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.
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.
Seriously though. I am impressed by the time you dedicate to effectively warn editors violating policies (as opposed to templates), and your work in general. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Warnings from the late great Nosebagbear and whoever whomeverwhoever most recently edited this page
Hello, I'm TarnishedPath. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nosebagbear (talk)
Block me if you must, but you'll never catch my socks!
(They're very cozy slipper-socks with like a stylized dog face on the top and then little fake ears on the side. Very cozy socks. AND YOU'LL NEVER CATCH THEM!) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.13:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atomic putty? Rien! "Quantity of love"? :P (For "much love", use olin mute, or more properly mi olin mute e ni 'I love this', although ni li pona mute 'This is very good' is probably more idiomatic, since the colloquial English use of "love" to mean "like a lot" doesn't really translate.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Special:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the [[:|article's talk page]], and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please note that such behaviour is distinctly unacceptable on Wikipedia. However, I realise you are still new to Wikipedia and learning the rules - please feel free to ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you are unsure about making an edit. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, @Tamzin, that that statement is in breach of rule 1 of this talkpage listed at the top. If you do not retract the comment, I may need to tell this user about the poor behaviour by yourself. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 phrasewho[m]ever edited this page is the object, and that is an independent clause, containing a subject (who[m]ever), a transitive verb (edited ), and an object (the noun phrase, this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in the subjective case (a.k.a., nominative case), thus it must be whoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, like they/them, then it would be whoever edited them). Upshot for this expression: it must be from whoever edited this page. See the first example here, for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you dug into the page history to find that I did originally have it right. My lovely mother, whom I will stress is a published author and editor and taught me everything I know about writing, concedes defeat on the matter, Mathglot. However, for questioning the woman whom brought me into the world, you've still earned a place in the WikiHate section, congratulations or not. (Also thank you. :) ) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Outrageous abuse of power by Tamzin
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.)
@El C, TheresNoTime, and Wizzito: Well, currently item 1 on my big-project wiki to-do list is some content work (gasp! I know), and item 2 is the second round of 'zinbot automatic patrol circumstances, which I got consensus for months ago but still haven't run with, but this is item 3. If anyone else would like to take a stab at it (hint, TNT), what I'm thinking of is something like:
{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist|source_page =<!-- Watch all pages linked from these pages, emulating Special:RecentChangesLinked for them. Separate by newline. --->|source_user =<!-- Watch all pages edited by these users in provided timeframe. Separate by newline. -->|user_days_back =<!-- How many days back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 7. -->|user_edits_back =<!-- How many edits back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 200. --><!-- Either of `user_days_back` and `user_edits_back` can be set to None, as long as the other has a value -->|namespace =<!-- Name or number of namespace(s) to watch. Use 0 for mainspace. Separate by commas. Default: All. Prefix with - to mean "everything but" --><!-- Days back, edits back, and namespace can be overridden per source page or source user, by appending a # and then `days=`, `edits=`, or `namespace=` to the entry. You can also use a `prefix=` parameter. -->|always_watch =<!-- Will be watched even if not covered by the above parameters. E.g. Your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->|never_watch =<!-- Will be ignored even if covered by the above parameters. E.g. your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->|update_frequency =<!-- A number in minutes, or "auto". At "auto", the bot will update as frequently as possible, with the understanding that after each update you are moved to the back of the queue for updates, and the bot only edits once every 10 seconds. -->}}
Thus mine might look like
{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist|source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log
User:Tamzin/XfD log
User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable <!-- Open TPERs -->
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/ <!-- Only watch active RfD subpages. -->
User:Mz7/SPI case list <!-- Active SPIs -->|source_user = Tamzin
'zin is short for Tamzin
|user_days_back = 2
|user_edits_back = None
|namespace = -Category, File <!-- I don't really edit these namespaces -->|always_watch = User:Tamzin
|never_watch = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
|update_frequency = auto
}}
That would render as {{Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the {{{update_frequency}}} value.Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tamzin! I was rummaging through the NPP archives and stumbled onto this discussion. First, my belated THANK YOU!! Second, please see this redirect which showed up in the NPP queue as a result of: 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · ←Blanked the page and then reverted 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · Undid revision 1097374915 by Turtle-bienhoa (talk). Is there any way we can get the Bot to recognize that type of activity so that it doesn't remove reviewed status? Best ~ Atsme💬 📧 14:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.comTWL has lots more. And there's scholarly coverage. My COI is relatively small (my grandparents advocated for him and he lived with them briefly), enough so that I'd be fine assisting once written, but I shouldn't be the main author on this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)18:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I was just randomly browsing around when I clicked on this redlink out of curiosity and noticed that Draft:Edgar Labat exists, and in fact has just been created within the past couple of days. Just wanted to bring to your attention (if you aren't already aware)! jcgoble3 (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw this post and decided to create it, but the issue is I am completely new to Wikipedia content creation and I'll probably try to figure out some more of the content creation side of things and try finding more references before I go further. Hopefully I get it to a start-class state, but I'm not sure how long that will take. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't have TWL access and I did think it would be useful to be able to cite the newspaper so that would be helpful! Also, thanks for linking those articles, I will now study them to try and get a better understanding of what writing this type of article is like. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be a useful essay? Or is this topic either irrelevant or sufficiently covered?
