User talk:Tamzin/Archive/17: Difference between revisions

I found the secret survey link:

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1XiNLmcNJxPeMqq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Simple_summaries:_editor_survey_and_2-week_mobile_study

So yeah. Do you know the best way to spread this message far and wide? Polygnotus (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Polygnotus. I’m recovering from a fever and am pretty out of it. Not sure I’ve got wiki-politics in me right now. I trust you to find the right approach though. This is definitely something that needs community attention. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Wiki-politics is like a fever dream some days. I am constantly confused that I share a planet with people who experience a completely different reality. Get well soon and thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Apparently there’s this new virus going around the past few years, Corvid-18 or something like that. Gotta say, not a huge fan. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I feel it. Three or more corvids may be a murder. Oh, and Eid mubarak and all that of course. Polygnotus (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Parlez-vous français? — Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: A gentleman as ever, but you can tutoie me. :) Replied. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

dank — Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, you have perhaps unintentionally told this editor that you are a a member of la Francophonie. — asilvering (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh darn, did I make mine an admin comment instead of something public? Fml. I’m rusty with UTRS. Yeah, DFO, if you delete that, I can repost as my own. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

merde. Je ne parle french — Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin, I don’t think it’s possible to delete, but you can simply respond to any follow-ups yourself and probably the blocked editor will forget all about DFO’s accidental solidarity. — asilvering (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I will not buy this tobacconist. It is scratched. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, hopefully that should sort things. Just as the sleepiness hits and the WiFi craps out. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Not holding my breath. That’s not how he’s done things of late. Maybe ever. SMDH. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to support a blurb regarding Marc Garneau‘s death. I did, and I self-reverted, because I thought this would be a violation of my TBAN (on American politics, but you know how much those two are intertwined now). I made a mistake. What now? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: Unless I’m missing something, there’s certain aspects of his bio that would be subject to your AMPOL TBAN, but he is not overall an AMPOL topic. Still, I thank you for being cautious with this. Feel free to restore your edit—again, unless I’m missing something obvious here—although just as a general note I’ll caution that calling something “obvious” in a !vote is rarely helpful. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI I just created User talk:Tamzin/Archive/16 to get rid of the crap (which I believe is no longer relevant to you) between 2023 and 2024. I’m not sure how much to archive though. (I personally have an archiving schedule of exactly one user talk archive per year, which seems to be about the right frequency for enwiki; not sure whether you have one or not.) Duckmather (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Duckmather: I appreciate the boldness, but there is in fact a reason that many of those were still up. I’ll do another archival run sometime soon, probably when I’m not sick. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t have struck-through the sock’s post if I’d noticed you’d hatted already, hope I haven’t left confusion. I’m slightly amazed my timing wasn’t even worse and I didn’t accidentally revert you. NebY (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s fine! All works out in the end. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick thought. Do you think it would be okay to set up a separate subpage to review Bbb23’s blocks, rather than jamming up WP:AN every time we want to review one? It may take some time to go through them all, and the proportion of blocks that I would have also made is still at least 95%, so it’ll be a slow, but hopefully worthwhile trickle. Obviously this is not a grave dance, but just a way of trying to get the right editors back, if we can. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Splendid idea. Great minds think alike. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I’m not necessarily opposed to that, but my concern is interest dropping off, which could both cause efforts to stagnate and call into question the strength of the consensus to reverse blocks by someone who, at least at this moment, remains an admin, and could tomorrow decide he wants to stand for RRfA after all. Last time we did a big review of an admin’s blocks, it was with Lourdes. Obviously not an identical situation, but we did a much more comprehensive review, and ran that whole thing through AN. OhanaUnited did have the idea of subsectioning by username there, which might be a good idea here. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This is more a suggestion for the long term. I’d be inclined to leave it for now, it’s possible that a week away leads Bbb23 to have some introspection, has an RRFA, addresses the issues, helps with the unblocking, and passes Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Meh. I got a good impression of Bbb23 when I was discussing (or trying to) unblocks of his blockees. Bbb23 is neurodivergent (socially inept to a degree) and likely depressed. I don’t expect him to be able to overcome his own sense of futility. Or his inability to accept criticism. Or his wounded spirit. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I wouldn’t want to speculate too much about any editor’s psychology, although I’ll always put in my plug for User:Tamzin/On mental health, which I recently renamed to emphasize that it’s applicable to everyone, regardless of if they’ve ever been diagnosed with any mental illness.Btw, sent you an email earlier! Let me know if you didn’t get it. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Composing and pressed for time. Many thanks, though. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. No analysis on other’s psychology please (and we’re unlikely to be professionals to properly diagnose). @Tamzin Funny that I was also involved in Lourdes’ review and unblock process. Maybe I found a niche area to focus on? Anyhow, Riteinit was blocked by Lourdes as suspected sock, but you had some reservations on the sock finding. But any discussion was shortcircuited by the sockpuppet block,[1] including subsequent review on Loudres’ block.[2] Since you looked into this before, do you think this is another case of bad, old block that deserves another chance? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

If there’s appetite for a comprehensive review of Bbb’s blocks, subsequent to a desysop, I agree that should go on a subpage. It’d be quite an effort, though. Lourdes was fairly careful to only make noncontroversial blocks, most of the time; Bbb, on the other hand, is second on quarry:query/91557 (my best effort at a numerical proxy for “significant” blocks), with a half-again lead over the next-hardest-blocking non-CUs (me & Cullen). — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

No objections to creating a subpage. It makes it easy to point to discussion and analysis. Your query only shows 27 users with 1000+ edits being blocked by Bbb23 that needs a second look. Shouldn’t take too long to go through (and I would have done it myself if I had spare time, but alas not this week). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

