User talk:Tamzin

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 11 as User talk:Tamzin/Archive/10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

{{ds/aware}}

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

See further at /Nice things.

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar from Joshua Jonathan

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Absolutely deserved for uncovering the Swaminarayan-sockfarm. A lot of work is waiting, but you did great! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you so much, Joshua Jonathan. It's funny, it started just as this weird feeling based on the RfD !votes... We get weird !vote patterns at RfD all the time, usually when a number of non-regulars wander in and don't understand how the forum actually works. The weird thing, though, was that they did seem to get the basic premise of RfD, but were still !voting for a conclusion that made no sense. But still I didn't have that high an index of suspicion, and also I was rather busy, and was this closed to dropping it. But instead, kind of on a whim, I asked Blablubbs to take a look. I was only suspicious about the four who'd !voted consecutively, and I was frankly surprised when Blablubbs turned up evidence tying not just all four of them, but Apollo too. I had no previous exposure to this topic area, and didn't know any of the players, so I really though I'd just be dealing with a few SPAs, not someone with 2,000 edits and PCR. I think it was also Blablubbs who first suggested Moksha as part of it, as we looked at other players in the topic area. Then I found the comment from the Swami sock accusing them, and there went the next few hours of my life, digging through a history that grew more and more horrifying as the behavioral similarities mounted. I've really never seen something that elaborate fly under the radar, except reading early (pre-2010) ArbCom cases. It's a shame we'll likely never know exactly how many people were behind these six accounts. My personal hypothesis is that it was six people who knew each other off-wiki, with one, perhaps Moksha, ghost-writing some talk-page comments for the others. (If true, that would mean they were done in by that one person's micromanagement, which is a funny thought.) But that's just my guess. So thanks again for the barnstar. :) I kind of hope I never get this particular barnstar again, though, at least not for the same kind of thing. Mass gaslighting is a demoralizing thing to work against. I'm happy to go back to just dealing with vandals and spammers. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence from L235

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi Tamzin, I'm Kevin. Thank you for your diligence on the Moksha88 SPI; had it been a less thorough report, it may have been overlooked or neglected, especially after the negative CU results. We're lucky to have had you looking into this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply

@L235: Thank you—for this barnstar and for your own diligence. I was worried that someone would look at this and see it as too complicated, and as involving blocks that were too likely to cause drama, and just punt on it and leave the whole topic area still in disarray. As someone who's always favored making lots of small improvements over a small number of big ones, it's rare that I get the chance to look at something and say, "Here's a way that I really, noticeably, made the encyclopedia better through one single effort." Which I hope I'll be able to say here, depending on how the POV cleanup goes. As I said to JJ above, I just hope that I don't run into another case like this for a while—both because I (perhaps naïvely) hope to never see anything so egregious, but also for the sake of my sanity, and the sake of whichever CU is crazy enough to take on that case. :) So again, thanks for all you've done here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Civility Barnstar from Sdkb & Writ Keeper

	The Civility Barnstar
	Without getting into the messy question of whether or not the other editor's professed ignorance is plausible, I think it's clear your calm, non-judgmental efforts to explain why their comments were offensive have been helpful and appreciated by all. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I definitely second this. Your essay is excellent, as well. You're doing the (proverbial) Lord's work, and with much more patience than I. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Further kind words

​​Thank you both. <3 While I don't think of myself as an incivil person, I'm not sure this is one I ever expected to get. As someone who both likes to assume good faith and has a low tolerance for bigotry, I always see this kind of thing as a win-win: If the assumption of good faith was correct, then we avert more hurt feelings; and if it doesn't, then people can't plead ignorance the next time. I'm glad that this appears to have been the former. "Lord's work" is a compliment I'll happily (flatteredly) accept, be it meant proverbially or literally. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC) I see great minds think alike. I wasn't aware of the incident that led to the creation of your essay prior to today, and had only created mine in response to seeing "he/she" a lot around here. I must say you articulate it a lot better than I do, though! Patient Zerotalk 04:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC) I'd just like to thank you as well for your well written essay. I hope this essay helps inform future editors and, in doing so, reduce the instances of misgendering. Isabelle 🔔 02:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

mishloach manot for you!

File:Dr Pepper can.jpg

Happy purim, Tamzin! I thought I'd try and throw together a mishloach manot basket to give out :) feel free to pass it around or make your own basket, if that's your thing—if not, cheers and chag Purim sameach! in jewish enby siblinghood, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Reply

תודה רבה, Claudia! A pleasantly synchronistic treat to find immediately after submitting my first foray into your neck of the woods. Despite my well-known affinity for Queen Esther (Esther 8:6 tattoo pic forthcoming on Commons once I've got the enby and agender colors touched up), I've never done much for Purim. Don't really know why that is, just how it's sorted out. But I'll never say no to something tasty! Chag sameach to you too, friend. i/j/nb/s -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious

may memories be for a blessing

Thank you for articles such as List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, for your bot and SPI work, for "find me removing things more often than adding them", for paying tribute on your user page in channeled anger, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2728 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Thank you very much, Gerda. This means a lot to me, especially given the circumstances and given the date (see userpage footnote 2). After years of, as you allude to, mostly working on improving articles by trimming them down, it's been a very eye-opening experience to build a full-length article from the ground up. I'm glad I got to have this experience with a list that's meaningful to me, although the downside of that is being very aware of how quickly this list grows. A small fraction of those killed overall, but as Masaq' Hub says in Look to Windward, "It's always one hundred percent for the individual concerned". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Thank you, this means a lot to me, - see my talk today and 23 March. We have one name in common even, and named victims stand for all the unnamed. - "Stand and sing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC) @Gerda Arendt: Oksana Shvets was on my mind when I suggested at Talk:List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War that perhaps a List of artists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War is in order—also to list Artem Datsyshyn, Brent Renaud, Mantas Kvedaravičius, and perhaps Maks Levin. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC) yes - just working on Maks Levin --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

An assortment of barnstars from Floquenbeam, zzuuzz, Vami_IV, I dream of horses, and others

Further information: User talk:Tamzin/Archive/3 (RfA special edition)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar from Pharos, for defending the wiki from Pharos

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For reverting my accidental buffalo stampede. Thanks for ameliorating the utter state of confusion.Pharos (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Reply
@Pharos: Okay, I think that's the last of them reined in, aside from a few buffalo who had already been taken in by loving adopters like Jeremyb. One hopes these buffalo do not feel buffaloed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Admin's Barnstar from Bagumba

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for being able to make tough blocks, while maintaining the humility to not do so lightly. —Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks, Bagumba. :) (Incredibly slow response, sorry.) At some point soon I'd like to write up a self-audit of my blocks to make sure I'm staying true to my stated principles in blocking... We'll see. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Technical Barnstar from Hawkeye7

	The Technical Barnstar
	For Help:-show classes. Really great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Civility Barnstar from EducatedRedneck and Special Barnstar from Bradv

Not for the same thing, but conceptually related

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your conduct in the Inverted Zebra ANI thread. I doubt I'd be able to keep my cool nearly as well as you did when personally attacked. Your writing managed to convey being justifiably angry without being aggressive. Major props to you for your conduct there, good Mx; I hope I can be even half as civil if I ever find my own person under attack. I hope it blows over quickly now, so you can get back to editing.

EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for all you do to make Wikipedia a more inclusive, welcoming, and safe community. – bradv 21:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Replies

Original Barnstar from Mz7 for thankèdness

	The Original Barnstar
	Happy New Year, Tamzin! In 2022, other editors thanked you 1003 times using the thanks tool. This places you in the top 10 most thanked Wikipedians of 2022. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2023! Mz7 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Reply

Civility Barnstar from Aoba47, but more importantly the nicest conversation I've ever been in on Wikipedia

		The Civility Barnstar
		Hello again. I wanted to apologize again for my response to the Charlotte York article and my mistakes regarding the page move. You were incredibly kind, especially when the entire situation was my fault, and I wanted to thank you again for that. I am truly happy to see such great and kind communication on here. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@Aoba47: Aww, you're so sweet. You know, WP:CIR gets cited in a lot of horrible and mean-spirited contexts, but there's a valuable lesson in there if one takes the time to read it, which is that no one is competent at everything. I'd like to think of myself as a fairly well-rounded editor—2 GAs, lots of projectspace work, some technical work including a bot—but there's still dozens of areas of this project that I have literally no fucking clue how to manage. And it's really only luck that I haven't in recent years had the pleasure of having some admin show up on my talk page and say "Umm, that's not at all how this thing is done. I've unbroken it for you. Please be more careful." One thing I've never done in 10 years here, for instance, is get an FA. Hell, didn't have a GA till 5 months after my RfA. You have... holy shit, 45 of those. If I live a long life and continue focusing on content maybe I'll hit that number before I die. When I do go for my first FAC, you can bet it'll be with oodles of behind-the-scenes hand-holding from friends who've done it before, to make up for my near-complete cluelessness about that venue. So. If I can summarize this wall of text, it's 🪞 at both you and CT55555 because like... holy fucking shit this site is toxic sometimes. And it's been so incredibly refreshing to see two experienced users be so relentlessly civil to each other and to me over a relatively minor, totally good-faith misunderstanding, to the extent you're following up on it weeks later. I love it. If there were an inverse version of WP:STOCKS I would put you both in it, no ifs, ands, or buts. Thank you for this barnstar, but really it's y'all who deserve it for this truly exemplary conduct. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Notes Thanks for adding more rays of much-needed sunshine on this site. Peace. CT55555(talk) 21:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you for your response and the kind words. I will read through WP:CIR in the near future. I enjoy reading through these kinds of essays, and I agree that no one is great or even competent at every single aspect of Wikipedia because this site is so vast and dense. I think it is good to have a healthy dose of perspective and humility, and I have learned from this experience. I has been a while since I did anything with page moves and the like that I genuinely forgot how to do any of it. Congrats on the two GAs, and I think it is awesome that you've done technical work as well. I have absolutely zero ideas how to even remotely do anything with bots so I am impressed by that. I am proud of my work in the FAC process and very thankful for all the editors and reviewers who have helped along the way. If I ever do it make it to 47, I will let you know if something special happens, and if you ever decide to pursue a FAC, I would be more than happy to answer any questions or provide any pointers. It can be a very intimidating space, but there are also a lot of wonderful editors over there. You are right that this site can be toxic at times, particularly from experienced users, and I've definitely reacted poorly in the past. The best I can do is to try and learn from each experience and hopefully be better for the future. I'd be curious on what the reverse of WP:STOCKS would be. I am glad that this experience ended up in a positive place in the end and hopefully, this will not sound super sappy, but it was wonderful to meet and interact with you and CT55555. I hope you are having a wonderful 2023 (knock on wood though as I do not want to jinx anything). Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Selected WikiHate

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

Hello, I'm DYKUpdateBot. 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)

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

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

@Atomic putty? Rien! "Quantity of love"? :P (For "much love", use 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)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Meta-WikiHate against my mother of all people

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)

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

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

Outrageous abuse of power by Tamzin

I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

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

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

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

Why don't you like being called Tammy?