Hey, I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to you because of your excellent work on Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, as well as the discussion at Talk:F1NN5TER about doxxing. The question of how to treat sources that are at least somewhat reliable but are (rightly or wrongly) perceived as prejudiced (either broadly or based on protected class) has been repeatedly discussed on Wiki. Therefore, I think that writing up a „how-to-deal-with-this“ might be useful, titled something along the line of WP:PREJUDICEDSOURCES. What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Yeah, I noticed that too. Possibly better to leave the ES but yeet the IP, rather than the other way around, to leave a clearer record if anyone ever adds it back? (I'd suggest OS over RD; email me if not clear why.) But yeah, seriously, at least the sixth time I've seen this with a BLPNAME violation being worsened when it turns into deadnaming someone and/or forcing them to overpublicize a transition. A friend's boyfriend, Seph Mozes, reached out to me years ago about the plight of being deadnamed in his mother's article but not having publicly transitioned. I offered to remove it as a BLPNAME violation but he was worried that, given his mother's fame, celebrity journalists would notice the removal. Not a likely event, given that most journalists can't even find the history tab, but I understand why he was that concerned after a childhood in the spotlight, and he shouldn't have been in that position to begin with. I would have been in the same position, during my 9 months of partial social transition in 2019, if Rms125a@hotmail.com hadn't had the sense to remove my name from my dad's article in 2013. In the past few years I've also run into the non-notable-trans/enby kid problem at Mike Tyson and Eric A. Meyer as you know, and also at Terence Tao, Bob Lee (businessman), and Tony Hawk. Not sure what to do about this. It's not a trans-specific issue, obviously, just more obvious there. BLPNAME violations are ubiquitous, possibly on more bios than not. Perhaps some cleanup project is needed, especially for minor children. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I held off on asking you if we should do additional prep to get End Poem up to FA consideration state, as I'd had one article myself in that pipeline & I'd not wanted to bite off more than I could chew and have two up at once. Now, that one I mentioned earlier didn't go anywhere, so I'm down to do whatever process you'd like to do with End Poem like a peer review, if you wish, knowing the ultimate goal would be getting a shiny gold star. If not, then perhaps another time.
Hope you've been well. "And the game was over and the player woke up from the dream. And the player began a new dream. And the player dreamed again, dreamed better. And the player was the universe. And the player was love. You are the player. Wake up." – Julian GoughThe universe. BarntToust18:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of this, I've made a pass at greatly expanding the whole "creation" sectiont—the highlight being that I wrote about how Gough believed that the universe took control of him during inception and basically wrote the latter half of the poem. I have no idea if there are any guidelines about writing about spiritual content on Wikipedia, lol but I'm sure trying my best. BarntToust20:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm in bed with a fever right now, which means I've got lots of time to stare at a screen but am very scatterbrained in doing so. Might reply to this in like 10 minutes. Might be a few days. We'll see! -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh if you're wanting for something to stare at on a screen, I suggest you check out the movie Inception if you haven't already, or if you have, it's a good film to rewatch since on Netflix along with a bunch of other Christopher Nolan classics. I was just reminded about it because I was just writing about how it compares to the End Poem, and I have to say that it would be the craziest experience to watch it while scatterbrained. Again, my sincerest wishes for your speedy recovery! BarntToust21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a horrible idea, for the exact reason you think it's a good idea—said in the nicest possible way. 🤣 A few years ago, when I had pancreatitis, and spent like a week feverish, in extreme pain, and/or high out of my mind, I sort of found this inner state of perpetual half-dreaming. This was, no doubt, related to my dissociative identity disorder, and since that time the parts of me have coalesced in a way that makes me for most purposes not multiple... but that dreamworld remains, and looms large at a time like this. Maybe that makes no sense, but I think it actually has a lot in common with what Gough says about the End Poem. So yeah, something like Inception sounds like playing with fire haha, tempting the awesome power of whatever strange headspace lurks within me. I do like the movie, though! Old enough to have seen it in theaters when it came out, and I think again at some point since then. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?"
@BarntToust: I really like your idea of talking more about the poet's craft! Our articles on art are often weirdly silent about the actual art part. It's great to get into that. I do worry that this is a lot to source to an interview. Are there any secondary sources that talk about Gough's craft? In either case, I have pared things down a little, just some details that were excessive or repetitive in my view; let me know if you disagree about any of that.As to FAC, hmm. It's not the kind of article that I would personally be bringing there on my own. But if you want to bring it there, I'll do my part. I think our biggest weakness is going to be the amount sourced to Gough (either directly or through the Chatfield interview). So if you can spot any opportunities to reduce our reliance on those primary sources, that would be great. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the concerns you've shared about the primary sourcing are what I've figured, so yep, I think there are a few refs I can use to cut back that. The use of Substack has largely been relegated to the copyright section, so I'll be reading up on all the good sources that cover this.
I'm not as concerned with the Boing Boing interview, as WP:RSPLIST says that besides no consensus for the site's overall reliability, there are stories and pieces done by subject matter experts, and I'd wager that interview conducted by Tom Chatfield falls well within the lines. Before that, I probably should flesh out the part about his personal crisis, reclusion to the Netherlands, shroom trip and subsequent meeting with the universe. I think there's more there for me to write about, so long as it received third party coverage.
Once the overall sourcing concerns are resolved, I think I'll at some point put it up to peer review. Thank you again for all your work with this! BarntToust12:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For your thorough response at RfD, and lots of other good work you do. I'm not always sure if it's worth the time to provide this level of detail on every occasion, but it sets a high standard for the quality of remarks in Wikipedia discussions and helps educate other editors to become better contributors.
I know that editing Wikipedia can be challenging and thankless at times, so I wanted you to hear it from me: Thanks for all your work! Daask (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More SCOTUS redirects
Hey Tamzin. Thanks for your help with the SCOTUS redirects. I just noticed that the query you did to tally all of them missed the earliest volumes, which have a different name structure because the volumes included cases from courts other than SCOTUS. Volume 1 didn't even have any SCOTUS cases.