If there is anything I can help with from a non-admin point of view, I am available. I recall at the AN thread that there may be opportunities to help out with regard to good-faith unblock requests. If a subpage were to be made, I would use that to help me navigate potential cases, so I also like the idea of one being created if at all possible. Patient Zero^talk 22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Query from someone who has been following the Bbb23 hullabaloo only in the broad strokes: how long does Bbb23 have to decide whether to run an RRfA before he loses his advanced permissions? I can’t recall if, during the discussion formalizing the admin recall process, the community established a timeline for how long after a successful petition the impeached admin has to file their RRfA, before removal of the tools becomes automatic? Xtools seems to indicate Bbb is still in the administrator user group, and if we didn’t set a deadline in the original admin recall discussion, I would assume that this came up during or subsequent to the petition process? (Bbb23 is our first community de-sysop candidate, I believe?)SnowRise ^{let’s rap} 10:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Bbb23 is the fifth Recalled admin. Practice at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats’ noticeboard has been to allow 30 days from the certification of the petition for an admin to decide if they want to open a reconfirmation RfA. CMD (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Snow Rise: 30 days from time of petition certification, plus or minus a bit at the discretion of the bureaucrat team. Bbb’s actually the 5th recall; one of the previous four took the interesting approach of prospectively resigning, forward-dated to the 30-day mark, which the ‘crats honored. (IMO, under RRfA a forward-dated resignation should be taken as confirming that an RRfA won’t be “started within a reasonable time frame” and should lead to speedy desysop, but there also isn’t much harm in just letting the clock play out, so I get why the ‘crats chose to honor that request.) — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Five already? Shows how out of touch I’ve been this last year. I have to admit that, after giving full-throated support to the need for a community recall process for years, seeing that figure is a sobering reminder of the downside of having it, during an admin retention crisis. I’m glad you re-adopted the bit, Tamzin. Thank you both for bringing me up to speed. SnowRise ^{let’s rap} 10:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:RECALL is a handy outline of the process with links to closed petitions, RfCs about recall, and more. NebY (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ve put the article under partial A-I CTOP due to her attempt to help Gaza. This is attracting a lot of new editors and II am struggling to keep up. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You have said that you are available for advice on bringing cases at AE. What do you suggest I should do about this edit summary: [3]? The background is this discussion [4] where I have now been called a liar:[5] . Sweet6970 (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. @MilesVorkosigan: If you have evidence for the claim in that edit summary, please start a thread at WP:AE. Otherwise, please retract the accusation. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

There already is a thread at AE including this editor, they’re one of the edit-warriors attacking YFNS who has been repeatedly cautioned about making claims that are not backed up by the diffs they post. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@MilesVorkosigan: AE threads are limited to the person who files them and the subject of the thread. If you’re going to call someone an anti-trans POV-pusher, you should be prepared to present evidence to that effect somewhere. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I have now been accused of (1) bad faith template abuse (2) anti-trans POV-pushing (3) lying (4) being an edit warrior [above]. There has been no retraction, and I see no sign of an intent to make a formal complaint against me. What should be the next step? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You can take the matter to AE (or AN/I if you want the same thing but worse). Or you can forget about it. Both are valid approaches. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. The official name of DC is seen here, which inspires me to add the full form of the region’s name (as used by the federal government in constitutionally binding documents) for information purposes on the corresponding Wikipedia entry. Could you please help me with this? Thank you. Cfls (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cfls: That is a document saying that Trump issued the pardon at the City of Washington (which is no longer a legal entity, but persists as a geographical name) in the District of Columbia (a legal entity). It doesn’t establish that the formal name of D.C. is “the City of Washington in the District of Columbia”. The formal name of D.C., used in documents of the D.C. government, is “the District of Columbia”; the only exceptions I’ve seen are some things that just say “Washington, D.C.”, like driver’s licenses. If you can show evidence of “the City of Washington in the District of Columbia” being used in things like the names of agencies, on letterheads, or other contexts where it’s not just a geographical reference, you should post that to the article’s talkpage, and we can discuss the matter farther. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. Got it. Thank you for your insight! It is very helpful! Cfls (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, while I see what you’re getting at and respectfully have some disagreements, I want to ask if you may want to specify “early pediatric” to better convey your point? Pediatric is <18, and while there’s nuanced debate on ages ~10-~14 (pre-puberty – early adolescence), late adolescence and adult trans healthcare are packed together (gender dysphoria and gender incongruence each have 2 subdiagnoses, the normal one for adolescents and adults and with an “in childhood” specifier for prepubertal youth). The nuanced MEDRS debates that do exist rarely seem to focus on those around 16-17 because medically speaking, there isn’t a real difference between a 17 and 18 year old, and most CPG’s benchmark competence for medical decision making at around 16.

Letting you know here to keep my wordcount low. I might be wrong and you may have meant everyone under 18, but thought I should raise it in case. Hope you’ve been doing well, this was not on my bingo-card for our next interaction! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s accurate to say that there is not a global scientific consensus about pediatric transgender healthcare, even if there are some aspects of it that are in relative terms less controversial than others. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Tamzin, is there anything I can do to avoid the topic ban? I understand that the second AE report was wrong and I shouldn’t have done it so soon after one previously closed nor followed M.Bitton on that full Western Sahara rabbit hole or follow editors to unrelated topics in general, even if I think there is a policy violation. Furthermore, I understand that sentence was WP:WEASEL and I will attribute controversial claims to their supporters instead of merely saying they are a common position without qualification. I’m a relatively new editor and I’ve got a lot to learn so please advise me. Thanks! Closetside (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Closetside: I’m afraid I don’t have much to say. ArbCom gave the AE admins a clear mandate to be very aggressive in moderating ARBPIA disputes, and so that’s what we do. Topic bans don’t last forever; appeals after 6 months of good behavior often have good odds. I don’t think you’re a bad person or necessarily trying to do anything wrong here. But you do seem to have gotten in over your head, and an enforced break from a topic area often does an editor a lot of good in that regard. I’m sure that’s small solace from where you stand right now, but it’s all I can say. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