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

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

Pinned discussions

Some of these discussions are collapsed because no one's commented in a while. They're still open discussions, though! If you want to reply to something, just remove the {{cot}}/{{cob}} tags around the discussion.

Editing principles (Topic: Neurodivergence)

Initially ran 4 May 2021 to 7 May 2021. Featuring Vaticidalprophet and Elli. Collapsed but still open to new comments.

Just noticed the new one. It's an interesting one, and a matter I've thought about how to phrase. I suspect myself a lot of neurotypes odd in the general population are the default baseline on Wikipedia, but there's only so many ways you can say it without sounding like you're insulting someone (and I freely admit I can be less careful and more flippant with my word choice than you often are, certainly when I'm in the ANI peanut gallery). I've noticed there's an unfortunate correlation between editors who freely disclose neurodivergence and editors with significant competence issues, and I've wondered what consequences it has for the project as a whole in terms of interacting with people who are more clearly not working on neurotypical principles than our already high average -- though, of course, many disclosed neurodivergent editors are substantial and obvious assets. Vaticidalprophet 04:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Yeah, something I'd been thinking about for a while, and felt spurred to put into words after seeing an exchange on your talk page actually. As to correlations, there's a bias there, right? In terms of who wants/needs to disclose. If an editor quietly chugs along writing articles, doing gnomish work, etc., without ever getting into any conflict, then why would they want to disclose something that could subject them to ridicule or at least passive discrimination? (And there's editors who rack up 100k+ edits while barely touching anything metapedian.) Whereas some editors realistically have no choice: If they don't disclose, they may be treated as intentionally disruptive; whereas, if they do, they might at least "downgrade" that perception to CIR. Just like a person who is mild-to-moderately hard of hearing may be able to not disclose this fact in a workplace if they don't want, whereas a deaf person really has no choice in most contexts. I'm active in a number of spaces online that are majority-neurodivergent. (I'll claim the label "neurodivergent" without comment on the label "autistic".) They all have to deal with the issue that, in such spaces, people are more likely to be sensitive, and also more likely to offend by accident. In the context of a collaborative project one can broaden this to a greater likelihood of people stepping on one another's toes. What strikes me is that these spaces' main advantage in contrast to Wikipedia is that they're honest with themselves about what's going on. Conduct decisions are made with the presumption that the participants' motives may not have been what you'd infer of a neurotypical person. Hence my new personal rule. That said, it's not like there's easy answers here. Several years ago an openly autistic admin was desysopped for discussing violence against another editor in a way that was intended, by all accounts, to come off as mean but not as a true threat. It was an unambiguously desysoppable offense (although I'll admit I didn't take that view at the time). And yet, I think a lot of neurodivergent people can relate to making a joke that made perfect sense in their own head but came off very differently to their audience. (To be clear, I don't think that they raised autism as a defense, and I don't want to imply that their misconduct was "because autism", but at least the general circumstance is one that neurodivergent people tend to find ourselves in.) What's the solution there? I don't know. There's an overlap between statements that are reasonably insta-indeffable or desysoppable, and ones that a neurodivergent person can make without intending it to read that way. And if that's where we're starting from, how do we handle all the more minor cases? So that's why I added this personal rule. Feel free to make any wording changes that preserve the meaning, if you think they'll make it less prone to misinterpretation, since it's just such a difficult thing to discuss, walking a tightrope between what could be perceived as being anti-accountability and what could be perceived as ableism. But regarding what you said about ANI: I think the best thing we can do about these topics is discuss them when there's no immediate reason to discuss them. If everyone's thinking about a specific editor when they discuss the topic, that will color their opinions. P.S., not to come across as talking down to someone only a few years my junior, but a lesson I learned in my first wiki-life, reflected in the second paragraph in my userpage: The best thing you can do for your wiki-mental-health is avoid any page where the word "indef" gets thrown around. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 05:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC) To open in response to your last comment: well, a lot of people are scared of ANI, but I'm scared of political articles, and I'm sure I've seen you edit those. 😛 We all see different hotspots. I'm definitely familiar with what you say about knowing it, or how different it is to be in an environment where people openly discuss that moderation and norms are shaped by neurodivergence, as opposed to the weirdly "everyone knows but no one knows" Wikipedia environment. I'm unsure if it's possible at all on Wikipedia to change the latter to the former, simply because we (in the societal sense) currently conceptualise neurodivergence as a product of diagnosis. Even for things like autism (and I concur, with hangups and caveats that are all frankly well outside the scope of what I aspire to discuss onwiki, with the "will claim neurodivergent, will pass without comment on autistic" identification here) where there's a relatively robust self-advocacy community, it's still in some ways reasonably and in some ways not treated as offensive to tag someone as autistic who hasn't been tagged as such in a medical context, and plenty of things I'd very much like to have robust self-advocacy communities outside of medicalization do not. There's an age factor here, in that a lot of the core editor (and especially content-writer) base is from age cohorts where a lot of what's diagnosed now wasn't, for better or worse. As for Ironholds, well. I'm familiar from the "read about it after the fact" perspective with that case, for whatever that counts as familiarity. I don't think the behaviour I read was at all appropriate, and I think it's reasonable to expect an admin of any neurotype to know that. Simultaneously, the thing that really interests me about that case (using 'case' here in the broader sense rather than the ArbCom term of art) is the "seven RfAs" bit, and seven RfAs is characteristically autistic to me, for both good and ill. It shines through as both the way one can ascend past a lot of the mental limitations allistic people self-ascribe, and work tirelessly towards the pursuit of a goal, and simultaneously the way one can just not know when to quit. To circle back around to ANI, I've been thinking about it because it actually did come up there lately, and in part due to a thread I'd created; the subject of that thread was...outed? as autistic by linking to a diff he'd written at a much smaller venue by a well-meaning party partway through, and he clearly wasn't happy at all about it. At the same time, in a different thread, another disclosed autistic editor suggested the reason a third party might have been acting in the problematic way that got him brought there was that he could be autistic, and the readers of that thread interpreted it as a personal attack on the subject. The discussion is worthwhile reading (and my comments in it reference a third, related case where an editor was clearly in severe distress over being a thread subject in a way that nearly went very poorly indeed, and where some of the reopening comments trying to address it were imo atrociously worded). Vaticidalprophet 05:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Yeah, it's actually those ANI threads—including a remark you made about how many/most editors at least have subclinical "symptoms" of autism (scare quotes mine)—that first got me thinking about this topic. Just because I never comment there doesn't mean I don't stay up to date on the latest drama. I agree that there's a cultural/generational issue here, and such things will always be a challenge for an international, intergenerational project. A norm like tone-tagging (beyond the common "/s") could do a world of good, but I think it'll be at least a decade till you could get a majority of editors on board with something like that. (Not like, making it mandatory by any means; just instilling it as a norm.) The other day, in the course of saying something about Wikipedia, I explained to my partner what deletionism and inclusionism are, and she'd said something like, "I hate to tell you, but I think I'm an inclusionist." Today, shortly after sending my last message here, something suddenly hit me, and I said to her, "Wait, what makes you think I'm a deletionist?" To which she said, "Because you need everything to be just a certain way." I'm guessing you know the kind of "certain way" she meant. And it occurred to me that you can pretty easily predict how drama-heavy a particular area of the wiki is going to be by just how strongly people need it to be a certain way. There's a reason I refuse to touch any edit that has anything to do with categories. There's a reason that the major topic area with the worst-written articles is, by far, math. And you can call the tendencies that beget this "neurodivergent", or just... "particular"... And those particularities carry over to administration too. Ironically, I would argue that the very resistance to change things in a more overtly neurodivergent-embracing direction is itself of tendencies that, in many cases, fall into what I'll again call "either neurodivergent or just very particular." ANI being a mess of massive walls of text is the way that Makes Sense, so that must never change, no matter how flawed it is. For Wikipedia to stop being hostile to newcomers, we'd have to restructure some things that are The Way They Should Be, so I guess it'll keep being hostile. And so on and so forth. As to Ironholds, to be clear, I didn't mean to make it seem like a "wink wink nudge nudge" thing which case I was referring to; rather, I was trying to use it as a general example since, as I said, once you get into any one specific case that complicates the analysis. (Mx. Ironholds is, incidentally, a researcher and commentator on autism issues these days, though they're no longer active here. And yes, that's an off-wiki identity still linked on their userpage, before anyone says anything.) Back to your point about the ANI threads: It'd be nice to have an essay as a companion to WP:CIR (maybe WP:Idiosyncratic editors) that discussed how best to handle competency issues in ENDOJVP editors but stopped short of saying "All of these editors are probably autistic." I know you followed the somewhat tragic tale of the now-3X'd SoyokoAnis (talk · contribs). I'm certainly not going to try to diagnose her with anything, but in the threads about her there was clearly a lot of dog-whistling and subtext, as there is basically anytime CIR comes up with an adult native English speaker, because, yeah, CIR is usually about language/culture, age, or neurodivergence. Perhaps it would be nice in such contexts to have a diplomatically-worded essay to point to that nutshells to: "Some editors interact with the world in very different ways than others. Maybe this is for neurological reasons, or maybe it's just how they are." and then... And then what? Then a conclusion drawn from that, but I'm not yet sure what that conclusion should be. (And not that in her particular case there would have been a different outcome necessarily; just that it allows for more honest discussion.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Ah, Soyoko. I admit to less sympathy to her than you or Elli (who was my main point of contact with her saga), but that's not to say a lack of it. She didn't scan to me as adult (and, as someone who first edited as a young child, I suspect some of our current policies about not disclosing the ages of young editors might actually be counterproductive -- but that's another issue...), with the consequence I was mostly viewing her CIR issues through the lens of youth rather than neurodivergence, but I can't exactly say the latter was never a consideration. It did stand out to me that the RfA candidate she insisted on nominating was a disclosed autistic editor. I know of two essays currently about specific neurodivergences. I can't pretend to like either of them. I'd happily MfD WP:AUTIST, where its every word strikes me as Making Things Worse, if I thought that proposal had a chance in hell (I've already spent my nominating-bad-essays-and-failing points for the month). There might be something useful in its bones, though; it apparently hit someone's sense of "this is me" enough for WP:OCD to be based on it. Vaticidalprophet 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Ah yes, thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion (hope I'm not barging in too much). Wikipedia is... an interesting environment, I guess, for neurodivergent people. Given, well, the way the site works, I think it's likely to attract them (what normal person spends their free time writing an encyclopedia for free?) Most people find the whole concept entirely foreign. As for Soyoko, yeah, I think it's likely a combination of some type of neurodivergence and youth - neither of which are incompatible with Wikipedia, but if someone with them makes wrong assumptions about how the site works... it's not gonna be fun. Hell, looking at my first edits, I'm surprised I didn't get many warnings, given how terrible they were. I dunno. This is kinda a ramble because I'm not sure exactly what I should say here? I guess, "be kind" has mostly worked for me - and is what, I think, worked for getting me on the right track. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC) @Elli: I do think that Wikipedia's generally moving in the right direction on all of this. As I said to SoyokoAnis, I really doubt she would have been extended as much AGF back when I made this account (2012), which is one thing that made her situation extra frustrating. Then again, one still sees cases where if CIR issues aren't resolved after the first or second attempt at intervention, someone just hits the block button. I recently saw one of my least favorite things, a "Sock of someone or other" block. They're used as an excuse to say "We can label this intentional disruption rather than CIR because they're probably socking." Somewhere between begging the question and a thought-terminating cliché. But still, overall, progress, yeah. (Also thanks for dropping in to this chat. ) @Vaticidalprophet (but also still @Elli): I don't know if I'd agree with deleting WP:AUTIST, but I do think it misses the point. Partly because it's hard to describe the "honeypot" effect without resorting to stereotype. Partly because it's hard to describe autism itself without resorting to stereotype. But the essay manages to cut too much slack to neurodivergent editors while still not giving neurotypical editors particularly good advice about how to deal with us; and the advice it does give isn't very helpful when most neurodivergent editors are not open about it (if they even know themselves), and applying the label speculatively is, as you've said, a thorny issue. So, seriously, if you (either of you) would be interested in working on an essay with me, I think there's room for improvement in the neurodivergence essay category. I'm interested in the idea of something that isn't explicitly about autism, but rather, without outright saying so, says "We're all at least kinda autistic here". I'm thinking of a title like WP:Needing things to be a certain way. In my mind, the essay would start out with something like, If you edit Wikipedia, that means you see a need for things to be a certain way. Quite likely, your first edit was noticing that something was incomplete or incorrect and fixing it. But why does it matter that the world know that the Third Amendment has been incorporated against the states in the Second Circuit but nowhere else? Why does it matter whether "Ljubljana" is spelled correctly in an article about baseball? Because things need to be right. All of us, to some extent, see things this way. And then go on to discuss how this applies to things like WP:CIR, WP:CIV, WP:TE, WP:POINT, and WP:RGW. And then give actual useful tips that can be applied to all editors, not just ones with autism userboxen. Stuff like: Accept that Wikipedians are more likely than most people to have strong opinions on "little things" like punctuation or reference style. To you, they might be small, but if those things are important to the way things need to be for someone, they can become very personal. Someone's view of how a conversation should work may not be the same as your view, or indeed, as the view of society at large. In particular, certain editors may value straightforwardness as a virtue significantly more than others, often based on a feeling that conversations are simply meant to work that way. This should not excuse incivility, but understanding this may help to reach constructive solutions in conflicts. It can be very hard for Wikipedians to let go of something they are passionate about, even when consensus is against them. If this leads to someone becoming disruptive on a topic, then even as you nudge their focus elsewhere you should be respectful of their passion. And whoever comes up with a way to gently keep editors from returning to these passion topics will have averted the indefblocks of countless mostly-constructive contributors. Wouldn't be the whole list, just the first three things that come to mind. In neurodivergent terms these are "sameness"/general particularities, communication issues, and special interests, but framed generally it's just a lot of the stuff we see all the time on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 06:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Not really related, so taking it to your talk page (Topic: Gendered pronouns)