I think the redirects to here made by Pickle should be speedy deleted based on the big RFD. Could you do that? I'd tally them myself except that it seems like you had a way to do it procedurally. lethargilistic (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I actually thought of that edge case! And then forgot to include it in my query. 🤦 Yeah, I'll handle this, although maybe not this week. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this loop! I did this manually a while ago. Someone accidentally deleted a bunch of pages because they thought they needed to run the whole script again, lol. lethargilistic (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tamzin! Hope you've been doing well since last we crossed paths on Wikipedia: the reason I'm reaching out now is because of another time we spoke about getting the End Poem maybe up at FAC; big concerns were mainly primary sources. I recently tried messing around with {{Primary sources reflist}}, but could not for the life of me get that template working in list-defined reference format (would be Gough's two references, Rosenfeld's music reference, and Persson's tweet reference, the four primary sources in the article)—like the rest of the sources in the article. I'm not sure if I'm just a clueless goof as I often am, or if using list defined reference format with that template does not work for whatever reason?—I would not know who to go to to see about altering that template to fix that if so. Admittedly, I think that using that template would probably bring some semblance of help adding a fancy legitimacy to the sources were it ever to be set up at FAC, if that makes sense. "You can't really question the use of primary sources since we've taken the time to separate them out in their own special little column, which exists in tandem with the fact that they are totally okay to use", or something like that. Best wishes to you—BarntToust03:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hope
I hope I didn't make you regret pinging me to you-know-where recently. Like I said there, bringing visibility to sexual minorities from the past is important, and that goal is hurt, not advanced, by dragging in sloppy sources in order to make heroes out of people who don't deserve it. EEng19:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: I don't regret pinging you. You're... yourself, as always, and I do hope we can keep tempers cool, but I agree on what you're saying here. I wrote an essay recently, User:Tamzin/Vicarious misgendering, that discusses some of the forces that I think are at play in cases like this. I scoped it more around contemporary figures, but I should probably add a bit about historic figures. I completely understand people's temptation to look at some figure from the past and, seeing themself in them, project a particular gender identity. As a private matter, I don't see a problem with it; for instance, I see a lot of myself in Thomas(ine) Hall, and not just because of the name. Likewise for artistic works; interpretations of Joan of Arc as transmasculine, as an empowered proto-feminist woman, and as a conservative Catholic woman all have their merits. And scholarly interpretations in the same vein also have their place, but they have a tendency to be misconstrued by laypeople as statements of fact rather than revisionist analyses using intentionally anachronistic language.Where it becomes an issue, then, is the claim that there's some objective truth about a historical person's gender. In a lot of ways, regardless of the merits of a case, I think that represents misunderstanding of both historiography and cultural relativism. You see this on all sorts of labels. I've met a lot of people who insist that "gay" is an objective term that can describe any man who is exclusively attracted to men, regardless of whether the word "gay" existed in their era, which is a fascinating misconception given that that's not even true today. For some reason it seems that, to some people, labels like "gay" and "trans" are these nuanced, complicated things when we apply them to ourselves, but easy litmus tests when we apply them to anyone else.The real loss in this is that, as you say, there's a wealth of knowledge in the nuances of life for historical gender-nonconforming figures. The fact that someone like Sewally/Jones can't be easily categorized as a trans woman, transfeminine nonbinary person, cross-dressing gay man, or cis straight man who only departed from that for money, is a really important historical lesson, and one that can teach us a thing or two about the present day. For instance, the kathoey article currently defines them as "people ... whose identities in English may be best translated as transgender women in some cases, or effeminate gay men in other cases", which is about as systemically biased a statement I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia's partly to blame on this. Maybe with ledes like "A trans woman or transgender woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth", we promote a false sense of certainty in what that label means, belying the ambiguity known to scholars and individual trans people alike. Or maybe some people will just always want things to fit into neat buckets. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
Always impressed with how you approach working with other editors, and the humility you show in the process when expressing your own imperfect approach. Cheers to you Tamzin! TiggerJay(talk)15:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin. I know the censuses pertain to the Noblitts we're looking for because I know they were living in San Francisco at the time. I also know that James Noblitt died in 1913 in California in San Francisco.
and is buried in San Francisco National Cemetery. That's why he's not on the 1920 Census with Irene and her mother, Katie. They are living with Anna (née Noblitt) Wilkerson and her husband. Lastly, the city directory (for phone numbers) in 1918 San Francisco lists an Irene J. Noblitt, actress. That's not a common name nor is it a common occupation.
Actors changed the spellings of their names all the time. Sometimes they went by a different name altogether. I'm not understanding why the news articles are having such a hold when her parents and sister were all Noblitt. Her parents wouldn't assign her a different surname at birth. Men and woman weren't even hyphenating their surnames in 1902. Everybody had the same surname; the husband's. If this was a discussion trying to determine when a name was changed or a marriage took place, it would be harder. But it's not. It's her name at birth. We aren't questioning her parents' names, and one would think one should if we're questioning her name. We have government and city documentation. Clarawolfe (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion
Hello, the user you recently blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Retana1 is back again under this IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.191.51.46 FMSky (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Back again, and still not communicating at all https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/201.191.218.160&target=201.191.218.160&offset=&limit=500 FMSky (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: BTW, 201.191.218.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 201.191.51.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) are both viable rangeblocks here. If you see more activity, let me know and I can give two weeks to whichever they pop back up on. Even the /16 looks relatively safe to block if it comes to it. Btw, interesting that at the very start of this, it wasn't bands, and they used edit summaries. Does "tightened plot summary" ring any bells for you? I'd Quarry it, but querying edit summaries often times out. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Havent seen the film plot shortener before, could it be that theyre a different user? Anyway blocking these ranges seems like it would stop all disruption. Maybe make it so that they can still respond to talk page commentsFMSky (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This range has become very active again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.191.218.0/24 Could it be shut down for a while? FMSky (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know a while ago I'd asked about a potential WP:FAC for End Poem. With time comes change, and I'd like to ask if you what your thoughts are about eventually getting it over there to be judged. I looked into peer review, and I think maybe this would be worthwhile to consider.