In view of “attacking my person could come with fees“, are you sure that 72 hours is sufficient? —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Honestly I just took that comment as a less than lucid remark, rather than trying to guess what on Earth they meant. If their response to the block is to more clearly make a threat of any kind, I’d have no objection to an indef. But I’d rather let this play out, rather than indef them till they take back something they might not have actually said. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. 🙂 — SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

ViraAndhini has an account since October 2021, but made their first edit today on Shubhanshu Shukla, a reversion of a statement, that has seen some heated arguments and number of reversions and cross-revertions from various editors, myself included. Their second edit correctly identified that the user they reverted … is currently reported at WP:ARE, which is not a venue an editor making their second edit should know about. A similar revert came moments earlier from an IP with no prior edit history in the /24 range in over a decade, but aware that I have asked for 3rd opinions on the dispute. What do you think could be done here? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let’s talk • {C•X})} 10:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #104378 . Best, — Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Commented, thanks. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

They have more questions I feel I’ll equipped to answer. Could you have a look? I thank you. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this editor, who we’ve had to deal with on and off for the last years regarding the removal of ‘long-running’ and other claimed ‘POV edits’ in articles, has gone back to it again, thinking our memories are short and that the concept of watchlists don’t exist; I’ve reverted and warned them once again. Also pinging in @Premeditated Chaos: and TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs). Nathannah • 📮 23:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping and heads up, Nathannah. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hope you are well (fuck covid). Either I have gone insane and all this is fine, or it is a massive BLP violation to accuse non-notable Wikipedia editors of antisemitism, even indirectly, without them identifying as antisemites or evidence in reliable sources. Can you please take a look here and swing your cluebat around? I also found Draft:Antisemitism in social work which is not much better. You’d hope that articles about such a topic would be better. Polygnotus (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg, of course. Wikipedia is like one of those golf courses built on landfills. Digging is a mistake. Polygnotus (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Gospel of Matthew:

We Conservatives win many debates, we’ve effectively won it right now on the Trans LGBTQ+ Woke issue, with many now admitting Sexuality/Gender is Real, and we will eventually win it on this Gospel Issue too. Not because we’re such excellent debaters or anything, but simply because we’re Armed with the Truth.

Can NishantXavier be topic-banned for WP:BATTLEFIELD and WP:NOTHERE? Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 05:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: There’s something funny about someone saying conservatives made people admit “sexuality/gender is real”, which seems to be confusing conservative/GC talking points (“sex is real”) with progressive ones (gender and sexuality studies etc.). That would almost make me think trolling if the rest of the tone didn’t seem sincere. Anyways, there’s a few reasons I’m not going to touch this one, including that immediate scope here isn’t a CTOP so a simple TBAN isn’t an option, but I’ll toss pings to @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Valereee as people who are good with cases like these. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 10:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this is at ANI now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Coming in too late to help, but just as an aside when I read that paragraph I first assumed it was a post from Trump’s social media feed. The IIM has a lot to answer for if that’s how they’re teaching English capitalization. Valereee (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

This CSD tagging and content blanking at the Allies at war article is harassment bordering on vandalism.

• It is clearly not G11, it is a major release and best seller by Random House (Crown imprint).
• I am clearly not a paid or promotional editor, and this is an area I edit in often.
• This book has at least 4 reviews in major international newspapers including one by Andrew Roberts. It is clearly notable.
• The idea that Penguin Random House would enlist me (an old retired tech worker with one foot in a nursing home and the other in Hollywood Forever Cemetery) to promote their already hugely successful book when authors like Andrew Roberts praising it in international newspapers is absurd.
• Given the above your marking it as needing review is insulting and obviously unnecessary.

I understand I am disliked because of my work at AFD and NPP, but this needs to stop. I’ve quit ANI, AFD and NPP, quit vandalism patrol, quit trying to help new editors, and quit working on articles I did not create or have significant interest in. There is no reason for this to continue, but I know it will and that is the reason Wikipedia is losing experienced editors and harassing those that remain until they tire and leave only accelerates the process.

For what its worth, I have two bibliographies, one book series, and two Outlines I am working on; after that I will home again and be leaving Wikipedia again. There is no reason for this to continue.  // Timothy :: talk  13:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: I have no opinion on the content of the article, or any broader dispute. A report was made to AIV (which was inappropriate, and which I thus declined), and I saw an admin issue in need of resolution (namely, a G11 tag which was incorrect but also removed out-of-process), so I resolved that. As to unreviewing, the autopatrolling process is based on an assumption that there will be no dispute as to the propriety of a page created by that user, and if I find a case where there is such a dispute, I tend to unreview; it’s not a slight against the creator, just an acknowledgment that some formal review is necessary.It sounds like this is a complex dispute that would do well from consideration by uninvolved editors who have more time than I to dive deep. I hesitate to tell anyone to go to ANI, but, that does seem the logical place here, if you feel you’re being harassed. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I’ve posted to their talk page (Sumanuil has made no response to my talk page comment) and requested this be taken to ANI ([6]) even though I loath ANI. The request was ignored, instead they went to AIV which is obviously just harassment. I was also never informed of the AIV report as required.