Initially ran 26 October 2021 to 30 October 2021. Featuring Hijiri88, Ezlev, Aerin17, and BDD. Collapsed but still open to new comments.

Arrgh... it's been a while since I thought about gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources (ref) in relation to contemporary Japanese popular media personalities. English-language "reliable sources" focusing on Japanese popular culture tend to be sub-par (one of the sources initially cited in relation to Utada's gender identity proactively used singular they without any request from Utada to do as much, and also seemed to be conflating non-binary gender identity with same-sex sexual orientation...), and Japanese-language sources are extremely unlikely to make as big a deal out of it as English ones because of how the Japanese language works. Japanese doesn't use pronouns anywhere nearly as much English, because content that is implied from context (as the referents of pronouns almost always are) is usually omitted: the Japanese for "I ate it" isn't "Watashi-wa sore-o tabeta" (literally "I it ate") but rather "Tabeta yo" ("Ate sentence-terminal-particle") and "I met her" isn't "Watashi-wa kanojo-ni atta" but rather "Atta yo"; "I ate it" or "She ate it" in Japanese would only specify the subject if it were in response to the question "Who ate it?", and even then "she" would necessitate a separate indication of who the girl/woman in question is, such as pointing, which is rude. (Needless to say, the Japanese version of Utada's website doesn't use any pronouns where the English version uses "she" and "her".) I actually recently found out that both the "Japanese words for he and she" that I learned in my beginner Japanese class were recent coinages based on English/French, the "word for he" being a redefined word classical Japanese pronoun that originally referred a person or thing that is far away from both the speaker and the listener, and the "word for she" being the same word, in the classical Japanese equivalent of the genitive case, with the noun "woman" attached after it. This kind of development would not be possible, needless to say, if personal pronouns were as entrenched in the actual Japanese language that people spoke every day as they are in English or French. I suspect this is why "pronouns" aren't really a thing on Japanese Twitter (etc.) like they are in America and Europe: it's my impression that a not-insignificant percentage of American pop-stars have their pronouns listed in their Twitter profile, and this percentage probably skyrockets when one only counts those pop-stars who have stated a gender identity other than cisgender male or female, but with Japanese pop-stars (even those who also hold American citizenship and live in Europe, and "occasionally tweet in English"), the former percentage is probably close to zero and the latter may be higher, but as far as I'm aware Utada is the most prominent case at the moment, and... So yeah, it looks like the Utada case is going to be solved by a consensus of editors based on the fact that sources affiliated with the subject use a particular pronoun pattern, but if more Japanese (etc.) pop stars, voice actors/actresses, live action actors/actresses, video game producers, etc. with anglophone fan-bases and extensive coverage in English-language blogs and "reliable sources" that are little more reliable than blogs, start coming out as non-binary, gender-fluid, etc., a discussion might need to be had about how the MOS passage you quoted applies to such cases. A huge hullabaloo was made about a decade back about whether personal websites (or websites maintained by publicists) should take precedence over academic publications with regard to MOS:JAPAN#Modern names (with reference to whether long vowels should be marked), which I think kinda missed the point there (if we take URLs or copyright information on Japanese-language websites into account, we get people named "Sakaguchi Jun'ichirō" being identified as "Sakaguti Junitiro" just because the webmaster created the URL based primarily on how Japanese text is input on a keyboard). But I suspect that, when it comes to gender identity, personal/official websites should definitely take precedence over third-party sources that often pass for "reliable" in pop culture articles, no matter how many such sources there are or how recent they are compared to what we assume to be the latest update on the personal/official website. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC) BTW, I should thank you for your positive input on the Utada page! :D Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC) @Hijiri88: I think we often run into a problem of overly generalizing Anglosphere gender norms to other cultures. What you're saying about Japanese language and culture is very interesting; I don't speak any Japanese, but I speak French, and even in that language relatively close to English, many English-centric assumptions prove false. The whole relationship between social gender and grammatical gender is different when applying any noun to yourself contains an implicit statement of your gender. (It's also, incidentally, the most frustrating part of transitioning when you don't speak the language often enough to form new habits. I've gotten weird looks once or twice for calling myself américain rather than américaine.) One can see a bit of that disconnect going on at Talk:Claude Cahun, where people are struggling with how to apply the subject's gender expression in French in the 1950s to an English-language article in 2021. I'm not sure there's an easy solution to it, though, because this problem runs deeper than just Wikipedia. For instance, without taking a side on the issue of the term Latinx, I'll observe that a lot of the debate in the U.S. about it seems to come from people who are not familiar without how gender works in Spanish. A lot of English-speakers tend to expect our concept of "my pronouns are ______" to extend to languages where gender is more complex than just third-person pronouns and the occasional "son"/"daughter" situation. And that includes RS—many of which, as you allude to, barely even understand the concept of non-binary gender to begin with. So we get screwed over by the RS, and then by people who read them and then make good-faith changes based on their bad takes. The complicated pronoun situation I've been most involved in has been that of James Barry (surgeon). There's no language angle there, but nonetheless his article's been done a great disservice by the surfeit of articles in somewhat reliable sources saying "You'll never believe what this empowering lesbian, forced to crossdress, accomplished" or "You'll never believe what this pioneering trans man accomplished". Which gets us to the awkward sourcing question: Generally, someone's gender identity is the sort of thing we'd want very high-quality sources for. At the same time, we don't want to misgender someone just because major RS have been slow to pick up on something. Ellar Coltrane started taking they/them pronouns long after leaving the spotlight, and for over a month our article on them sourced their pronouns to their Instagram bio, till they got a brief write-up in a newspaper we could use instead. Given how many long-dormant BLP stubs we have (another rant for another time), there are plausible scenarios where a self-published source or suboptimal-quality source could be our only reference on someone's pronouns for decades. Not to mention people who are only mentioned in passing in articles. I've been in the news a few times in my life, mostly when I was very young. In the past I've been mentioned in mainspace, although I currently am not; but if someone were to re-add a mention of me, to get my name and pronouns right they'd have to cite like... a blog post I wrote when I came out, I guess? That's not exactly ideal, and would be weird to see alongside a cite to a major RS, but it's preferable to just getting people's pronouns wrong. At some point we're probably due for an RfC on when, if at all, it's acceptable to use they/them pronouns in cases of ambiguous gender. I don't really want to be the one to start that, though. :D Anyways, this is turning into a ramble, but thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts. (I designate this a talkpage-watcher-friendly thread, by the way; interested to know what others think.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Arrgh. Your James Barry example made me think of George Eliot and even more contemporary women writers who used male or "ambiguous" pseudonyms (or variations on their real names), such as D. C. Fontana. By the standards of some modern popular media, we should be calling them all transgender men or at least gender-fluid, except that we're lucky enough to have good documentation of the actual reasons for their hiding the fact that they were women. Ironically, the same is essentially true of a certain living author (who I won't name, but I think you can probably guess who she is), whose views on non-cisgender rights have turned out to be somewhat questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC) @Hijiri88: This is as much me thinking aloud as anything else, but I'm going to ping you so I don't feel like I'm talking to myself. :) (Not to say a response is unwelcome, by any means, just that this may not really be written like a response to your own points, and you could be forgiven for not having much to say in response.) Oh I'll also ping BDD—with the same caveat—since he expressed some interest in this topic at Talk:Claude Cahun. The way I see it, we have four categories of cases where pronouns aren't as simple as "just say what they want": Unknown identity, where the person's story does not involve participating in any gender-segregated activities. It was surprisingly hard to find a good example of this (since for most historical figures we can infer gender based on segregation), but after looking around in Category:Unidentified people I did find Italian Unabomber as an example—someone we have no interviews with, no profile of, etc. Known identity but unknown gender identity. For many articles we don't explicitly know someone's gender identity, but there's a general precedent that we take fem-presenting AFAB as presumptive evidence for she/her and masc-presenting AMAB as presumptive evidence for he/him. This is imperfect, but it's probably the least bad approach. Issues arise in three cases: Subject has indicated no gender presentation at all. E.g., picking another at random from that category, Neuroskeptic. Subject has presented in a way too inconsistent to draw any non-SYNTH inference from. E.g. my favorite example, Thomas(ine) Hall... I swear not just my favorite because Thomasine and Tamzin are variants of the same name. Subject's gender presentation differs from that associated