Otherwise, I hope you've been having a rockin' good time with life; I remember last time we ran across each other here, you'd mentioned you had moved, I think. I hope that's gone well for you and that those new horizons have been bright for you! BarntToust02:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would take quite a bit of refactoring to take it from a userspace essay to a project space essay, so I don't think I'll take you up on that offer. TarnishedPathtalk08:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see stuff like this all the time and U5 has been my standard in such cases. I'm not excited about leaving such pages in userspace for six months. BusterD (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Per Wikipedia:User pages § Handling inappropriate content, The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable. So in general I would say the best answer is to let the user know they are misusing their userpage and ask them to fix it. That said, since this user has no other edits and since this is very obvious misuse of userspace, I wouldn't blame you for skipping that step and blanking it yourself, and then leaving them {{uw-userpage}} or a custom note. If they revert, well, that's a user-conduct issue and quickly approaches WP:NOTHERE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I use Tumblr. I used to use Geocities, but meh. Now that they re blocked, just ignore it. Not sure what's happening on their sandbox. Didn't look. As it is a fictional story and does not even pretend to be an article, maybe MFD? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
U6 will get it in six months. And since Ritchie's blanked it there's no real harm in that, IMO. That was sorta the idea with the U5→U6/U7 replacement, letting most of the nonsense get chewed up procedurally without having to waste volunteer time assessing it. In this case, the user conduct issue was resolved just as quickly as if it had been U5, and the NOTWEBHOST revisions will be deleted in due course with less admin overhead. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Tamzin. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 13 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙✉15:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Module:Forward
Hey @Tamzin, what's up? I was on the way of writing a code for pretty much the same result of your module for forwarding parameters between templates, which I need for a copule of templates in the eswiki. And then I bumped into your module. Could you tell me if it's working correctly, and if yes - if it would be ok to import it to the eswiki? Cheers. Virum Mundi (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Well it works fine, unfortunately couldn't find a way to go around the sust:, which is kinda what I need (adjustable template, can't be converted to text). Bummer, I really need a solution to call all the params from a template into another without having to write a line for each possibility (there can be many, and can be none, depends on the situation). If you have any idea regarding how this can be done, would appreciate it. Anyway tnx a bunch! Virum Mundi (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after working with Template:Params (trying all sort of stuff), looks like I could finally put together some code which does what I need, so... thanks for your time! Virum Mundi (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Noreste: Thanks! Done. After checking like 20 times that I hadn't clicked "enable" by accident. I haven't changed the name though. It still does implement a "massive IP block", equivalent to rangeblocking (up to) 0.0.0.0/0 and ::/0, even though for most users they won't be able to see the IPs being affected. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Block of Special:Contributions/~2025-31210-46
Hi!
I saw that you indef-blocked that account. Do you know how this will affect the underlying IP address? (Since it's a temporary account)? I was considering blocking for the usual 31 hours but this makes me wonder -- Luktalk 17:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Luk: I've actually been working on a table on this! WP:TMPA#Impact for administrators. Per that, looking at the row for an indef block of a TA with account creation blocked:
The TA is blocked indefinitely (obviously lol)
Anyone who tries to edit from its most recent IP in the next 24 hours, or any IP it tries to edit from within 24 hours of that edit attempt, gets autoblocked for 24 hours
Anyone who, under those same circumstances, tries to create an account (including by trying to edit while logged-out, which would ordinarily create a temp account) is told they cannot (and thus cannot edit)
As to length... previously we had two paradigms for vandal blocks, which I'd summarize as "Block an IP for two school-days so hopefully whoever's using it tires themself out; block an account indefinitely if it's clear they're only here to vandalize." Temp accounts fall into a gap between those, in my opinion: They're more clearly tied to one person (specifically, to the browser session that made the edit), so there's less need to worry about collateral damage; but at the same time, part of the logic for indeffing VOAs has been that someone choosing to create an account just to vandalize is a strong signal that that's all they'll do, and with temp accounts that's no longer true. Still, I think temp accounts are considerably closer to the named-account paradigm, and so I've been going with indefs for accounts whose only edits are bad-faith and who've been duly warned. Especially because, the way autoblock works, in most cases this is essentially the same as a 24-hour block on the underlying IP.I'd definitely be very open to promptly unblocking any dime-a-dozen vandal who requests, though, and I definitely don't intend to hold people as strictly to WP:SOCK for good-faith edits after a TA indef; based on the anecdotes I've collected at the related essay User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, I'm guessing most community members will feel the same. In practice it's always been the case that vandals who want to "go legit" (like me, once upon a time!) just create a new account and move on, and get away with that because good-faith users usually don't get checkusered. If it comes to it, I've been toying for a while with trying to get something into policy like Editing after a block for routine vandalism (i.e., not harassment, malicious BLP violations, elaborate hoaxing, or long-term disruption) is generally not considered sockpuppetry if the edits on the new account are constructive. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually curious on whether we could make some progress on that. We'd have to change IPs to temporary accounts because the WMF finally made the change, but other than that, I thought the wording was pretty good. Is there any chance it could be posted soon? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin, just got a message yesterday that there was some edit filter tripped by some of my students at the University of Edinburgh?? Is that right? I can't find the thread about it anymore, must be archived. But I believe it might be something to do with them using Wiki Love on each others talk pages to greet each other? Why would that hit an edit filter? And are you saying they may need to be 'confirmed' editors before they can do this unless they may hit that filter again??? any advice gratefully rec'd. Cheers! Stinglehammer (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stinglehammer: The message, now removed, is at special: permalink/1320597294. Several of your students tripped an edit filter that blocks rapid editing of user talk pages by unconfirmed accounts. There isn't really anything that can be changed on the filter's side to prevent that, since the considerable majority of edits like that are abusive; mass wikilove is a rare exception. Fortunately, though, as an event coordinator you can grant them confirmed, which will exempt them from that filter and most others. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more talking about my name being with the profanity. I'm not sure whether it should be or not, just want to make sure someone with tools can take a look. Ultraodan (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your rev-deletes here. However, more BLP violations have come in since you redacted that batch, and I'd recommend removing those too, if not outright protecting the page because of them (I have filed a request at WP:RFPP for this article, fwiw). Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm on the brink of stepping back from admin work for a bit as it is (for good reasons, not bad ones). Even setting that aside, I've found the kind of work I do is the exact kind that admins wind up having to stop doing once they're on ArbCom. Fear not, I'll still be around to propose remedies on workshop and quibble about technicalities on things. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: I have no strong feelings about this block, other than to note that they've disclosed their IP, so I don't need to fuss about with WP:TAIVDISCLOSE and can just say to see User talk:47.205.180.147 for their previous block.Incidentally, was just about to drop you a line to say I just tried something billed as okra juice... except looking this up, apparently this is a mistranslation and it's lightly fermented roselle juice. Oh well. Very tasty either way, okra or not. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tamzin, I see you're around. mind doing a quick undeletion for me at Special:Undelete/Theorem-proving? With the exact deletion reason (in wikimarkup) with all the text after the colon and before the end of this sentence (that's also in nowiki tags, for potentially slightly easier pasting): per Graham's request, so that [[special:diff/334469745|this edit]] makes sense. That diff link doesn't go to the right place, but it will with the revision undeleted. It turns out that along with importing an edit in December 2009, I accidentally replaced an article, because the edit I imported (from 2005) came after what was then the latest edit (from 2004). I didn't know about this problem until later. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need help from someone experienced in these sorts of topics. Yesterday someone changed this article to "anti-transgender advocacy group". Which I think is wrong considering the History section currently says "Sex Matters has been described variously as 'anti-trans', a 'human rights charity', 'gender-critical', and a 'women's rights group'." So I don't see why this would be in the opening statement. I tried an edit request on the talk page to no avail ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think given their edit summary, they're using the logic used in a consensus at Talk:LGB Alliance as the rationale. It's worth noting your edit request wasn't outright rejected, though. They just told you to get consensus on the talk page first. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remark on whether or not I thought the rationale was valid, just tried to provide my understanding of what the rationale was. (Sometimes a consensus can apply to multiple articles, but I haven't looked into this one enough to know.) And then I (perhaps too vaguely) alluded to a suggestion of getting consensus on the talk page you edit requested on for the type of edit you want made. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So someone inserts something non-neutral and contradictory to the rest of the article, and then *I* have to find a consensus to remove it again? It's this how it is done around here? ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's what you were advised to do when your edit request was rejected. (Without spending more time and energy looking into this than I have tonight, I'm not sure how relevant that kind of boilerplate advice is in this scenario.) I just noted it because I saw it and thought that that was a bit different than "to no avail" is all; I meant it as a clarification. It is worth noting neutrality doesn't (always) mean you describe the subject of an article neutrally; it means you represent significant views by reliable sources proportionately/fairly. I don't know enough about the subject to know if such a change is POV because I have no frame of reference for how most sources discuss the subject of the article you're talking about here (see aforementioned about time and energy). - Purplewowies (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across his writings about what he doesn't like about WP (I think that's all his writings about WP) before, and there's nothing unique about that, there's a guy called Bandler who writes with a similar angle, and it obviously has a paying audience. But it's a little funny to me that WP has been provided [6] with a very professional image of Rindsberg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with Bandler, was quoted in a few of his articles. I appreciated that he at least cared about getting the facts right; was less impressed with some of his decisions about who else to rely on as sources. This Rindsberg article is really bottom-of-the-barrel shit, though. Other complaints by Bandler and Rindsberg have at least been coherent arguments that we're giving undue weight to some sources; here he can't even really point to something he thinks we've been incorrect about, and is just relying on pure religious hysteria. Personally, my Jewish upbringing didn't include anything about defending Jesus' honor against accusations of being gay, but maybe things were different in whatever shul he was raised in. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read worse than Bandler, but afaict, all his WP-writings are on the WP-is-mean-to-Israel perspective. And he seems to pick who to ask questions a bit one-sided. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :D The original title of the essay, when I first drafted it two years ago(!), was "Gender-identity-critical: A compromise ideology for everyone to hate". Then I figured out how to rewrite it in a much less hateable way, but still wanted that name in there, but had nowhere to put it but tacked-on at the end. In which moment, searching for a segue, the voice of George Carlin came to me. :P -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP auto reveal
Hi, asking here since you seem to be knowledgeable relating to temporary accounts.
How do I turn on autoreveal? I have all the permissions for it and followed the video (displaying Special:RecentChanges) and I am not seeing that feature in the Tools menu. Did the WMF not enable this feature after all? I do have a couple of gadgets in that menu but I am not sure that having those would make a difference. Thanks, CutlassCiera17:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutlass: It looks like auto-reveal is only available to admins/crats/CU/OS, as well as some global groups. I may have misstated this at some point; since I'm a global abuse filter helper it wasn't obvious to me that I was getting admin-like TAIV access even on wikis where I'm not an admin. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't get the extreme hangup with privacy in this sense - while there may be a potential issue with publicly displaying IPs, the level that it has been taken to seems rather over-the-top. CutlassCiera17:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutlass: My understanding is that it's out of the WMF's hands and largely about avoiding increased regulatory scrutiny that, in the worst-case scenario, could lead to a crackdown on things like CU access.I wonder if there would be community consensus for, say, including auto-reveal with rollback (which has a moderately higher amount of gatekeeping than TAIV) or making it its own right. And, if there were consensus for that, I wonder if the WMF would be amenable to it, would oppose it, or would impose certain conditions. At the global level, global rollbackers have the right, and while global rollback is a bit more gatekept than local rollback, that's at least some indication that the WMF is not expecting admin-tier gatekeeping for auto-reveal, like it expects with view-deleted rights. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Hey Tamzin, I often enjoy reading your comments when I come across them. Always well-thought and balanced. I appreciate the work you put in here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Saw your recent updates. Kudos for relinquishing admin rights in good spirits, good luck with your work on a new wikimedia projects, and excited for your eventual return as an admin to en.wiki User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)19:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: Certainly not a new user, although I think only a CU would be able to say whether it's the policy-violating kind of not-a-new-user. Longterm unregistered editors creating an account so they can create a page is a valid use of throwaway accounts, historically. What's the connection to RhymeWrens, though? I bumped into them a few times on the crimew article and they seemed good-faith; GARing it seemed fair enough given that the article reached GA before the thing crimew is now most notable for. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, hm. It was just the GAR, and on re-reading you're right that it doesn't seem problematic at all. I was in a bit of a hurry when I first posted here, please forgive the oversight. I might do some more digging, but there probably isn't much more for us to do here. Toadspike[Talk]00:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the other mail several days after your reply so wanted to make sure it reached, or if you opened the inbox since I know you were taking a new project and on the verge of admining break. With this, thank you again for your initial warm mail-reply which keeps motivating and encouraging, feeling part of a friendly attentive atmosphere. :-) This is why I also carefully thought of what and how to express on my next mail and briefly point other life-stuff for why it took me few days to send. So also notify that I briefly explained those on another mail I sent directly from the website, along with pointing my different mail-address for my mail chain-reply. Also, mainly for the share and for your general knowledge and experience (not as admin). In case you did see it, I understand if you haven't gotten the chance yet to read through the several things while you were closing some current admin corners and started with the new language project. And joining the others to wish you good luck (again, also here) with the new project and for a swift return to your activities here. אומנות (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @אומנות, yes, I did completely miss that email. Apologies. Acknowledging that I can't help with any particular admin things right now, I'm going to respond here just in broad terms for transparency, without discussing any details of your email.