So Sumanuil is (1) content blanking, (2) creating spurious CSDs, (3) refusing to discuss, and (4) making an obviously false vandalism report, (5) creating a stealth AIV post, probably so I wouldn’t be able to reply, all this was ignored by admins, but yes I have been warned and understand this is unfortunately headed for ANI and a Wikibeating followed by a ban (I know I will be shredded at ANI).

Before this does go to ANI, can you explain why I was warned about being banned but you made no attempt to discuss let alone warn Sumanuil over the items I mention above? I would think at least one of the five problems would merit at least a timid vanilla reply; but at least radio silence is illuminating.

 // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: I warned you because you had done something straightforwardly blockable (removing CSD tags from an article you created) and didn’t warn Sumanuil because they hadn’t. That doesn’t mean that what they did is okay, just that it’s not a bright-line issue. I did decline both the AIV report and the G11, so it’s not like I took no action against them. As to your five items above: I did in fact address #5; I obviously agree with you on #1; and the rest are content questions to be discussed with the article’s contributors.Please do also note you are now at 3RR on the article. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. I hope you’re doing well. Sorry for bothering you directly in this case. Can you please look at this article? I suspect that the article is created by blocked editor in violation of block. Does it applicable for WP:CSD#G5? Fade258 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fade258: It’s on the margin, but I’d say [7] just barely tips it out of G5 territory. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin, Thank You for clarification. Fade258 (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Why was my subpage about my micronation deleted? I understand Wikipedia has rules against having things that are “contrary” to Wikipedia’s norms and policies but I wanna show people what I do and what even is it that I am doing in my real life. (And yes I am back but on mobile) EditorShane3456 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@EditorShane3456: I deleted it under CSD G3 as a hoax/misinformation. While not all coverage of micronations is a hoax, they are clear about what claims are real (e.g. the Principality of Sealand‘s de facto control of Fort Roughs) and false (e.g. most made by the Aerican Empire). Your userspace page included the claims that Wallenderte is “a trans-continental micronation” (false, it exists on 0 continents), that it holds Bir Tawil (false, Bir Tawil is not held by any government), and that it holds “an area of Silesia” (false, Silesia is held by Poland, Germany, and Czechia). The subsequent statement that it claims “Marie Byrd-land and some carribean islands” actually makes this worse, because it emphasizes that the foregoing are not mere claims, but actual control of Bir Tawil and Silesia (again, false).The question then, for an admin, is whether there is anything salvageable in a page. All other statements in the draft were unverifiable at best and still verge on hoaxing. Since there were no statements of fact that didn’t fall under G3’s scope of “blatant and obvious misinformation [or a] blatant hoax[ ]”, I found deletion to be the appropriate remedy.Zooming out a bit from the granular wording of G3, as both Giraffer and I have mentioned to you, the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. That means we don’t have much interest in “what [you] do and what even is it that [you are] doing in [your] real life”. A little bit of info on someone’s userpage is a nice way to get to know the human behind the account, but Wikipedia is not a social network and userspace is not a webhost. Please just focus on building the encyclopedia. Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but as someone who’s spent a lot of time (longer than some users’ lifetimes!) following our internal processes, I think you are greatly overestimating how much patience the community has for these kinds of antics from someone who is not contributing content. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin Most of these claims, myself I do not own, my friend and Governor of Magvia, Mateo claims these territories, so in turn, the Empire claims those territories. I should have reworded it, yes, but the empire claims to be, although only holding Alagevo (a silesian micronation), Magvia (a hoosier/indiana micronation) and the Republic of Berlandia (a pennsylvanian micronation, which myself I hold the presidential office) 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:8134:B283:4BF4:5C7D (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

If you would like to re-draft while avoiding false claims, I guess I can’t stop you, but I’ll warn you that such a page would be likely to be deleted if someone brought it to WP:MFD. Again, I would encourage you to focus on contributing to the encyclopedia. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Raladic (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hope your move is going well! Not entirely sure, but I believe Dustfreeworld, who you blocked not long ago, is continuing their LOUTSOCKING with two IPs (they say they are the same person): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Non-MEDRS_source_used_to_support_Air_pollution_DYK_hook. Continuing their complaints about air pollution and evading their tban. Could you have a look if you have a minute? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Femke! Fortunately this move is several orders of magnitude simpler than my last one. Just gotta pack together a 40L backpack and take a couple trains and a plane and a car. Which leaves me with enough time to at least briefly look at this before I head to sleep. The IP appears to be proxying, which is suspicious but not in itself a violation of policy. The writing style at a glance doesn’t read the same as DFW. Notably they exclusively use straight apostrophes and quotes, whereas DFW almost always uses curly. And is this actually the same POV? Honest question, as I’m not intimately familiar with the case; but my understanding is that DFW’s whole claim is that dust-based pollution is a greater ill than people realize? So wouldn’t he favor this DYK? — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The complaint about my editing style (IP calls it hasty, despite taking half a year to rewrite the article) is similar as DFW (see this talk complaint), which makes me most suspicious. For a random IP to form an opinion on what I’ve been doing to that article is odd, I’d say. I’ve removed most of DFWs edits around construction dust from the article, so I don’t think he’d be that happy with this on the mainpage. Possibly weak sauce, but both IP and DFW overuse slashes, e.g. [8], [9]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hm. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that it’s not an at-a-glance slam-dunk. I should have a window of an hour or two tomorrow to look at this in greater depth. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve looked a lot more. Here’s where I come down, @Femke: It would make a lot of sense for this to be DFW. However, try as I might, I can’t find satisfactory evidence that it is. The main evidence in favor is the use of proxies, interest in pollution, and dislike of you. The main argument against is different writing tells (quotation mark type, emphasis with *asterisks* for DFW, unusual ping style for the proxyer) and possibly not having the same POV. Furthermore, having heterodox or fringe views on pollution and coming into conflict with you cannot be treated as independent probabilities. (This is a compliment.)Do I think this is someone evading scrutiny at best and a block or ban at worst? Absolutely. Would I be shocked if this is DFW? No, not at all. Am I comfortable extending to indef over it? Also no. This is the kind of case that falls in the gap between our desire to prevent socking and our desire to not wrongly block anyone. I’ve gotta go pack, but feel free to request a second opinion at SPI and drop a link to this comment. Maybe someone will see something I missed. Maybe DFW will mysteriously wind up CUblocked without on-wiki elaboration. Who knows. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking! Oh well, I’ll extend some good faith to the IP for now, and see if they’re happy if I make some minor improvements to air pollution article.. If there’s more disruption or clearer socking later, I’ll go SPI/ANI. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi you recently added a Extended confirmed restriction on my article even though it’s not published, can you please remove it until my article gets accepted. Thanks @Tamzin TeenX808 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@TeenX808: The extended confirmed restriction applies to all pages (with a limited exception for talkpages). Please edit on other topics until you eventually become extended confirmed. (Please do not just make a bunch of tiny edits or anything like that; actually build up some experience.) Once you are extended confirmed, you will be able to edit the draft and other pages in the topic area. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the sensitive yet firm way you’ve handled the FtT block, I’m genuinely impressed by your thoughtfulness. I’m going to stay out of the unblocking conversation, but since you’ll need to make that call at some point, I’ll share a couple of observations:

• They have not answered your request to comment on “what the issue was with what you did to Asamboi”
• They continue to characterize our interactions as “fight with each other”
• Their “what I’ve learned” page has this odd qualification: “Except in the case of obvious harassment, assume that administrators are right.”

It’s hard for me to interpret this in any other way than them thinking that their Wikivoyage TBAN was “harassment” by an admin (me) and their spectacularly backfired attempt to return the favor was thus a justified continuation of “fighting each other”. I feel genuinely sorry for them, but as far as I can tell they’re still just not getting it. Asamboi (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I can only accept the request or do nothing; any decline will have to be another admin’s call. I do agree that FtT still isn’t getting it. They’re not the first editor I’ve seen with this kind of editing trajectory to be undone by an inability to consider that what they did was wrong. I’ve tried prodding them a bit further. We’ll see if it goes anywhere. Frankly I just hope they’ll take my 3-year block offer. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I hate to bug you again, but looks like FtT is refusing to drop the stick and back away from the carcass: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Suspected_abuse_of_power_by_Asamboi Asamboi (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As you already know I am over the limit so cannot respond there. You initially made the allegation of “policing” when this diff wasn’t considered as a violation by you. Now that Rosguill has made it clear that it was a violation, I don’t think the “policing” allegation is correct. There is no policy or Arbcom ruling which frowns upon reporting of topic ban violations (which happened even during this ARE report), especially when the reported editor has already been warned about the topic ban violations before.

Should we really ask editors every single time not to make the topic ban violations before reporting them? In general, one warning is carried out which was already done by someone else.[10] How the report was not warranted?

Wikipedia hasn’t differentiated between “minor” or “major” topic ban violations. They treat them equally. I recall reading WP:BMB which enforces that.

I shouldn’t be informally warned about something I did as per standard procedures. Dont you think it would be better to file an ARCA for deciding these concerns about “major” Vs “minor” topic ban violations or that how often should we ask the said editor to self-revert their topic ban violations?

Thanks and I hope you reconsider. Orientls (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to file an ARCA if you wish. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Would it be wise to file one during the AE report? It would seem forum shopping. Arbitrator ScottishFinnishRadish had told CharlesWain to file an ARE report against AlvaKedak over his initial topic ban violations.[11] Reading your proposal and the comments from Ealdgyth, one would think that ScottishFinnishRadish was wrong with his suggestion to file ARE report, but I am sure he wasn’t wrong. In the the light of these contrasting views about how to handle the topic ban violations, I think you should comment on the current ARE report itself that we should defer to ARCA about the handling of the topic ban violations and what constitutes as actionable topic ban violation. Alternatively, you can limit the proposal to AlvaKedak and after that I will file ARCA. I hope that will work. Orientls (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Orientls: I’ll be honest, I was less concerned with you filing the report, and more with your zeal in pursuing it once it became clear that I and the other admins were unconvinced there was a serious violation. Dispassionately reporting what you believe to be a violation is one thing. Arguing with multiple admins about whether there’s been a violation really gives the impression that you just want to see the person blocked regardless of whether that’s the equitable outcome. So no, I would not say it’s a good idea to take it to ARCA; I’m just saying that you have the option if you really want. I’ve already made clear what I think you should do: Go focus on something other than policing a colleague’s edits for minor violations. You can follow that advice or not. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear Tamzin,
Thank you for your response. I truly appreciate your time and the opportunity to clarify.
I want to respectfully say that I did not mean to claim that I have created Wikipedia articles since the page block was imposed. What I meant was that I have contributed in the past — before the sanction — and I was simply trying to express how deeply hurt I felt when I lost access, especially after putting in time and effort into creating and improving pages such as Aryan Valley, Shamskat, Darchik, Ganokh, Tsewang Namgail, Chulichan, and others.
I understand the seriousness of the rules, and I’m not trying to mislead anyone. I only wanted to show that I have a genuine interest in contributing to topics that are underrepresented or culturally important.
Also, I hope you can please be a little more respectful in your tone. I’m not here to argue — I’m just trying to find a fair chance to appeal and be part of the editing community again, this time with a better understanding of the guidelines.
Thank you again for your time and understanding.
Kind regard ~ Minaro123 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Minaro123: Again, please express your thoughts using your own words, not ChatGPT or any other AI/LLM. Thanks. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Please try to understand what I am saying. There’s no need to be rude — it’s not a big deal if I use AI to correct my grammar.