with their gender assigned at birth, but they have made no statement regarding gender identity. There's tons of living people like this, but BLP forbids us from documenting it in most cases. It thus comes up more often with long-dead figures like James Barry. Known identity, but ambiguous or inconsistent gender identity. Ruby Rose, Sophie Xeon, Vi Hart, and Alexis Arquette all come to mind, as does Utada Hikaru—in each case a different kind of ambiguity or inconsistency. (Often, as in the cases of Rose and Arquette, this may be someone who is genderfluid, and it may well be that they see no ambiguity or inconsistency but the sources reporting on them did.) Known identity and gender identity, but it is unclear what pronouns should follow from that. Especially common in non-binary Westerners from before Stonewall who went on the record about their gender, like Claude Cahun or the Public Universal Friend. In #1, #2.1, and #2.2, I think it's really author's preference (à l'EngVar) whether to do they/them or avoid pronouns. I think readers understand the concept of the gender-ambiguous they, given that it predates the singular-personal-pronoun they by several centuries. The important thing is not defaulting to he/him or she/her based on stereotypes. On #2.3, I've made clear my view at the Barry RfC that MOS:GENDERID should apply there the same as anywhere else: Binary presentation should be met with the corresponding binary pronouns unless there's clear evidence that the person did not identify with that gender (or, for more modern subjects, that they did not want those pronouns). On #3, I think we should default to not changing pronouns unless the subject requests it, because anything else would be presumptive, and shouldn't "compromise" on they/them. Avoiding pronouns sometimes might be the least bad option; sometimes we also just have to figure, if this person really cared that much, they'd probably reach out and ask us to change it. For deceased subjects like Xeon and Arquette, all there really is to do is follow the final statement, at least as best we can manage (bit complicated in both cases). And on #4, I dunno, I'm not opposed to they/them pronouns for someone who explicitly eschewed gendered pronouns in their lifetime like the Public Universal Friend. But they're almost the exception that defines the rule. The vast majority of people covered under #4 did refer to themselves with gendered pronouns, and I think we need to follow people's final wishes even when we suspect they might have preferred some modern option. K, that was a lot. Respect to anyone who's read to the end of this. Responses welcome, but, as noted before, this was as much thinking aloud as anything else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Wow, Tamzin, if this is what comes out when you think aloud then you should think aloud as often as you feel the urge to. (When I do it, it doesn't end up nearly as... coherent.) I think the categories you've laid out here and your explanations of how you think they should be handled make a lot of sense – this is definitely something I want to come back to and read more closely when I have more time. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) I see your 2. and I immediately think of ancients of whom we know some details but nothing that makes their gender (or at least biological sex) clear. Hieda no Are and Junia (both long assumed male but now widely considered by specialists to be women who were misidentified as a result of linguistic ambiguity) are interesting cases, but there are others who don't even have names, such as "the X poet", where X is the name of some work of literature written, or likely written, anonymously. A number of authors of Japanese literary works are assumed, based on their content or style, to have been written by male authors (court nobles proficient in literary Chinese, Buddhist monks, etc.) or women (members of the literary salons serving this or that empress, or more often than not just Takasue's daughter), so I guess in English they can be referred to as "he" or "she" once these authorship theories have been elaborated upon. (Needless to say, this is quite unrelated to the distinction between biological sex and gender identity, which I believe was not widely recognized until recently. I'm pretty sure throughout most of human history biological sex was of interest for the purpose of carrying on family lineages and gender identity -- or, indeed, sexual orientation -- didn't enter into the equation.) As for 2.3, it'll be interesting to see, if Wikipedia lasts as long, how our little encyclopedia will deal with such cases once such subjects have passed on and BLP no longer applies. Probably have to have an RFC in each article. 😅 As for 3., I think that, as a general rule, the "traditional" pronouns/determiners may be best, unless and until they specifically state that they don't like it, since it can probably be safely assumed that in such cases no one will find this usage either awkward or hurtful. (There do seem to be people who, for their own reasons, think anyone with any of these gender identities "should" use specific pronouns, but I don't think they can be assumed to find it personally hurtful, I'm pretty sure such people are a negligible minority even within the LGBTQ+ rights community, and I suppose they will probably eventually be outright rejected by said community for advocating a position that runs completely counter to said community's goals, similar to those who believe anyone with a particular sexual orientation should disclose said orientation publicly to "create awareness", as though public awareness were anywhere near as important as the feelings of the individual[s] in question.) 4. strikes me as particularly ... well, outside my area of interest and expertise. Japanese poets before c.1880 referred to people as kore if they were "near" and kare if they were "far away", so the idea of pronoun preferences based on sex or gender would have been completely alien to them. Modern Japanese is a bit iffier since late 19th-century literati, in translating European literature (into what essentially amounted to a new, artificial literary language) took that word kore and used it to translate "this" (or "it"), kare to mean "he", "him", or "his" (Japanese uses postpositions to mark the subject, object, and possessive/genitive), and kano-onna (the genitive form of kare and the word for "woman", literally meaning "that woman") to mean "she", "her" or "hers". Since Japanese doesn't actually use pronouns very often, especially when speaking of people (it's quite rude... I think the same is true of English, at least because it implies you have not taken the effort to learn a person's name), this new Europeanized style was comfortably adopted into the standard Japanese written language, and consequently the spoken language, and now scarcely a century later Japanese gender-minorities are being told by non-Japanese-speaking netizens that they "should" use gender-neutral pronouns in English... "Ironic" might not be the word for it, but... Anyway, kochira-koso sorry for the long rant! ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Hello! You probably don't know me, but I watch your talk page and saw this interesting discussion, so I thought I might share my thoughts if you don't mind :) It seems to me that the hardest cases are the ones where the subjects are long deceased, and the issue is trying to translate their gender expression at the time they lived to how we might classify them today. The discussion goes something like, if this person were alive today, they might be considered a [something, e.g. trans man], so one the one hand that means we should refer to them with [e.g. he/him pronouns], but on the other hand, we shouldn't press terms upon them that they didn't use to refer to themself. Of the ones mentioned above, the ones that stand out to me are James Barry, Thomas(ine) Hall, and Claude Cahun. (The same problem applies to historical people whose sexual/romantic orientation was unclear, but it's easier to avoid making a statement one way or the other when you don't have to deal with pronouns.) Modern people, on the other hand, tend to declare what their preferences are for pronouns, and the question is just how to interpret that. For example, Vi Hart indicated that they have no preference and do not care which pronouns they are called by, and Rebecca Sugar stated clearly that she uses both she/her and they/them. It seems like these kinds of cases ought to be more straightforward, though evidently nothing is straightforward. Aerin17 (t • c) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Shoot, I forgot one! (This is an addendum to my own rant, not a reply to Aerin17, whose post I appreciated but don't think requires a reply; indentation is to visually distinguish my own comments from Aerin's.) Sometimes an author will self-identify as "a man", or "a woman", or "the mother/daughter/wife of Such-and-such". (I won't pretend there isn't a gender disparity in the examples selected here; there is, but that's just because unfortunately most of the relevant examples are women whose identities are only known in connection to their male relatives.) So we know their gender (insofar as, with the ancients, we usually have no choice but to assume gender aligned with biological sex) but practically nothing else. Given that, as far as I am aware, none of the languages Japanese between around 800 CE and around 1400 CE could have been familiar with had gender-based third-person pronouns (Chinese, like Japanese, nowadays has a fairly arbitrary distinction in the written language between "he", "she" and "it", but this seems to be recent, and Sanskrit -- which some of the Japanese Buddhist clergy may have had some limited awareness of... -- ... might distinguish the three?), I don't know if any of them would care if they knew that centuries after their death people were talking about them in a language distantly related to Sanskrit and using strange pronouns that classified them by their gender, but I think such questions, regardless of how interesting they might be for some folks with unusual hobbies might be, are probably not all that important as far as we are concerned, since all of them are also very much dead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the ping. I started writing a few comments, but ended up like a writer in a cartoon, constantly tossing drafts into the trash. I largely endorse your four-part division above. Surprisingly, I am more inclined to accept they/them for #4. It is possible, but unlikely IMO, that such people would reject they/them pronouns today. And ultimately, we have to make some assumptions about such people—the use of he/him and she/her very much included. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

