Hi NutmegCoffeeTea! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Breyers. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. See the RSN discussion here. It was given notice on the Breyers talk page, but you did not participate. The discussion of a normal food ingredient as "antifreeze" is purposely inflammatory with a conspicuous intent to slander, and is scientifically invalid. Give your sources, if warranted. Zefr (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Zefr (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it’s probably best if we put all this behind us (WP:Forgive and forget). Are you interested in writing more on African history? I’d be happy to help find sources or give any tips Kowal2701 (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you reach 500 edits you get access to the WP:Wikipedia Library which has access to all the main journals and publishers Kowal2701 (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry about going back to Tamzin, tbh I'm autistic and have remarkably low emotional intelligence and wasn't sure how to navigate this (also I was frustrated after the edit warring). I'm also really sorry about this. We have a very important policy called WP:Don't bite the newcomers, and I violated it there. You might find that culture war articles like Yasuke/Assassins Creed Shadows are Wikipedia at its worst, and very toxic. On the contrary, more people edit them, whereas with topics like African history its quieter and potentially lonelier. Something you might find fun is going through Encyclopedia of the peoples of Africa and the Middle East (2009) and adding to various ethnic group articles? Or the Encyclopedia of Japan : Japanese history and culture, from abacus to zori (1991)? Unfortunately I can't find one on tea and coffee! Kowal2701 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NutmegCoffeeTea (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologize but I'm not sure what I did. I made four edits in September.[1][2][3][4] I would guess that there was issue with edit #4, where I said someone is a fairly far-right editor. However this was supported by extensive diff evidence (in the diff), and thus per policy is not a personal attack. I'll also note that the venue was ANI where it's normal for editors to comment on the conduct of other editors. As such I don't see how my edit was disruptive or what I did that was against policy. I apologize if missed something obvious or did something silly. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Suggesting that the primary reason an editor must be a sockpuppet is because they edit from mobile is, indeed, spurious. When this is pointed out, choosing to double down is a clear indication that the editor is not compatible with a collaborative project. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The stated reason for the block is "Spurious retaliatory allegations of sockpuppetry after a previous warning for accusing an editor of being a white supremacist without evidence, with an intervening TBAN for related battleground editing." 331dot (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I addressed my edit above in terms of having provided evidence, and nothing about it was spurious. I don't see what policy was violated, but I can understand if someone took issue with it. What I can glean from this is that it's probably best for me to just avoid ANI and conduct boards. I don't enjoy them at all. Frankly I'd like to just avoid them and edit about things I'm interested in like tea. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hey @NutmegCoffeeTea, that's a really good start since it's colloquially known as a "dramaboard" so you'll have dozens or even hundreds of eyes on every word you say!

There's also a mention of battleground editing, so if you look at the edits that led to the TBAN, how would you approach that same situation if it happened again? What would you do to resolve a dispute if you and another editor just can't agree on something? Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For that same situation, I would let more experienced editors handle it and simply not join in at all. For the dispute question I would opt for third party input or make a short post on one of the topic noticeboards. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said the user "probably is a sock based on his edits being all mobile edits". That is a patently spurious allegation of sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What part was spurious? Writing on a touchscreen is a punishment (and especially stuff like any potential markup), and most people would not exclusively mobile edit unless there was a specific reason they had to. The main reasons would be no access to a computer for several years (unlikely for someone who appears to be based in Western Europe), or because there is some reason that they cannot log into Wikipedia on their primary device. Such as that device being used for their original account. The context of that user mirroring another user in a SPI thread they weren't pinged into is also there. I don't understand why my opinion has to match yours (I wasn't even aware of it), though I do respect it. And I'd like to reiterate I'm not even interested in this topic. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's ludicrous. And if you can't see why, that's a good sign that you lack the impartiality to edit here. If you can't see Wikipedia as something other than a battleground where everyone who disagrees with you politically is a sockpuppet of one another, I stand by this block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided my rationale, so it is by definition not spurious. If my analysis is wrong can you explain why? Disagreeing with Tamzin is not grounds for a block and it's a little strange that you cannot explain what was spurious. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:spurious: false, not authentic, not genuine. There's no rebuttal to be given to a logically incoherent claim, any more than I would have a rebuttal if you said "That user is a murderer because he wears shoes, which someone would only do to hide blood on their feet". I refuse to believe that someone could sincerely think that this is evidence of sockpuppetry; and if you somehow do, you would not be competent to edit here, since that would mean you have no ability to tell when evidence exists for an allegation you are making, and thus are constantly at risk of violating WP:NPA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious is not what Tamzin approves or doesn't approve of, and I don't think agreeing with you is the bar on competency. The editor in question closely mirrored the claims of someone else in a SPI discussion, showed up right after them, was not pinged there, and only posts from mobile, which suggests sockpuppetry. A good faith view is by definition not spurious. With this logic you would need to ban 95% of SPI posters on the basis of most being repeatedly wrong (and I never even posted there, because I simply do not much care about this matter). NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NutmegCoffeeTea (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The rationale is because he closely mirrored the claims of someone else in a SPI discussion, showed up right after them, was not pinged there, and only posts from mobile. A genuine view is by definition not spurious. I said probably, and I said it on the user conduct board where it's normal and expected for users to comment on the conduct of other editors. While I am no longer interested in editing (I do not care about this topic and the site already was a poor use of time), for the sake of anyone curious I am requesting the specific policy (not essay) that any of the four September edits violated. I won't read the follow-up either way, but I can be reached by email if anyone wants to chat. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

From your unblock request, I gather you are not interested in editing Wikipedia. In this context, I am closing your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her), you said you don't want to edit anymore and won't be reading any responses, so I'm a little confused as to why you've submitted another unblock appeal?

I'm not sure whether there's any use in asking this question, but I'm doing it anyway in case you do actually want to be unblocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, 'Spurious' from the Cambridge dictionary: based on false reasoning or information that is not true, and therefore not to be trusted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]