I kindly request you to consider my point and respond based on that.Minaro123 (talk) Minaro123 (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You’re not just using AI to correct your grammar. You’re using AI to write messages, and it is hallucinating things like you being topic-banned (it’s a pageblock) or you having created articles since you were blocked. This is what happens when you outsource your appeal to an AI. Like I said, you can start your appeal over, this time using your own words and the correct template. Admins want to hear from you, not what ChatGPT thinks sounds good. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

That is the question. Hello stranger, hope all is going well. The DC disamb page only has one mention of D.C., a media presentation D.C.. Would adding that one entry to Washington, D.C.‘s hatnote surfice for adding the entire disamb page? Thanks. Have been having a discussion about the use of DC for Washington, D.C., which is what brought me to that page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I think that even if there’s only one other entry on the DAB that uses “D.C.”, it’s still a plausible spelling for any other “DC”, so it’s better navigationally to point people toward the DAB. For instance, it’s entirely plausible that someone could search “D.C.” while intending direct current. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. I wish there were a bot to change all the non-period DC to D.C. when appearing as ‘Washington DC’ (one of the most widespread errors on Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi again,
It seems that the correct format is User:WikiHelper3906/Template:MegaBox instead of it.
I leave it to you to delete or move it to the user space.
Thank you, _Dgw|Talk 02:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have moved {{WikiHelper3906/MegaBox}} to User:WikiHelper3906/MegaBox. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I see the Spanish WP-article has a lot more content. It was a little funny that during the whole Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation thing (still ongoing), no court noticed that the article was up on Chinese WP all the time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I have a decision to make. I would appreciate your insight. Thank you. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

mi toki. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Vielen dank — Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Tamzin,

I saw that the page **User:GravityInfo/sandbox** was deleted under G15 (LLM-generated content). I understand the reason, but I would like to kindly request a copy of the draft so I can edit it properly, add reliable references, and resubmit it in line with Wikipedia’s standards.

This is for The Modern English High School, and as this is my first wikipedia article contribution so I am a beginner, so I took a idea from the LLM but I was going to edit all the content with facts and Reference. I was just using it like a template for better understanding. As I have started a initiative to write articles on that institution which are serving needy people for a long period of time with no Media coverage and appreciation and serving the society with humble framework, as you will see the school is located in slum of mumbai, India where there is no future of education there this school is serving student with low cost but good service from 2006. Please help me with this initiative.

I would appreciate it if you could restore the draft to my user sandbox for revision.

Thank you for your time and support!

Best regards, User:GravityInfo GravityInfo (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@GravityInfo: Can I ask, do you have any financial relationship with The Modern English High School? — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

 I don’t have any financial relations but my many friends are alumini of this school. So, they highlighted this school to start with. I am a student right now and i use Wikipedia for educational purpose not like a income tool and Wikipedia in known to spread free knowledge that we have about any topic. GravityInfo (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@GravityInfo: Thanks for answering. The reason I asked is that the draft frankly looked like it was written to promote the school. With LLM-generated content, it’s often difficult to tell whether someone is promoting an entity or whether the LLM has just taken that tone. Because of the promotional tone of the draft, I don’t think it’s appropriate to restore it. If you’d like to start over again, by all means, feel free. I would strongly recommend doing the work yourself, though, and not relying on an LLM. LLM-written articles are rarely approved. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

That thread was prompted by encounters with an experienced user who refuses to notify those he considers unworthy. He ain’t gotta, and he ain’t gonna. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

No hard evidence, but

could be alluding to your username, maybe. A strange form of flattery, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It’s actually stranger than that! There isn’t just a “Tamsin Amanda” who’s used for AfC scams; there’s also a “Tamsin Kelly”. (Which is even how I spelled my name for a few months in 2019!) When I first learned this I was a bit surprised, because I wasn’t that active an editor at the time, and I didn’t see why anyone would bother impersonating me. Well I looked into it and… “she” has been using the name for longer than I have. Two people in the Wikipedia ecosystem with essentially the same name, one a scammer and one an admin, neither referencing the other. Not sure if this is better compared to Dennis the Menace or Richard Parker.Weirder still, not the only thing like this that’s happened to me. A while back I noticed that the username for the first place I ever worked is registered. And that it was registered by an LTA, while I was working there, possibly during my shift. Scary harassment, right? Nope! Also has the timeline backwards; I didn’t start editing Wikipedia (as more than a driveby IP) until a year after that. I still wonder if the LTA and I were coincidentally in the same room (even if I rang him up), or if he was just fucking around on Google Earth and picked the most distal business on the peninsula.Incidentally, a loved one of mine, who is in the category of “notable, but may never have an article, and is okay with that” recently got an unsolicited offer from a “Matthew Caday, Wikipedia Admin” to write an article for her. I sort of wish she’d let it play out to see which of the scam varieties it was (given that she’s a GNG+SNG pass it’s possible it was just straightforward UPE), but I think she couldn’t resist getting to say “An actual Wikipedia admin says you’re not a real admin”. Or, something much more polite than that, she assured me, but words to that effect. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Possibly just a coincidence, then. But As has been noted, some Wikipedians get a lot of “fans.” Btw, if you have any wisdom for Talk:Kay_Adams_(sportscaster)#Adding_Kay_Adams’s_birth_name, feel free to join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to take our disagreement to arbitration, but I don’t know where to post anything here about this kind of process. Wikipedia behind the curtains is an incredibly labyrinthine place. I’d appreciate guidance in this regard. Rafe87 (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(talk page watcher) @. Rafe87: what you really want is WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Best. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC) On the other hand, you might be in need of something else, and Tamzin can better guide you. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC) (talk page stalker) @Rafe87: The balanced editing restriction, and/or the topic ban coming from it, can be appealed in three ways: At the administrators’ noticeboard, where the appeal will be considered by the full community. You can use the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template to fill out your request. At the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, where the appeal will be considered by other administrators. The {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template can be used here, too. At the clarification and amendment noticeboard, where the appeal will be considered by the Arbitration Committee. You can use this link to file an appeal there, but you should know that the Arbitration Committee only overturns arbitration enforcement actions under very limited circumstances. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Ah, that’s better. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC) What madness is this. Two of my wisest talkpage watchers, both wrong! I guess two working clocks are simultaneously wrong… uh… twice a year? Rafe, please disregard the above. As I explained on your talkpage, appeal in this case is only to WP:ARCA, not under the normal standard theleekycauldron mentions, but using the standard used at the administrators’ noticeboard instead. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC) ooof!  Self-trout theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rafe87: You can appeal your topic ban and/or the underlying balanced editing restriction at WP:ARCA using this form. My understanding, based on a previous appeal, is that if you do that, you should set |decision={{slink|User talk:Rafe87#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction}} and |title=Rafe87 BER. Don’t use the |case= or |clause= parameters. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Rafe87 BER and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Rafe87 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The appeal has been declined and is archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 133 § Amendment request: Rafe87 BER. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