toki! (Topic: Toki Pona)

mi lukin toki pona. epiku! QoopyQoopy (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@QoopyQoopy: pona a! sina sona ala sona e ma pona pi toki pona lon lipu Siko?

kin o sona e ni: tan lawa WP:ENGLISHPLEASE mi pana e sama toki Inli lon toki sina kepeken kipisi {{tooltip}}. sina ken ante a sama toki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant that I saw toki pona on your old signature and I thought it was cool :)

I am, by the way! Nice to see another toki pona speaker on Wikipedia. QoopyQoopy (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@QoopyQoopy: Ah. You dropped an "e", then. ;) Well cool, say hi on the server sometime. I'm wan Tansin—ken tonsi li ken jan there. Also, if you aren't aware of https://wikipesija.org, check that out! I'm not too active there atm, but it's a fun project, with a long-term goal of getting WMF backing. Which is a long shot, but would be really cool. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@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)

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

Wait, what do I do? You're not my mom/s! El_C 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A mini-project to improve rcat templates

If you're ever looking for a new project, I think it would be very helpful for categorizing redirects if more redirect category templates could take a parameter to define the term the redirect is a modifcation from, for use with redirects that are modifications of other redirects (i.e. are avoided double redirects) and can be used along with the {{R from avoided double redirect}} template. For example, {{R from alternative name}} allows one to put the more common name after a pipe (parameter 1) in cases where it is different from the title of the redirect target, or {{R from other capitalization}} allows one to indicate the form with other capitalization after two pipes because that template is coded differently. {{R from alternative spelling}} also takes a parameter after a single pipe. Rcats that don't seem to have this functionality include {{R from plural}}, {{R from singular}}, {{R from long name}}, {{R from ASCII-only}}, {{R from initialism}}, {{R from acronym}} and likely others. Should be fairly simple to modify the templates, but you seem far more suited for template editing than me! Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Quick question

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)

Example male and Example female

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! HouseBlaster^talk 22:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"The diaeresis"

A possible solution to one of your cons is that Microsoft has an installable utility for Windows that supports this kind of stuff, rather than fumbling with ALT + 1,262,186,994. See https://learn.microsoft.com/windows/powertoys/quick-accent DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 00:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Cetaceans

Just got home from Alaska. Many orcas were viewed. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

They didn't sink you? I always knew you were a good egg. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee A few weeks after this, I meant to tell you, my household all went out to an arcade for a birthday, and thanks to a high rate of neurodivergence among those present we rather aggressively pursued maximizing tickets, getting ourselves enough for a whole two stuffed animals. One is a very squishy orca, so we named it... cetacean kneaded. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a bread thing. If you know, you know. Valereee (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Socratic Barnstar

		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)

@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)

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

A cookie for you!

For your work on removing BLP non-compliant material from Soa Palalei and Rock Machine Motorcycle Club and calling Wikipedians out for being a bit too quick on the revert button. Cheers! Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Article suggestion for talkpage watchers!

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.com^TWL 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)

bcc

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)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for your help at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated! Keep up the great work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for 1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster

On 19 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an air traffic controller's confusion of two planes' locations caused sixteen skydivers to drown after they unknowingly jumped over Lake Erie? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 18,678 views (1,556.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Highest of the month so far -- congratulations! I'm experimenting with hook placements a little; I'm not sure how much the "quirky last slot" structure is borne out by user experience data (as opposed to pageviews data). Placing this one in the second slot seems to have worked out for it. That makes 7/10 top hooks this month so far ones I promoted, including 4 of the top 5, with 2/5 from that set alone. Vaticidalprophet 04:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty impressive, Vaticidalprophet, given you've only made about a quarter of the month's promotions :) ya love to see a good eye for this kind of thing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

'zinbot question

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)

A kitten for you!

Your User page is just neat! :33

Ohnoitsnoahdotcom (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A cetacean for you!

	A cetacean for you!
	Your signature fulfilled. Thank-you for all your work, especially your admin duties. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your RfA vote

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Your vote at Leeky's RfA was one of the most reflective contributions I've read in a long time. Thank you! Schwede66 19:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I stopped by to say "What a nice thing to say about a friend!" but I see User:Schwede66 was here first. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Salt

Hi, Tamzin. I've just seen Wikipedia:Salting is usually a bad idea. I wish a few more administrators realised the very basic and simple fact which is the main point of that page. Many times I have been carefully watching a repeatedly created title to catch the next sockpuppet, only to be thwarted by someone coming along and protecting it. A related case is a personal photograph, often on Commons but sometimes on WP, which is used only for persistent WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by an editor who keeps coming back as various socks, and naively puts the same image in each new user page. So easy to check "what links here" every now and then, until someone deletes it, thereby cleverly persuading the sockpuppeteer to recreate it under a title that I'm not watching... Sigh... JBW (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

BLPRESTORE at Rebecca Bradley

Hi – just to let you know that someone restored the section on Rebecca Bradley's self-editing; I re-reverted it, explained the policy on the talk page and also replied to your challenge there. Joriki (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the SmallCat dispute case

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)

When you have a chance, could you revdel this comment: Talk:Strictly_Come_Dancing_(series_21)&curid=74405239&diff=1172415384&oldid=1172414643 The admin I have usually worked with on this set of articles (User:Courcelles) is away at the moment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've had limited access to WP the past few days. I see Courcelles has taken care of this. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I was glad to see Courcelles was still able to access Wikipedia even in the ice-swept wastelands of Greenland. ;) Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m in Amsterdam right now. Getting on the boat in a couple hours. 27 hours getting here from America was not fun. Courcelles (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles What, did you connect through New Zealand? 😳 Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Aaha Kalyanam (disambiguation)

Hello Tamzin, I hope you're doing well. I would like to ask restoration of the above disambiguation page. Also courtesy pinging @Whpq for transparency. I will comply with all the relevant policies. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, C1K98V. I think you may have gotten a bit confused from what I said over IRC.

• The DAB page cannot be restored unless Aaha Kalyanam (web series) is restored or some other Aaha Kalyanam article is created.
• Aaha Kalyanam (web series) was soft-deleted, so I can restore that if you would like. Note that the article can still be AfD'd again, however.
• I could, then, also retore the DAB page since CSD G14 would no longer apply, but the page would be a WP:ONEOTHER DAB page, which are generally not needed, so I would probably take the DAB page (not the web series page) to AfD after restoring it. Instead, what I would recommend is a simple hatnote from Aaha Kalyanam to Aaha Kalyanam (web series), and leaving the DAB page deleted.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I'm listing the article here Aaha_Kalyanam and Aaha_Kalyanam_(TV_series). Hope now you can restore the article. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, it would be great if you could move the web series into the draftspace, so that it can be improved and submitted through AFC. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I can draftify the web series, sure. A draft wouldn't go on the DAB page, though, so that would still be a "one-other" DAB. With a draft pending, I personally wouldn't care enough to AfD the DAB, but someone else might. Are you sure you want it restored, rather than waiting for the web series article to return to mainspace? I could even draftify the DAB, if you want. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

DAB is fine for mainspace. I assure you, I will comply with all the relevant policies so that it won't get deleted again. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to comply with all the relevant policies, well, WP:ONEOTHER is an official editing guideline: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. So long as it only links to the base title and the TV series, it is likely to be AfD'd. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

what I meant was, I will work on the web series as well. I will try my level best to be inclusionist if there is an scope for improvement. If not then I myself will indulge in any dicussion. I want admins efforts and time to be fruitful for the betterment of the wikipedia project. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what here means that the DAB page would be compliant with guidelines. As a matter of policy, any admin can restore the DAB as long as the TV series is added to it, but I'm not convinced you understand the problem with that per WP:ONEOTHER, so I'm going to invoke WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and simply decline to restore it. You're welcome to ask some other admin to do so at WP:REFUND; I won't view it as admin-shopping or anything. Either way, I've restored the web series to draftspace. Note that there have actually been 3 non-overlapping versions of this page: 2 in mainspace, 1 in draftspace. I've restored all 3. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Complaint means that I created the Dab page in good faith. I will add all the related Aaha Kalyanam articles to the DAB. Could you please restore it. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There are only two Aaha Kalyanam articles in mainspace. Per the guideline, that is not enough for a DAB page. If I restore the page, it will likely be taken to AfD, which would be a waste of editor resources. So I am exercising my right to not take an admin action if I don't want to. Again, you are welcome to ask at REFUND. But my recommendation would be to not have it restored unless the web series page gets mainspaced, or some other Aaha Kalyanam article comes along. Two-item DABs are really only appropriate when neither topic is primary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

As I was pinged, I endorse everything that Tamzin has stated. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft proposal to change the venue for new community-authorized general sanctions

Hi Tamzin, your current AN thread spurred me to spitball this: User_talk:L235#Proposal_to_change_the_venue_for_new_community-authorized_general_sanctions. I'd welcome your thoughts there. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Revoke TPA for banned user

Sorry to bother you, but since you're the blocking admin I figured you were the correct person to ask. The recently blocked user Trexerman briefly came back, only to accuse me of being a "Russian sympathiser" on his TP for having reported him to ANI. It's nothing egregious, to be fair, but given that I already have one crazy person to worry about on Wikipedia, I can definitely do without that. Could his TPA be revoked? Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Blackout tattoos ref

On my talk page, you said: You've made this edit twice now to Blackout tattoo. No one's trying to use Healthline as a source there. Rather, "WP:healthlinedotcom" (not sure why the adding user didn't link it) indicates that there was originally a citation to Healthline that has since been removed. Why are you removing this detail from the template? It's potentially useful information to someone trying to find a new citation—at a minimum, it steers them away from making the same mistake as whoever originally cited Healthline.