You, as a Wikipedia editor in good standing, are empowered to revert any vandalism you see, ARBPIA-related or not. You should report vandals to AIV and protection requests to RFPP. For ARBPIA matters that are unambiguously vandalism, using those boards is fine; more complex things should go to AE.
You also have discretion to enforce WP:ECR (except in those ways that require admin tools). Usually this means hatting, striking, or removing comments, similar to WP:SOCKSTRIKE. When in doubt about how to handle an ECR violation, ask an admin, preferably one with AE experience. Just contacting someone on their talkpage works best. You're never going to get in trouble for asking.
Given the choice between AE and AN/I, I'd always recommend AE. There's a limit of 500 words total, including replies; https://wordcounter.net/ is as good a tool as any for checking your word count. Admins are reasonably generous with extensions.
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
Hi, I saw that you deleted Ulyana Barkova a few years ago as it was created by a banned user. I wanted to recreate it, but I just thought I'd check whether there were any other concerns I should be aware of before I do so. Thanks! Spiderpig662 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderpig662: I'm not currently an admin, but, you never need permission to recreate an article that's been speedily deleted, as long as the deletion reason wouldn't apply to your version. Given that you are not—checks account age... ok, whew—given that you are not a sockpuppet of PlanespotterA320, that shouldn't be a concern for you. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After recent events, I suddenly want to learn the language of good. What is some advice you would give to someone who wants to do that? JJPMaster (she/they) 17:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I apparently have 1 edit on the Toki Pona Wikipedia, though I don't remember making any, and DeletedContributions doesn't list anything either. I did, however, purge a few templates to fix transclusion errors. Could this be some kind of bug in the migration script? Thanks. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The script also counts revisions which were imported from another wiki in some cases (example), which may not be intended behavior. Anyway, thanks for the quick response. PS: Toki Pona is an interesting experiment; I've wanted to look into it, but I never seem to have the time for that. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JJPMaster: It's accurate as a word-for-word translation, but "have the time" is an idiom that doesn't translate directly, and tawa only covers the prepositional sense of "to", not the infinitive sense of "time to <verb>". Instead, you can replace jo e tenpo tawa with simply ken:
tenpo ... time
ale ..... [of] all
la ...... <regarding the foregoing>
sina .... you
ken ..... [are] able [to]
toki .... speak
pona .... [of] good/simplicity/peace
Thank you, although I was using "toki pona" as a noun, rather than "toki" being a verb modified by the adjective "pona" (equivalent to "toki Inli"). Is that kind of formation frowned upon? JJPMaster (she/they) 03:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JJPMaster: I find that most proficient speakers do tend to use toki pona (or toki Inli, etc.) as verbs more often than nouns when conveying "to speak language X", on the basis that toki means both "speak" and "language" so it's more pona (simple, elegant) to merge the two. That said, there's nothing wrong about using it as a noun, and there's some contexts where that might be the most pona thing for other reasons. If that's your intention, though, you'll need a verb and something to indicate the object, which in fairness you did have in your original version, just the wrong ones. So you could repeat toki, with sina ken toki e toki pona 'you [are] able [to] speak <indicates direct object> [the] language [of] good/simplicity/peace'. Or you could change the first toki there to kama sona for 'you [are] able [to] come [to] know <indicates direct object> [the] language [of] good/simplicity/peace'. And/or you could use kepeken 'with' instead of e, in either of those cases. (Note that kepeken only means 'with' in the sense of 'using', not the sense of 'alongside'.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nhoyas0369: I wouldn't be able to tell you that without knowing your IP address. You can see your IP here, but for privacy reasons you may not wish to disclose it. However, just speaking generally, if you haven't done anything wrong, then most likely you are seeing that I blocked the IP range you are on because others were editing disruptively. Sometimes I make blocks that only affect a single page, or prevent logged-out editing but allow account creation. If the block isn't preventing you from editing any pages, I wouldn't worry about it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plurality and multiplicity
I read the FAQ. Is there a reliable source for more information you would recommend for someone who would like to learn more? For example a website or a book. I did google but google is getting worse and worse these days. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: The Plural identity article has gotten a lot better since I wrote that FAQ. Still a ways to go, but I'd say it gives a pretty good explanation of the topic now, and links to some good scholarly sources. I also recall https://did-research.org/ having good resources, although I can't vouch for it entirely. The main advice I can give is don't trust the opinion of anyone who seems to approach the topic from the perspective of how they want the human mind to work, and reasons backward from there. This applies both to some people in the plural community and to some critics of the concept. That's not to say one needs to subscribe to the "all experiences are valid" paradigm, but a lot of perspectives on the topic are tellingly devoid of any grounding in people's experiences at all (or anyone's experiences but the speaker's).Will also ping Lizthegrey in case she has any thoughts here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That can keep me busy for a while.
don't trust the opinion of anyone who seems to approach the topic from the perspective of how they want the human mind to work, and reasons backward from there Gotta love the Zizians.
I’m requesting to you for reconsidering the Bangladesh-military topic ban you had placed on me earlier. I understand why the sanction was imposed, my comments created a clear conflict of interest.