(In a more countrified voice than I can actually manage these days) We Wikipedians is simple folk. Sometimes I think you talk over our haids.😛 — Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you double check that I didn’t drop the ball somewhere in my closure of Mikewem’s topic ban? I think I followed all the directions… Ealdgyth (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Mostly looks fine! I think you may have wanted to put your signature with |reason=, rather than your name in |2=, though? (I didn’t actually know {{hat}} had a |2=, but it seems to set a subheading of some sort.) I’d also recommend mentioning the ARCA-only clause in the AE hat and in AELOG, not just on Mikewem’s talk. Since PIA is the only topic area with an alternate appeals process, it’s very easy for people to miss that detail, as you can actually see two sections up here. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew I’d drop a stitch somewhere… Ealdgyth (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI, utrs:105744 now exists. Cheers, Giraffer (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Giraffer. I don’t think my position’s changed since last time. If he wants to again refuse the terms of the CONDUNBLOCK offered, I mean, up to you. Generally I’d say that if someone would sooner stay blocked than be TBANned from a conflict area, that’s further evidence they need a break from that area. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

👍 Giraffer (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

🙃 — Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If the intransigence I encountered remains, I see that as not being ready to return to editing. YMMV. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I left a template on the essay stating that we should probably come up with a section talking about a way to tell editors how to find the pronouns of users who take multiple. For example, I use she/they pronouns, but in Wikipedia’s settings I have it set to “use feminine terms” (so {{they}} would say “she” and “her” and “hers”) and people may only use she instead of rotating she and they. I personally don’t mind as I don’t care which one uses, just that they use one of the two. However, say we have another person who uses he/they pronouns. Say he also wants their pronouns to be rotated in speech. If his settings are set to “he” or “they”, it is likely that they’ll be referred to as the one he selected in Wikipedia settings with the solutions provided in the essay (the gender symbols or the navigation popups).

So what do you think is the best solution here? Ask people to look at talk pages? Rely on people to say “this is how I would like my pronouns to be used” and look at signatures? Or maybe change something in the Wikipedia backend so that multiple pronouns could be selectable and thus allow Navigation Popups to pull that info? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@TheTechie: There’s an open task on Phab on implementing more flexibility in gender pronouns. Feel free to share your thoughts there. As to your hypothetical, well, I think we have to be realistic about the constraints of a multicultural, multigenerational, volunteer-run site when it comes to how much brainpower anyone is going to devote to getting pronouns right. Asking people to check a user’s pronouns before gendering them is reasonable. Encouraging people to look at other places they might have indicated a preference is also reasonable. (Currently in the essay: Some editors may not have selected a gender in their preferences (they/them is the default) but may nonetheless have a preference. This may be reflected on their userpage, or by how they refer to themselves in discussions.) Someone can totally use their signature or userpage to indicate a preference to rotate between signatures, but I’m not sure we can really ask others to comply with that (a task some people find rather cognitively taxing) with the same force as with the baseline request of not misgendering. At its core, the point of the essay is not that you need to refer to someone exactly what they ask to be called, but that you should not call them something they do not wish to be called. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Someone changed the prose of your biographical user subpage: User:Tamzin/userpage/core: 17:16, April 30, 2025–21:36, May 21, 2025. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hadn’t noticed it, but it’s not wrong. I’ve put something a bit more apt instead though. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I have raised my thumb at my monitor and smiled slightly in response. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I miss the United States too. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