Healthline has been blacklisted as a source on Wikipedia after a community decision to remove all traces of the website from Wikipedia - I am part of the team doing that.

Putting a neutral [cn] requests editors to find a reasonable WP:RS source, for which there seem to be several. I made this edit to reuse the HuffPost ref and add another from Penn Medicine. Hope this is satisfactory to you. Good luck. Zefr (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: Thank you for adding the source to the article, but that doesn't really answer my question, and since you've done the same on other articles, I'll press the matter. Why remove the mention of Healthline from a citation needed template? Maintenance templates' content is explicitly not part of the encyclopedia. It's fine for them to acknowledge the existence of deprecated sources. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion will give you background. As Healthline had been used as a source over years mainly for medical topics - and Healthline is a spam source that damages Wikipedia - the RSN discussion led to a decision to remove all traces of it on the project. There is always a better source available than Healthline. Zefr (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: You're still not understanding. Healthline is not being used as a source on these articles. Please stop and look at the content you are removing. This was not using Healthline as a source. This was not using Healthline as a source. These were not using Healthline as a source. In each case, a {{citation needed}} was already there, and its |reason= parameter was being used to explain that a previous Healthline citation had already been removed. I have no problem with you removing citations to this deprecated source! However, for these particular edits and some others like them, all you are doing is making existing {{citation needed}}s less clear. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the healthlinedotcom part of the cn was created purposefully with a bot to remove the original Healthline spam ref. There is no value to what was the existing Healthline source, as it leads the user into Healthline's spam. This has been discussed with admins, so we are proceeding with removal. Leaving a [cn] in place is like any neutral request for a (better or any) good RS source. Zefr (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: I see that David Gerard wrote If the bot can leave a comment tagging that it was Healthline (if that's possible), that would be very helpful afterwards and there was then a consensus to implement that via the |reason= parameter. Can you point me to the consensus to remove that information? If such a consensus does exist, you need to be linking it in your edit summaries, not the very unclear rv cn for blacklisted spam Healthline, which makes it sound like you're either removing spam, or removing a CN tag, neither of which is the case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And for the love of G-d, could you please not make the kind of edits I'm challenging [regarding the 1st and 3rd changes in that diff] while we're discussing this? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Read further in the discussion where David Gerard said: "that would be ideal, "reason=WP:healthlinedotcom" is a searchable flag that the claim itself really needs human inspection." The searchable flag was needed because typing healthlinedotcom in the conventional way with a "." would cause a blacklist error. This is what prevents novice users from inserting Healthline articles as sources now. The "searchable" part was intended for editors to locate its uses and eliminate them. I have explained enough here, so am done now. Zefr (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: You have explained nothing. And you are not above justifying your edits to a colleague. If you continue to remove useful information from CN templates without any consensus, this will go to AN/I. Please self-revert the edits or partial edits you have made that remove |reason= parameters without changing anything else, or present an expicit consensus for these changes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

CCSes & deletion

Moving the conversation from this talk page here given I've now deleted that one. I'm sold on the A7 - feel free to add me as a party to whatever dramah this causes. (cc Bbb23, Drmies) firefly ( t · c ) 18:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I've always figured there's an implied "accurate information" criterion for that clause of WP:CSD, so this makes sense to me. A page might still be G12'd if a first G12 is declined by someone who fails to locate the cited source, or G3'd as a hoax if an editor incorrectly thinks that an existing source verifies its claims, when it's actually about a different entity. If one wants a more wikilawyerly way to view it, one could say that the requirement of "remove[d] ... in good faith" is transferrable—if someone assumes good faith of what is in fact bad-faith content, the bad faith transfers up to them, albeit inadvertently (i.e., a good-faith proxying of a bad-faith action). Or, of course, WP:IAR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I was kind of looking forward to seeing Bbb block themselves. Yes, Tamzin, I agree with you. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There was another-another revision

Same image vandalism, accidental rollback by a different user: <diff:2>. – 2804:F14:80E4:5A01:580E:D3C2:955B:7871 (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Gone. Easy on the trigger finger there, Zsohl. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks <3. – 2804:F14:80E4:5A01:580E:D3C2:955B:7871 (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Could you delete these image vandal revision and edit summary 1 2 and 3 from our talk page.

Also there are many image vandal revision in contributions of Dfkjw, 82.117.89.31 and 109.205.62.98, especially 3 revision on President of Singapore. Zsohl^(Talk) 12:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think I got 'em all. firefly ( t · c ) 12:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Firefly Please also remove a edit summary of rev. Zsohl^(Talk) 13:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that edit summary meets the RD criteria, but won't object if anyone else wants to make it go away. firefly ( t · c ) 13:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It is on my talk page history, so requested to remove. Never mind

But what about these revisions 4, 5 and 6. Zsohl^(Talk) 13:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep, missed those - gone. firefly ( t · c ) 13:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this essay

I believe we all encounter some form of mental illness in our lives, some all encompassing, some apparently trivial. Nothing is trivial, but we can think it is.

I knew all this, but I know it better now I've seen it written down.

I took my own wikibreak a few years ago, and it was for a few years. It coincided with sudden busy-ness in real life, and I think I would not have handled things well had I continued, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

AN topic

Hi. I didn't know if you aware or whether it was particularly relevant (which is why I would rather mention it here than at the noticeboard), but the admins in question had their RfAs within about two weeks of each other in 2007 (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kathryn NicDhàna and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pigman). Seems like it was coordinated to some degree, so it could imply that the meatpuppet behaviour was planned from an early stage. Or it could be nothing. Willbb234 23:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234: I've tried to avoid discussing anything involving their previous usernames. To some degree it might be inevitable, and doing so does not violate WP:OUTING since the connection is not revdelled/OS'd, but I'm still trying to be respectful of privacy considerations. In this case, I'm not sure that's worth bringing up, since there's an easy AGF association. Friends/acquaintances/etc. do often run at or around the same time (Firefly was my RfA buddy, although we wound up going a few months apart because I was slow to check my last box), and since the two acknowledge they know each other off-wiki, that seems like a pretty innocent explanation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand your caution, but even a little digging suggests that the former username of one of the two at least is quite possibly of significance when looking at what may be evidence of long-term issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We used to do it that way in 2007. And what Tamzin said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

WOW!

First ArbCom case request in which I read the opening statement all the way through without wanting a red pen. No opinion on the case itself, but that was clearly and consicely clear and concise. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

RD3 request

This might need a RevDel: [1] Invalid^OS_talk 17:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I imagine zzuuzz has been called worse than that, but if they'd like it gone, I'm happy to; or if a talkpage watcher feels inclined to RD, no objection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Ya think? Yeah, stuff like this doesn't bother me. If it gets too gruesome or explicit then I don't mind if someone thinks it sets a bad environment, but even that stuff doesn't bother me directly. Like a duck's back off water. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Or even water off a duck's back. Archive your talkpage? 92.19.246.23 (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Who are you calling a duck? Be water, my stalker. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, will keep that in mind. Invalid^OS_talk 15:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Rollback Rights Request

Hi there! I though I'd ask for rollback rights here because I saw you on the list of admins willing to grant such requests. I have been reverting vandalism for a little while now. I think I have the responsibility and knowledge of policy to use this tool well. I would also like to use huggle .I commit to being accountable for all reversions that I make and am willing to have this tool revoked at any time if I misuse it. Any feedback of my contributions is most certainly welcome! Thanks! Seawolf35 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC) You can disregard above. Thanks! (edited 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Word limit exceeded

Hello, Tamzin. You are currently exceeding the prescribed word limit at WP:A/R/C. Please do not add or subtract any more words from your statement without formal permission from the Arbitration Committee or clerks ahead of time. You can request a word limit extension by emailing the clerk team.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks for letting me know. All I'd request is the right to note it if Corbie makes another comment like the ones I've recently highlighted. Otherwise I think I've said what I have to say, for this phase of the case at least. If you want, I'm fine with collapsing my replies to Cryptic, Thryduulf, and Risker, which clarify some small points but don't add to the evidence presented against Mark and Corbie. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] It hasn't been asked that you collapse any of your replies, so there isn't a need to do so at this time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Need help

Tamzin, is it possible that you can check to see if the newly added sources and info on the articles Cunnilingus, Fellatio, Anilingus, Handjob, Fingering (sexual act), and Non-penetrative sex are good enough? I would really appreciate some feedback. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Autisticeditor 20.​ Overall, this is pretty good work! If I could give a general note, it's that you should make sure you're using the highest-quality sources available. For human sexuality articles, these will be more scholarly works, less sex guides (although some sources admittedly blur the line between the two). Note that for some human sexuality claims (namely, ones relating to biology), WP:MEDRS applies. I have not checked all of these citations for MEDRS compliance, but have checked whether they verify the claims you're making. And so a few issues on that note:

