were to read it in 10 years, or 20 years? This is important for criterion 3b (WP:summary style). It's always a question on when the article is picked up by reviewers. It may be that it takes a few months, and in that time, new information may emerge. If it's a main aspect (3a), that will need to be added, ideally before a review starts. A few tips specific to the article: pyrotechnics is not a word that "understandable to a broad audience". The lead is likely on the short side. And finally, there are quite a few overly long paragraphs, which make the article challenging to read. Is all the information necessary? And/or: can they be split into easier-to-digest paragraphs? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke: Thanks for your in-depth response! I'll look into that. I think that most of the article will still be interesting in 10 years time because it is unprecedented in the history of North Macedonia and triggered mass protests. If it is not too much trouble, could you please point out some of these too-long paragraphs? I don't think I see the issue, and this would be useful. Best, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes an overly long paragraph is somewhat subjective: People disagree on it (see Quora. Some argue that paragraphs should be under a 100 words, others say they should typically be under 200-250 words for good readability. If you expect younger people, or less academically schooled people to read the text, shorter paragraphs are advised. Your longest paragraph, starting with "A Romanian Air Force C-27J Spartan aircraft", is around 377 words. "Seven days of national mourning .. " is 333. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Just a good old fashioned thank you for your moderation work at my RfA. While a relatively calm one by the history of RfAs, nevertheless, a timely reaction from you kept things on track. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Goldsztajn. Here I thought you were gonna be peeved I cost you a support. 😉 Have fun with the tools, but not too much fun. Remember that you get one overturned block per year before people start really caring; that when people say you're wrong because you're an admin you can't argue with them, but when they say you're right because you're an admin you have to correct them; and not to touch the edit filter unless you know what you're doing (or even if you do, maybe, per above).. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only lefties can be activists

[edit]

If you are rich then we use different words. Had a bizarre conversation over at User talk:Jennytallyho; would you be so kind to swing your cluebat around. I played football with my nephews and now I'm too tired to deal with that stuff. Thanks. Polygnotus (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is XC protected for a year, so now an account shows up who just meets the requirements. The other 2 were not XC.

Oh and I turned that 244 page thing into a pdf. The original is not in a very convenient format. If you want that I can email it. I wasn't impressed. Polygnotus (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Busy day ahead and not sure I follow all of this (at a glance). But I may look later. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, not in a hurry.[14][15] The 244 page thing is that. Saw your name, figured you might be interested. I sent the PDF to arbcom. Polygnotus (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T310763

[edit]

Could you please subscribe me, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I'd love to, but I'm not certain of the rules for that, on a closed security ticket marked "permanently private". Obviously you're a checkuser and so I doubt it'd be an issue, but given that the ticket contains, unredacted, the user/IP correlation that prompted me to file it, I wouldn't want to get that wrong in terms of Phab privacy rules. I'll ping AntiCompositeNumber, who is subscribed to the ticket and as a security team member probably knows the right answer, and in the meantime, here is a redacted version of my original post:

(Redacted), I blocked (Redacted) on enwiki, with autoblock enabled. The system set autoblock #(Redacted).

(Redacted), the sockmaster behind (Redacted) appeared on IRC, revealing their IP address to be (Redacted). When I checked if their IP has any recent edits, I saw, through the IP Info beta feature, that that IP has "1 active block."

As there are no local or global blocks on the IP or any range that it's in, I am assuming that the active block referred to is my autoblock on (Redacted).

While it would be admittedly quite useful to know whether an IP has autoblocks on it, I am unsure whether that's a good idea security-wise to let any admin see just by agreeing to a clickwrap contract. With access to this information, an admin who thinks they know a user's IP could block them and see if the "Active Blocks" list ticks up. Or, in a more sophisticated attack, someone could pull IP info for a blocked IP every few seconds to see if it's still listed as having any active blocks, and, when the answer becomes "no", compare to which autoblock most recently expired.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have access to security tickets as a steward, but am not the mw:Wikimedia Security Team. There are two types of protected information in Security phab tasks: information related to current vulnerabilities and ongoing incidents, and restricted data collected during the discovery, reporting, investigation, and remediation of those vulnerabilities or incidents. Information on vulnerabilities can be disclosed once the fix is released to the public, restricted data should not be. Because this task contains both, it is marked PermanentlyPrivate. While access to specific tasks is handled fairly informally, there is an expectation that users being granted access have some "need to know", especially for tasks that have been closed. There's not a whole lot else in the ticket besides what Tamzin has quoted, and what's disclosed in the public patches. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I was just interested in the mechanism and I've got that from the redacted version. RoySmith (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tamzin&oldid=1282191933"