Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::What part of that was antagonistic? I was genuinely trying to find out why this was important to them so we could discuss it. ] (]) 15:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
::::What part of that was antagonistic? I was genuinely trying to find out why this was important to them so we could discuss it. ] (]) 15:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Polycarpa aurata}} I think that {{tq|Why? Help me understand why this is important to you.}} comes off as questioning the other editor's motives and implying that they may be less than wholesome. And that seems to be how they've taken it, too. Usually, it's not necessary to ask someone why they're making a set of edits, since ] that the answer is "to improve the encyclopedia". <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 06:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Polycarpa aurata}} I think that {{tq|Why? Help me understand why this is important to you.}} comes off as questioning the other editor's motives and implying that they may be less than wholesome. And that seems to be how they've taken it, too. Usually, it's not necessary to ask someone why they're making a set of edits, since ] that the answer is "to improve the encyclopedia". <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 06:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
::::::I was hopeful that they and I could have an actual discussion as thinking and feeling persons so we could understand each other. I am not longer hopeful. I imagine something like this happens every time there is a mass shooting, especially when they are associated with some form of extremism. I think it would be useful to write up some kind of document that deals with the common issues, since mass shootings in the US show no signs of stopping. I am going to walk away from this terrible subject, but I will add this episode to the to my box of "things I have learned about Misplaced Pages". ] (]) 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:06, 17 May 2022
Talkpage expectations
Please be civil. That's a policy here, but I reserve the right to enforce it more strictly on my talkpage than others may elsewhere.
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.
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
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.
Due to some annoying design decisions by the Wikimedia Foundation, you cannot see the notice at the top of this page, which also is supposed to show up when you edit this page. Its contents are:
Please be civil. That's a policy here, but I reserve the right to enforce it more strictly on my talkpage than others may elsewhere.
Thank you so much, Joshua Jonathan. It's funny, it started just as this weird feeling based on the RfD !votes... We get weird !vote patterns at RfD all the time, usually when a number of non-regulars wander in and don't understand how the forum actually works. The weird thing, though, was that they did seem to get the basic premise of RfD, but were still !voting for a conclusion that made no sense. But still I didn't have that high an index of suspicion, and also I was rather busy, and was this closed to dropping it. But instead, kind of on a whim, I asked Blablubbs to take a look. I was only suspicious about the four who'd !voted consecutively, and I was frankly surprised when Blablubbs turned up evidence tying not just all four of them, but Apollo too. I had no previous exposure to this topic area, and didn't know any of the players, so I really though I'd just be dealing with a few SPAs, not someone with 2,000 edits and PCR.
I think it was also Blablubbs who first suggested Moksha as part of it, as we looked at other players in the topic area. Then I found the comment from the Swami sock accusing them, and there went the next few hours of my life, digging through a history that grew more and more horrifying as the behavioral similarities mounted. I've really never seen something that elaborate fly under the radar, except reading early (pre-2010) ArbCom cases.
It's a shame we'll likely never know exactly how many people were behind these six accounts. My personal hypothesis is that it was six people who knew each other off-wiki, with one, perhaps Moksha, ghost-writing some talk-page comments for the others. (If true, that would mean they were done in by that one person's micromanagement, which is a funny thought.) But that's just my guess.
So thanks again for the barnstar. :) I kind of hope I never get this particular barnstar again, though, at least not for the same kind of thing. Mass gaslighting is a demoralizing thing to work against. I'm happy to go back to just dealing with vandals and spammers. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.06:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Goat from EpicPupper
Thanks for giving me that SPI idea, and for the guidance that came with it!
TIL I can win a goat just by being too lazy to write an SPI myself. ;) Guess I should have been careful what I wished for in the above section when I said I only wanted to deal with normal socks. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.03:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tamzin, I'm Kevin. Thank you for your diligence on the Moksha88 SPI; had it been a less thorough report, it may have been overlooked or neglected, especially after the negative CU results. We're lucky to have had you looking into this. KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 06:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Reply
@L235: Thank you—for this barnstar and for your own diligence. I was worried that someone would look at this and see it as too complicated, and as involving blocks that were too likely to cause drama, and just punt on it and leave the whole topic area still in disarray. As someone who's always favored making lots of small improvements over a small number of big ones, it's rare that I get the chance to look at something and say, "Here's a way that I really, noticeably, made the encyclopedia better through one single effort." Which I hope I'll be able to say here, depending on how the POV cleanup goes.