• Cunnilingus (diff)
  • You changed The clitoris is the most sexually sensitive part of the human female genitalia to ... of the vulva. But the two cited sources [2] [3] refer to its role in the whole human body, so if anything that summary should be broadened, not narrowed. See also Clitoris § cite note-Rodgers O'Connell Greenberg Weiten Carroll-2
  • The McCammon cite is fine, but it's put in the middle of a sentence attributed to Shere Hite.
  • The essential aspect of cunnilingus is oral stimulation of the vulva by licking, movement with the lips or some combination is not an encyclopedic tone, nor an encyclopedic approach. We document what people do, and if we say that particular techniques are more pleasurable, we say that based on reliable-source analysis, which a sex guide is not.
  • (Sidenote, not text you added, but: the female may separate the labia for her partner implies that the giving partner won't be female)
• Fellatio (diff): I don't think Bullough quite verifies It is difficult for some people to perform fellatio due to their sensitivities to the natural gag reflex. Reword to say what Bullough says: the penis hitting the back of the throat and ejaculation are both able to trigger the gag reflex.
• Fingering (sexual act) (diff): Does Carroll say the rest of the genitals (as was written before), or just the rest of the vulva (as you changed it to)? My instinct would say the former is true, at least depending on how "stimulating" is defined.
• Non-penetrative sex (diff): I don't see how Rosewarne verifies the comparison of manual masturbation with manual sex. One could argue that that's trivially true, but if you're going to cite something at all for that claim, it should be a source that makes the claim explicitly.

Again, overall pretty good work. Just bear in mind what I've said above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined by the Committee

The Request for Arbitration "CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin" has been declined by the Committee. A motion was passed in the handling of the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 14:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for Rollback

Hi Tamzin!

I’m leaving this message as I’d like to request/apply for the Rollback permission. What’s prompted this request is where I’ve recently been doing a lot of WP:BANREVERTing - Twinkle makes things a lot easier by being able to restore a previous revision (one prior to sockedits), but it can still take a fair amount of time, especially if there are a lot of contribs to go through. If I understand Rollback correctly, it should speed up the process of banreverting in instances where no one has edited the page since the sock. (I’m also aware that there are scripts like User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback, which from my understanding would make it possible to mass-revert a sock’s contribs from their contribs page — but I would want to be extremely cautious when using tools such as that, given the obviously much higher potential for something to go wrong.)

I’m happy to commit to being fully accountable in my use of the tool, as described in point 2 of User:Tamzin/Discretionary admin things#Permissions requests - you can take this message as such a commitment. As for point 1, I’d like to think I’ve generally employed good judgement when editing Wikipedia (though I guess I’m about to find out if that’s not the case ^/lh).

Let me know if I’ve missed out anything you’d like to know, or if you have any questions for me.

All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 04:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@A smart kitten: I've granted the permission for 3 months. Please make sure to use it wisely, and to respond promptly and courteously to any concerns (valid or otherwise) about how you've used it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ll make sure that I do. ^user:A smart kitten_meow 07:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Tamzin,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Sig

That's a whale of a change you made to your sig. Did you do that on porpoise? (etc.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Saw you weren't an admin anymore. Glad it's voluntary and temporary, but hope everything is well with you and yours. But, now, my user highlighter script highlights you as pink, so it's not all bad! CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 16:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

	A pork roll for you!
	wish you the best, hope you're doing well. —darling (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

+1. Take as much time as you need. But I hope you’re okay. (talk page stalker) ^user:A smart kitten_meow 17:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

+1  All the best from me as well. Look after yourself! Schwede66 05:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 --GRuban (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

October songs

my story today

+1 Hope whatever is happening in Real Life eventually settles down with a reasonable (to whatever extent possible) resolution. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@ClydeFranklin, Darling, A smart kitten, Schwede66, GRuban, DMacks, and Gerda Arendt: Thank you all very much. Thank G-d, things have settled down a bit. Some things are still unclear, but without getting into details, the potential contigency where this situation would have become my overriding focus for months/years has not come to pass. I'm taking the opportunity to remain away from admin work a bit, get some content work done (Draft:LGBT synagogue in process, and something more audacious planned after that), and hopefully return to admin work sharper and better-rested when I'm ready. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Glad you're back. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Honeycomb.io

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Honeycomb.io. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lizthegrey (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Music (2021 film)

Please review the newest edits here and let me know if you think this editor has resumed making personal attacks against me. I do not think that their latest posts are consistent with your advice to them in connection with your recent block. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

What "personal attacks" have I made? I was serious and mean in the way I presented arguments, but they are arguments. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Come on, you wanted a discussion on the article talk page, you got your way, I made the points I needed to make like you wanted me to. I do not know if you know this, but you are absolutely enraging me with the statements you are making Ssilvers. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please leave admins out of this. I am doing nothing wrong. If you want a discussion, respond to my claims directly on the article talk page. There is no reason for you to do what you are doing here. Please!!! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Tazmin, I striked everything I said. I have no clue what Ssilvers is upset by, but I striked it since I do not want their feelings hurt. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: I am not currently an admin. @Drmies, could you take a look? Or any talk page watcher. Given the intensity with which HxA approaches this topic, I tend to think an indef pblock of HxA would be in all parties' best interest, but haven't thought about this too hard, since, again, not an admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

An indef? I'm sorry, what?! Because of my... "intensity"? What does that mean? I am freaking out here! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what an indefinite block is? That means forever. You are saying that I should be blocked from editing any topic, even non-Music ones, just because of comments on one talk page? Do you see the video game articles I have worked on the past month? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I just striked a comment, and you are still telling me I deserve a indef? This is not logical. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies Everything was striked, I do not hold what I said there anymore, and I am going to let Ssilvers. There, now there is nothing for you to worry about. Happy? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I said a pblock, as in a partial block from the article and its talkpage. This is the normal solution for when an editor is generally productive but for one reason or another has a weak spot on a particular article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Breathes in, beathes out* Alright. I misred that for a second. Thanks for clarifying.

User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry

Greetings, Tamzin. I'm wondering if this comment is fitting. Are there any concerns related to original research? Your input is appreciated. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: You have not linked to any comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, this comment Infinity Knight (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: WP:NOR does not apply to talkpages. It only applies to what content we put in articles. If Nishidani were saying the content should be included simply because his friend's friend's daughter was allegedly raped, that would be an NOR violation. If he is offering that in support of including RS-published claims to that effect, it is not, particularly given that all he is saying is that it's "not improbable" and not arguing for a statement in the encyclopedia's voice. (That doesn't necessarily mean it's a strong argument—I take no position—but it's not an NOR issue.) All the best to both of you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Understood. You do bear a striking resemblance to my daughter, and I hope you don't take offense to my observation. It's truly admirable to share your photo openly on the Internet, but I usually advise my own children to prioritize their online privacy. Navigating the nuances of original research can indeed be a challenge, and at times, it can be somewhat disheartening. Wishing you a wonderful day ahead. Infinity Knight (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hope you feel better

I saw your note on your userpage, I'm sorry and I hope you feel better soon, I know things can get really stressful sometimes. Take as much time as you need, take care. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  04:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 Infinity Knight (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wanted to add that you shine brilliantly through your poem and it reminded me of a type of art that can be created on a street sidewalk. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Chicken Tikka Masala

Hello Tamzin. you very kindly semi-protected the article Chicken Tikka Masala a year ago (Oct 11, 2022), which worked wonders in reducing the frequency of people messing with the national origin of the dish without providing evidence. The protection expired not a week ago and the first pesky IP user has driven by, causing work for those who care that statements should be backed by evidence. Would you be able and willing to semi-protect for a further year, or should a certain threshold of disruption be demonstrable? Kind regards and best wishes Guffydrawers (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've re-protected for a year, given that the disruption started pretty much immediately the protection expired. I don't think we need to waste any volunteer time on this. firefly ( t · c ) 10:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Spalding v. Vilas

Hello, Tamzin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Spalding v. Vilas, 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) 23:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Your mop

Thanks for taking your mop out of the closet. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Cullen328. Well, glad to be back, because where else could I be called an "idiot Jew" by someone I blocked for pushing an Israeli(!) POV? Gotta love this place, right? Be seeing you around, I'm sure. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

For a while, some troll liked to send me emails calling me a "self-hating Jew" and worse. Clearly pertaining to Wikipedia, but not through Wikipedia email. That troll seems to have lost interest. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I got called an antisemite for reverting an unreferenced addition to a BLP about a group the subject tweeted about years ago. I don't understand how people determine the motivations of others. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I long ago gave up paying attention to the names people called me on the Internet. And segregated emails into folders. But I came to say the same thing: welcome back, Tamzin, and thank you for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What they all said. Welcome back, o Jew Trans Soul Rebel. (Didn't know we needed one ... until you were gone.) GRuban (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

IP block evader

Earlier this year you blocked 174.55.91.169 as a block evader. 204.111.198.147 appears to be the same person making some of the same edits with the same edit summaries.