Since then, I’ve carefully reviewed several wikipedia policies. I fully accept the sanction’s legitimacy and have stayed strictly within its limits. If the ban is lifted, I will avoid any COI-adjacent behavior, edit only based on policy and reliable sourcing, and ensure my conduct remains neutral and non-intimidating. I’ve contributed constructively in Indian & Pakistani military related articles, and would like the opportunity to do the same for Bangladesh, with a clear understanding of the boundaries. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin : As far as I can recall, you were the uninvolved administrator, ans you had told me that if I wanted to apply for an unban, I could do it directly to you in your talk page. I had notified you that I removed the notification of the ban from my talk page, hence I am unable to provide you a link to the message. I am copy pasting the message below, from my talk history, and you are free to verify it by checking my talk page's history. However, I am clueless about the fact why you mentioned the usage of ChatGPT or other LLM, as these are my own words. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attaching the notification of the topic ban, extracted from the history of my talk page (As I had removed it from my tall earlier) : You are indefinitely banned from military topics related to Bangladesh, broadly construed. You have been sanctioned due to long-term conflict-of interest editing, including edits that can be interpreted as using Wikipedia to censor your fellow-countrymen on behalf of your government. Recently, you have been removing information about Bangladeshi military units. While those edits might be defensible on the basis of WP:PROVEIT or WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, the troubling part is that both in your edit summaries and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh § Military Units you have explicitly said you will do this even where the material is sourced, in the interests of the Bangladeshi military's operational security. And at User talk:Mehedi Abedin § Units you have said that you have been directly related to the army since 2007 and then asked Mehedi to not reinstate such information about our military. Whether or not you intend it this way, this certainly can be read as an attempt at intimidation, with you being a representative of the state and implying that Mehedi's actions go against the interests of the state. Even if this was not your intention, this is at a minimum a conflict of interest in the most literal sense: Your interests as someone affiliated with the Bangladeshi military are in conflict with Wikipedia's interest in neutrally discussing the Bangladeshi military, and you have shown that this is able to cloud your editorial judgment. This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. -- 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lt.gen.zephyr: Yes, when I topic-banned you you had the option to appeal to me as the sanctioning administrator. However, I am not currently an administrator, so I cannot unban you. Your remaining options are to appeal to WP:AE or WP:AN following the instructions at WP:CTOPAPPEALS. I mentioned ChatGPT because your message above appeared to be written using it, or at least relying on some template for block/ban appeals: It doesn't address any details of why you were banned, doesn't provide any details of what you've done since or what you would do differently, makes vague reference to "wikipedia policies", and mentions a policy that wasn't at issue (reliable sourcing). These are all hallmarks of an AI-written or AI-assisted ban appeal. The lowercasing of "wikipedia" and the use of an ampersand makes me think that this isn't fully AI-written, but overall the writing style is dissimilar to how you write in most talkpage comments, which also suggest AI use. I would suggest writing a more detailed, authentic unban request before filing at AE or AN. The main question reviewing administrators are likely to have is why, if your edits were (as you acknowledge) a COI issue in the past, they will not be a COI issue in the future; I would suggest going into more detail about that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @IOHANNVSVERVS. Not trying to blow you off—I've left the email notification on unread as a reminder to myself to get to it—but fair warning, I don't have a huge amount of bandwidth for enwiki things at the moment and it might be a little bit. In the past when people have reached out to me with things when I was on hiatus from adminship, I've palmed them off on Valereee, who might be amenable in this case (or might have finally gotten fed up with how often I do this, who knows :P). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Tamzin. Thank you for this reply. I think I will forward the email to Valereee and another admin as well just to get more eyes on it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: U6 applies to any user subpage by a non-contributor that is more than 6 months old. Since the user never edited any page but that, you were definitely correct to apply U6 there. You may or may not have also been correct to delete under U7; it doesn't fall into the semi-arbitrary set of deleted revisions that I can currently see, so I don't know. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the idea is, same as with G13, if they're in the minority of cases where undeletion isn't an option, that'll be explained to them at REFUND. Better that way than confusing someone up-front with "Probably this can be undeleted but not if you were bad." -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: You know, I saw that, and I considered saying something, but concluded it's a gray area since ADE is about adminship but isn't a venue where you go to talk to admins. The cause of the TBAN was bad noticeboard reports, and I think if his ADE comments had even slightly touched on that sort of thing, it would have been over the line, but as stands it's probably just barely clear? I can't say it was a good idea, and if you want to give him a warning to the effect of "This was close to the line and you should be careful in the future, as a similar edit could be viewed as a TBAN violation", I think that would make sense. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it falls in the same category of like, perhaps not strictly a violation, but coming up right to the line, and if you come right up to the line enough times, sooner or later you stumble across it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin. I'm particularly active on Israel-related topics. Since the ban of Davidbena, there is literally nobody there to offer knowledgeable material, explanations and opinions on Judaism-related issues. Nobody. The quality of the articles is substantially and noticeably suffering from this lack of expertise, and I hope you agree that the paramount purpose of the Wiki project is: offering good info to the user.
I've had my fair share of run-ins with David, who's got a very traditional religious approach to almost any topic, worlds away from mine, but he's not a troll, bully or stalker by any stretch of the imagination. One may despair while trying to find the right way of communicating, but that's life, people can be from Venus, Mars and anywhere in between - and here we need all of them to understand their particular worlds. As long as they're well-intended - and not aggressively going against balanced fellow editors, of course - and I am sure David checks all of these boxes. On a larger note, applying the more radical tools of cancel culture makes us poorer and offers no actual protection. I hope you can find a way to bring David back and allow him to contribute his knowledge. Countering more particular or extreme tendencies is part of the Wiki routine, we're all, as a community, part of balancing out the articles; what we can't do, even in a group effort, is to bring in expertise we don't have. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Arminden. I agree that David has brought a lot to Wikipedia, and have said as much to him. I gave him some advice here about how to appeal his unban—which as a community sanction can only be lifted by community appeal—and was pleased to see that he took it to heart. The resulting thread did not find consensus to unban, but I hope it can give him a roadmap for what the community is looking to see in a subsequent appeal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I'm normally not at all interested in administrative and technical aspects, until they hit me directly, and I'm really happy to see that you've actively taken care of this problem. I wouldn't have known where to look for the reopened discussion. Thanks again! Arminden (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: I didn't see changing the article's prose as necessary given there was no actual change in scope, but, sure, Done. And no one is required to update a Wikidata label when they move a page, but easy enough, so also Done. I've also added {{interwiki extra}} to the article to get a few interwiki sitelinks like bgwiki (which has an article on kuwiki, but not on ckbwiki or the combined wikis), lessening the impact of the "Bonnie and Clyde" issue. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin. I have a gamingcheck related puzzle. I thought I would ask you before attempting to navigate the cloud services support IRC channel (never used it) or Telegram (not a user) just in case you already know the answer.