HERE — Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I’d have probably merged this to the existing draft and left a note for them to work on it there. Best. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your eyes. Note the user has been PGAMING, by making many repetitive edits on the user page. BusterD (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: Certainly no prejudice against… well, anything. I’m just a stickler on U5. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you uninvolved at Zak Smith? There are entire sockfarms engaged, likely led by Zak himself. BusterD (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Will you be at WikiConference North America in NYC? It’s being held in my old neighborhood. BusterD (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I wish! I was very excited to go to a WCNA so close to home, but then I moved away. Sadly I’m not sure when I’ll next be able to go to a WCNA. I’m aiming to catch Wikimania ’26 in Paris though!As to Smith, I might be able to take a look later, but my availability is a bit sporadic as I sort out what is hopefully the end of the beginning of my move. (Visa interview in 5 days! Exciting.) — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, would you mind doing a quick history-only undeletion of all the edits at Huntington (CDP), New York for me? There’ll be overlapping edits in 2004, but an unattributed text merge is involved, and this seems to be the least un-elegant way of dealing with it. Then it’ll become possible to do the trivial history merge with Huntington (CDP), Suffolk County, New YorkHuntington (CDP), Suffolk County, New York. Hundreds of these merges have already been done; I’m just going through a query to go through the remainder, some of which are trivial and some not. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Ditto for Ithaca (city), New YorkIthaca (city), New York, but in that case the deletion looks worse because of the existing talk page history from before the redirect was re-created (also see this page history at Ithaca, New York). Sorry if I didn’t pick the best time to ping you. Graham87 (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for piling these up on you (I should’ve probably asked somewhere else), but Talk:North Haven (town), Connecticut has deleted edits but was text-merged to the main talk page, so should be undeleted for attribution; I’m about to laboriously history-merge the North Haven, Connecticut article. Oh I think I’ll provide a pointer from Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion here (where I should’ve asked in the first place, but I thought the overlapping edit things were a bit weird for that venue), and go from there. Or maybe I should’ve used my talk page. Thanks for letting me ramble on here. Graham87 (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing these, KylieTastic! Graham87 (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I also wrote more at Talk:North Haven, Connecticut § Streets. Graham87 (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could you look at editor
I’ingénieur? This account is several years old but they made around 500 very minor edits at the start of August so they could vote in the RFC at Gaza genocide. They have also edited the arricke itself. It’s the only voter I found with such blatant gaming but I don’t think it should be allowed. Cheers 81.143.238.12 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I have made a comment on the arbitration page but am not clear it is in the right part of the discussion. I think I am within the word limit, but if it is in the wrong place can you advise or move it? Thanks!

PS I saw some dolphins last year but they barely broke the surface so I don’t have a picture

Rankersbo (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tamzin, I am leaving this message to ask you to reconsider the pblock you have placed on myself either wholesale or at least the duration of it:

-In regards to the suggestion it was to “enforce an arbitration decision” no specific restrictions regarding CTOP had actually been placed on the article at this time such as limitations on reversions.[12] I had also seen that another revert had occurred related to the ongoing talk discussions around the game’s commercial performance[13] so as a result I did not consider any need to act outside of standard practices (or as I understand them) for editing which meant that reversions were still acceptable.

– As to the item of “edit-warring even while subject to an arbitration enforcement request”, I was engaged in removing unsourced claims (which are explicitly disproven by sources within the article) that should not have been re-added by anyone per WP:BURDEN and was in contravention of what I believe to be a provably established consensus on the talk page as well as core policies of WP:OR and WP:V so had believed that what I was doing was within accepted practice and it wasn’t in breach of the letter or spirit of norms such as WP:3RR and would not be be understood as “edit-warring”. However I accept in hindsight the reversion to what I believed to be the status quo before the most recent restarting of this issue could be considered edit-warring from another person’s point of view.

– Beyond this though I would like to say that I didn’t have awareness or reason to believe that the presence of an open AE request (given they can be filed by anyone for any reason at any time) would itself have a bearing as to ongoing editing actions at the article or that in practice it would see closer scrutiny on editor actions until such a time the “case” had been decided and any measures (if decided upon) announced and implemented. If I had been made aware that this subsequent revert of mine was inappropriate given the AE request by yourself or another uninvolved admin prior to implementing a block I would have happily reversed it and refrained from further editing on the article until the closing of the request (and if this pblock is removed would also undertake likewise).

Finally I would like to add I have only attempted to act in good faith in resolving an issue of WP:OR/WP:V at the article in question, including initiating and engaging in constructive attempts at the article’s talk page with the aims of resolving this issue, and therefore I can only apologise for having engaged in behaviour that you felt required a block in the first place. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: If the AE request doesn’t end in a stricter sanction against you or an endorsement of the p-block as a consensus-of-admins restriction, I’m open to reducing its length. Until then, this seems like the right thing to do to interrupt an edit war that has been running for a month. You are still welcome to participate on the article’s talk page, so if there really is consensus for your version this should not be much of a burden. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin You are still welcome to participate on the article’s talk page, so if there really is consensus for your version this should not be much of a burden

I hope this’ll be understandable, but I don’t really want to do that as the stuff that’s fallen out the woodwork from this week’s blow up suggests to me I’ve stumbled into some existing bitter dispute between most of the other editors involved that’s been going on for some months now and I don’t really want to be party to that. I’ve already picked up one persistent stalker in recent months after stumbling into a different ongoing dispute involving pages to do with certain Trotskyist groups, and don’t fancy getting dragged into whatever off-wiki battle appears to going on with “controversial” video game articles.

My not inconsequential autism presents itself as the focus on “the rules as clearly written” and “this needs to be dealt with now” that’s probably obvious to see in my edits, and Wikipedia’s habit of writing some policy and practices explicitly in black and white but then having contradictory policy/practice, vague policy/practice and then just a reliance on unwritten practice is bad enough to deal with at times without the extra-strain of whatever’s causing a difference of seven words to be this incendiary. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there somewhere I can find more information about your statement re: “Basically there’s been someone going around taking over old accounts and using them to get around the extendedconfirmed rules.”(From User talk:BePrepared1907#Balanced editing restriction)?

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: I believe I was referring to Icewhiz/Galamore, specifically prompted by the Boksi case. — Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)