174.55.91.169: [4]

204.111.198.147: [5]

Their other edits cover the same areas. I don't know who the originally blocked person was but you might better be able to tell if it is the same person. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto: So I definitely see where you're coming from, and you're probably right, but after a few minutes I'm not seeing a smoking gun. Could you post diffs please? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The two diffs above I posted are the same edits with the same edit summaries from each IP. One two ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so they are. Sorry for overlooking that. Well, happy to block, then, but first will give a ping to Yamla since the original block was a CUblock, and I cannot peer into the black box of whatever sockmaster this connects to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

By policy, I'm not permitted to share which account was involved earlier in the year. What I can say is that the checkuser data is stale so I can't say for sure this is the same person. I can be sure the IP addresses geolocate to the same area of the same country (not conclusive, but definitely suspicious) and the behaviour is basically identical. Therefore, not on checkuser grounds, I'd say this appears to be the same person evading their block. Let me know if you think there's more you need from me! :) --Yamla (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla: Nah, just wanted to make sure there was no extenuating circumstance inside that black box, like the original having since expired, or there being some reason to be unusually harsh or unusually lenient in block settings. Blocked 6mo soft, feel free to harden if you think merited. Thanks for the response. @ThaddeusSholto: Feel free to roll back whatever edits of theirs you want to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I rolled back the Southern Democrats as it was obviously disruptive but the other edits are outside my wheelhouse so I couldn't say if they are productive or not. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

2A01:73C0:501:C153:0:0:6B8:DC1

2A01:73C0:501:C153:0:0:6B8:DC1 (talk · contribs)'s edits on User talk:Lilijuros seemed weird, is this a logout sock? -Lemonaka‎ 14:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really a sock if they didn't mean to. You're welcome to ask them if they wish to correct the error. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Gotta. Here's the art of speaking I need to learn. -Lemonaka‎ 16:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sanctioned Suicide

Is there a way we can declare the article a contentious topic? Trade (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No,* but I can sure block anyone who pulls shit.

*Okay in theory you could request it at WP:AN but it would be very unlikely to pass.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding my ban

Hi Tamzin. A user is accusing me of breaking my ban on restoring contributions by sockpuppets/banned editors. However, I've checked carefully and, as you can see here and here, he reverted literally hundreds of contributions by several different editors who improved the lead, both before and after HaNagid (the sock) came to that article and made a few changes (which were already modified by other editors afterwards anyway). If you think this is a violation of my ban, of course I apologize and will self-revert. But it seems like a stretch in this case. Thank you very much. Dovidroth (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth (CC @Nableezy): That is a violation. There is no "collateral damage" exception to your editing restriction. You would be allowed to pick through what Nableezy reverted and restore only things that had nothing to do with HaNagid (or any other banned user) added, although that would be tedious, and fairly high-risk if you happened to mix up who said what. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I have self reverted. Dovidroth (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RfA

Hey T. Something about the syntax highlight part of your RfA comment is breaking the count. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

Someone named Nyxaros is trying to drag me into their edit war, at least I think they are. In any case, before I responded to them inappropriately dressing me down as they reverted my contributions, I saw they likely violated 3RR in his snark against me. See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mission:_Impossible_–_Dead_Reckoning_Part_One&diff=prev&oldid=1181873292
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mission:_Impossible_–_Dead_Reckoning_Part_One&diff=prev&oldid=1181871580
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mission:_Impossible_–_Dead_Reckoning_Part_One&diff=prev&oldid=1181867326
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mission:_Impossible_–_Dead_Reckoning_Part_One&action=history with combative inappropriate NPA language in subject header "Read...it's not that hard" and here indicative of a battleground mindset.

...and maybe more reverts on the same page from earlier, I lost count.

Another moderator had politely warned him to stop canvassing him and others to protect his POV, and to work things out for others, basically saying his axe to grind is willfully not taking into account reasonable contributions.

The heart of the dispute is that this user is trying to make a disruptive WP:POINT that aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be the arbitrator of critical consensus, as he was admonished for doing so here, see this example, when it turns out that an WP:RS etiquette tailored toward film articles under MOS:ACCLAIMED says otherwise.

Editwarring by this editor also spilling out over to other pages as well like the movie "Oppenheimer" and "Saw X" and likely others, if you dig deep enough into the editor's history.

With all this effort by him to get others reprimanded for their behavior, feels like his own behavior is an example of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If this is the wrong please to address all this then forgive me in advance and point me in the right direction? Thanks. Gwankoo (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, Ethiopique? Why would you bring this to me of all people? I can only think of two or three admins more likely to recognize you. Well whatever, blocked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it's been a while since we had CU data, @Girth Summit: want to take a look under the hood? Right city, obvious similarity to Special:Contribs/2601:282:8100:32A0::/64. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this them? See especially the geolocation and this comment. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! 3mo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

CU shows nothing of interest -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Indef of Ali36800p

Hi, as an editor involved in their reporting to ANI, I support a block being imposed but I am not so certain about it being indefinite. Perhaps I assume too much good faith. Do Slatersteven and EducatedRedneck have any views on this? Pardon me for asking. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd originally envisioned a short block, with the notion that all Ali36800p needed was a wake-up call. The threat of socking, and the proliferation of single-use IPs on the Talk:Iraq war page make me think that this wasn't a joe-job, but maybe WP:MEATPUPPET. I would not object to a time-limited block, but their subsequent response to the block has made me think an indef, where they have to show they're ready to contribute congenially, is better. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Indef is not infinite. Once a user shows they will straighten up and fly right, they can be unblocked. The idea that behavioral issues will end after a time limited block is a misconception devoid of root cause analysis.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

the threat to block evade (they were informed about socking at the ANI, it is down to them to understand the policy) is problematic. It seems to be that this is very much an issue with them, they rush in without reading policy, and then hope they get it right. So there are serious wp:cir issues here, and it does seem they will be a time-sink. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: The socking "threat" doesn't bother me that much because I don't think they know what they're threatening... But there's the rub. Anyone can say "I know what I did wrong and I won't do it again." We expect blocked users to be able to articulate what exactly that was, though. They were arguing backward from a foregone conclusion, citing any source they could find that they thought supported their claim. I'm not yet convinced that they know how to avoid that, even assuming they're serious about wanting to. If you'd like to give them some advice, by all means; and if another admin said they wanted to unblock I wouldn't stand in the way of it; but I'm not currently inclined to unblock of my own initiative. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

My (original) view was, if they were unblocked/converted to a time block, then this would effectively be a probation (we are watching and there are no more chances). The responses here allay my concerns. Thank you all for your responses and your time. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi

You certainly have an interesting talk page. Like ANI on RedBull, but without the wings.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Well it's no WP:ANI 2.0. But it does attract an interesting variety of things. (Personally I find chicken tikka masala tastier than mops or brownies.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 13:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm. brownies. How's that go with okra?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a @Valereee question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I can only think of one green vegetable that works with brownies, and it doesn't actually improve the actual eating of them. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Mmmmm. (nods knowingly)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin

I'm new to Wikipedia, as for my latest edits I have used information sources, I posted them on my talk page, a bit about me I'm a Autistic, Bipolar, Queer Trans, Ashkenazi Jew, I joined Wikipedia to edit what I've been trying to, people here aren't accepting the article source's I've found, there is more than one in relation to each of the comorbiditys

AshkenazJewi , I joined Wikipedia to Jew

Remote123457 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Remote123457: Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm "autistic" with a side of bipolar and Alzheimer's for dessert. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Remote123457. I'm actually also all of the things that you said you are (for some value of "autistic" and for some value of "bipolar"... I usually just say "neurodivergent"). I definitely appreciate you wanting to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mood disorders. However, like I said in the note on your talk page, medical statements require high-quality medical sources. That would mean things like systematic reviews and meta-anlyses, the kinds of thing you find on Google Scholar—not just info pages from various websites. That's why your edits have been reverted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 14:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

ping

Hello. Did you receive my ping from a few hours ago? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Yes, please see Special:Diff/1181980289. Thanks for catching my error. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

thanks, but the message/template wasn't my doubt I meant to ask, did you find out why you didn't receive the ping from the bot? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like I have Cyberbot I muted, because it always sends me redundant notifs at WP:CHU/S and I got sick of it. Guess that answers that. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

hehe. all is well then. see you around :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

User talk:67.237.166.144

Hello Tamzin. Can you please clarify why you decided to lift the pageblock that I imposed? Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. This was related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Audit of indef IP blocks. Occasionally admins accidentally click indef when blocking IPs, which I assumed was the case here, since there was no indication of any exceptional circumstance justifying an indef for that IP, which has never edited outside of a 1-hour period last December. As part of going through the list of old IP indefs, I resolved to start by clearing out recent ones that fell into that category; given the number of such blocks, I felt it was better to notify admins generally, as I did in the AN thread, rather than to send out pings to each admin who had made such a block. Is there a reason that this IP should still be blocked? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If I had accidentally blocked that IP editor from editing the entire encyclopedia, then I would have no problem with your unblock. This IP editor, though, intensely disrupted one specific article, and I indefinitly pageblocked them from that specific article, leaving them free to edit over 6.7 million other articles, plus the vast multitude of non-article pages. In my view, all they would have had to do is say, "I'm sorry. I won't do that any more", but they didn't. I expect to be asked to comment before this type of reversal of a pageblock that I imposed. It is a minor issue and the chance of disruption is likely negligible at this point. But I do not think that pageblocks of an IP address that has never made a single productive edit, either before or after the pageblock, should be treated the same as an indefinite sitewide block of an IP address that seems to have been used by different people, for edits of various types, some good and some bad. Do you see the distinction that I an making here? Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I totally see the distinction you're making. But I don't think it gets around the problem that we don't know how long a given person will be on a given IP. That's the main reason that WP:INDEFIP says not to block IPs. We have no way of knowing if that vandal is still at that IP, or even still lives in the same state, or even if they're still alive. And while an indef IP p-block does a lot less damage than an indef IP siteblock, in terms of potential collateral damage years/decades down the line, in aggregate they still do all add up. But I'll grant that the rule against indeffing IPs predates p-blocks, so maybe there should be some discussion of whether it should apply to them, and if so how much. If you want to start that discussion at WT:BLOCK or somewhere else, or even just as a sub-thread to my AN thread, it might be one worth having. I could reinstate the p-blocks I've commuted pending an outcome to that, if you prefer; or we could leave it in limbo the other way, without prejudice against reblocking if there's consensus that such blocks are OK. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons, related to factors both on and off Wikipedia, I do not have the appetite to begin such a policy discussion. But if you want to start that discussion, ping me and I will explain my thinking. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey Tamzin, it's great to see you in action. I hope you have sunny days ahead. Take care! Infinity Knight (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Crayon-eating Marine trope

On 29 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crayon-eating Marine trope, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. Marines eat crayons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crayon-eating Marine trope. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Crayon-eating Marine trope), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)