The app.py now includes the following, because I wanted to make static URLs for .svg and .json output available (for 30 days) so that they could be linked in discussions etc.
# Used for temporary static URLs for plots and JSON outputapp.config['OUTPUT_FILESYSTEM_PATH']=os.path.join(app.root_path,'static','output')app.config['OUTPUT_BASE_URL']='/static/output/'
It works fine both locally and in the deployed tool.
The files are available and reachable via the URLs e.g. here and here.
The logging says the following...exactly what I would expect to see.
The puzzle is - where are the files actually located, on some file server presumably, but I don't know how to see it. Is there a mysterious symbolic link I'm not seeing?
My concern is that I need to make sure that the code that is supposed to delete them after n days actually does it.
Anyway, if you know, please let me know, but don't spend any time on it if you are busy or have better things to do. I'll have to figure out how to use the IRC support or Telegram at some point in any case. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: Huh. Yeah. The files are nowhere in the webservice' directory, and also nowhere in the tool itself's directory. Maybe there is some Toolforge caching magic or something happening here? #wikimedia-cloudconnect may well be your best bet, sorry. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.
The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
Congrats, you now have one COICOI link in the wild (which is how I know about it) not counting your previous one at AN. The essay fills a need; it should get picked up slowly but surely, I would think. Maybe I can get it up to two; perhaps there's an angle related to an indigenous nomadic South African people I can work on. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.
For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.
Hi again, felt the need to query one point you made about Lev regarding "not all admins are created equal" as I'm inclined to agree with it based on the point being made, and I don't see it as PvP orientated at all. In a similar situation, I would favour conflicting advise from admins based on their tenure, experience, recent activity, involvement, consensus to have tools, etc; it wouldn't be based on game mentality but more so common sense, based on who's most likely to have the best advise and most accurate opinion for the situation. I also think your point of 300+ votes is somewhat misplaced context based on the intended rationale, given your "consensus to lead" is lower than those who have opposed a ban for example; the point was exclusively a comparison not just a numerical qualifying threshold. So not just 300+ votes means an admin is right, but compared to another admin with much less support it's likely they are, so the opposite is probably true here based on your example. I can't be bothered to check the RfAs of arbs voting, but you get my point I think. Also an admins RfA from a decade ago probably bares little on their stature today, but there is still a relevant point lurking here. For example there are times I would definitely approach you for advise/assistance when it something I consider you well versed in (as I have done so), and there are other times I certainly wouldn't to put it simply. So if believing that admins aren't created equally is a bad thing (let's assume they are equal once created for good measure and ignore the dehumanising nature of the analysis), then treating their advise differently would presumably be worse? I also find it hard to believe that other editors don't do the same, even if only subconsciously. It's not so different than the usual influence of editors by social capital that exists already whether we like it or not. Maybe part of what I'm addressing wasn't the point you were making, so feel free to clarify, and I'm certainly not questioning the rest of your prudent analysis which seems on point; you just completely lost me on the PvP paragraph. Regards, CNC (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Saying any admin should be deferred to for any reason other than the merits of their arguments already strains at the meritocratic foundations of Wikipedia. Saying that it should be based on how many people thought they would make a good admin (before they actually became an admin) is just treating Wikipedia like some RPG with skill levels. There's a reason that, in 13 years on Wikipedia, I've only heard someone actually voice this opinion once, and that it was roundly called out by others at the time: The only way to get there is to be completely disconnected from the substance of why we debate anything, and focused only on who's winning and losing and how strong they are. (For what it's worth, the current arbs include both the #5 all-time RfA vote-getter [#3 for noncontroversial requests] and the 6th-lowest all-time percentagewise; the 4th- and 8th-lowest have also been arbs in recent years.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Granted in other situations, discussions and the like, then I'd always focus on the argument and not the editor. However that's not always possible when you lack knowledge and experience in certain admin areas. For reference I'm explicitly talking about advise from admins (the original context), which for a non-admin can be difficult to determine the accuracy of unless you have the experience yourself somehow (in which case you wouldn't be asking for advise in the fist place), or unless it's corroborated by others. Generally speaking anyone taking conflicting advise from those who lack experience are likely to be blindly led down a rabbit hole, regardless of if that advise comes from an admin or not; to disregard different levels of experience and such would simply be naive I find. All admins are fallible as we all know, that some are more fallible than others is also unfortunately true, and quite relevant at times. For me it's just about staying within the bounds of consensus and that means taking certain opinions with a pinch of salt when necessary, if I'm struggling to trust the opinion of another editor for example (doesn't mean I'd value it less necessarily either).
Reading more of that discussion I see how RfA votes is indeed a bad metric in hindsight, but also see that I'm not alone thinking it's logical to trust some comments more than others based on who made them, at least in certain contexts. The main difference is that I'd never lead an argument like Lev did based on this, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to form my own opinions, just that I wouldn't express them in such discussions because it wouldn't be helpful. But to me this doesn't mean the overall rationale was devoid of logic and thus based on PvP, that still seems like a leap. Overall treating admins equally doesn't mean I have to treat their opinions equally, I think I remain within WP pillars with this discussion probably being on the boundaries of that, given it wouldn't be welcome elsewhere in a hurry by sounds of it. CNC (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The account Aliceswolvesph(talk· contribs · logs ·block log) doesn't have the word "bot" in the username, but was blocked for this incorrect reason (Template:uw-botuhblock). As far as I can tell, it was a misclick in Twinkle.
Oh, I didn't realize you were desysopped. Feel free to ignore this section, then. I'll try to find another admin to correct the block reason. —andrybak (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just found your User:Tamzin/Plurality_and_multiplicity_FAQ essay. I really like it! I'm glad to know I'm not the only system editing Wikipedia, and I'm glad there's something I can link to on my userpage.
I made a plurality userbox, maybe I could update it to automatically include users in that user category? I know some userboxes are able to do that. MEN KISSING(she/they) T - C - Email me!19:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm TarnishedPath. 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)
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.
Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. [3] [4]. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
.jpg)
Polygnotus (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC).jpg)