As I said to JJ above, I just hope that I don't run into another case like this for a while—both because I (perhaps naïvely) hope to never see anything so egregious, but also for the sake of my sanity, and the sake of whichever CU is crazy enough to take on that case. :) So again, thanks for all you've done here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Civility Barnstar from Sdkb & Writ Keeper
The Civility Barnstar
Without getting into the messy question of whether or not the other editor's professed ignorance is plausible, I think it's clear your calm, non-judgmental efforts to explain why their comments were offensive have been helpful and appreciated by all. {{u|Sdkb}} 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. <3 While I don't think of myself as an incivil person, I'm not sure this is one I ever expected to get.As someone who both likes to assume good faith and has a low tolerance for bigotry, I always see this kind of thing as a win-win: If the assumption of good faith was correct, then we avert more hurt feelings; and if it doesn't, then people can't plead ignorance the next time. I'm glad that this appears to have been the former. "Lord's work" is a compliment I'll happily (flatteredly) accept, be it meant proverbially or literally. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.00:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I see great minds think alike. I wasn't aware of the incident that led to the creation of your essay prior to today, and had only created mine in response to seeing "he/she" a lot around here. I must say you articulate it a lot better than I do, though! Patient Zero04:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank you as well for your well written essay. I hope this essay helps inform future editors and, in doing so, reduce the instances of misgendering. Isabelle02:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Well pink has always been my color, and I woke up at 2 PM yesterday and am trying to power through till like 6 PM today, so yes, I'll gladly accept. I hope it's strongly caffeinated. :) I enjoy seeing you around as well. sips. -- Tamzin (she/they) 11:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Update: I have drunk a medium Dunkin' "chai" in honor of this gift. I am guessing tastes nothing like the drink in the image, as Dunkin' beverages have a weird ability to all taste the same by the time you're done drinking them, no matter what you ordered. -- Tamzin (she/they) 16:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Swiftly cleaning up information in ongoing events and making sure that everything stays factual and also just being a great person -- 𝒥𝒶𝒹𝑒 • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂]00:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Happy purim, Tamzin! I thought I'd try and throw together a mishloach manot basket to give out :) feel free to pass it around or make your own basket, if that's your thing—if not, cheers and chag Purim sameach! in jewish enby siblinghood, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
תודה רבה, Claudia! A pleasantly synchronistic treat to find immediately after submitting my first foray into your neck of the woods.
Reply
Despite my well-known affinity for Queen Esther (Esther 8:6 tattoo pic forthcoming on Commons once I've got the enby and agender colors touched up), I've never done much for Purim. Don't really know why that is, just how it's sorted out. But I'll never say no to something tasty! Chag sameach to you too, friend.
Vandalism warning from Nosebagbear and whoever whomeverwhoever most recently edited this page
Hello, I'm Polycarpa aurata. 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)
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 whoever edited this page, whoever is not the object of the preposition from; rather, the entire noun phrasewhoever edited this page is the object, and that is an independent clause, containing a subject (whoever), a transitive verb (edited ), and an object (the noun phrase, this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in the subjective case (a.k.a., nominative case), thus it must be whoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, like they/them, then it would be whoever edited them). Upshot for this expression: it must be from whoever edited this page. See the first example here, for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I 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 (she/they) 21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Outrageous abuse of power by Tamzin
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Tamzin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Opposition to human rights, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Some of these discussions are collapsed because no one's commented in a while. They're still open discussions, though! If you want to reply to something, just remove the {{cot}}/{{cob}} tags around the discussion.
Editing principles (Topic: Neurodivergence)
Initially ran 4 May 2021 to 7 May 2021. Featuring Vaticidalprophet and Elli. Collapsed but still open to new comments.
Just noticed the new one. It's an interesting one, and a matter I've thought about how to phrase. I suspect myself a lot of neurotypes odd in the general population are the default baseline on Misplaced Pages, but there's only so many ways you can say it without sounding like you're insulting someone (and I freely admit I can be less careful and more flippant with my word choice than you often are, certainly when I'm in the ANI peanut gallery). I've noticed there's an unfortunate correlation between editors who freely disclose neurodivergence and editors with significant competence issues, and I've wondered what consequences it has for the project as a whole in terms of interacting with people who are more clearly not working on neurotypical principles than our already high average -- though, of course, many disclosed neurodivergent editors are substantial and obvious assets. Vaticidalprophet04:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, something I'd been thinking about for a while, and felt spurred to put into words after seeing an exchange on your talk page actually. As to correlations, there's a bias there, right? In terms of who wants/needs to disclose. If an editor quietly chugs along writing articles, doing gnomish work, etc., without ever getting into any conflict, then why would they want to disclose something that could subject them to ridicule or at least passive discrimination? (And there's editors who rack up 100k+ edits while barely touching anything metapedian.) Whereas some editors realistically have no choice: If they don't disclose, they may be treated as intentionally disruptive; whereas, if they do, they might at least "downgrade" that perception to CIR. Just like a person who is mild-to-moderately hard of hearing may be able to not disclose this fact in a workplace if they don't want, whereas a deaf person really has no choice in most contexts.
I'm active in a number of spaces online that are majority-neurodivergent. (I'll claim the label "neurodivergent" without comment on the label "autistic".) They all have to deal with the issue that, in such spaces, people are more likely to be sensitive, and also more likely to offend by accident. In the context of a collaborative project one can broaden this to a greater likelihood of people stepping on one another's toes. What strikes me is that these spaces' main advantage in contrast to Misplaced Pages is that they're honest with themselves about what's going on. Conduct decisions are made with the presumption that the participants' motives may not have been what you'd infer of a neurotypical person. Hence my new personal rule.
That said, it's not like there's easy answers here. Several years ago an openly autistic admin was desysopped for discussing violence against another editor in a way that was intended, by all accounts, to come off as mean but not as a true threat. It was an unambiguously desysoppable offense (although I'll admit I didn't take that view at the time). And yet, I think a lot of neurodivergent people can relate to making a joke that made perfect sense in their own head but came off very differently to their audience. (To be clear, I don't think that they raised autism as a defense, and I don't want to imply that their misconduct was "because autism", but at least the general circumstance is one that neurodivergent people tend to find ourselves in.) What's the solution there? I don't know. There's an overlap between statements that are reasonably insta-indeffable or desysoppable, and ones that a neurodivergent person can make without intending it to read that way. And if that's where we're starting from, how do we handle all the more minor cases?
So that's why I added this personal rule. Feel free to make any wording changes that preserve the meaning, if you think they'll make it less prone to misinterpretation, since it's just such a difficult thing to discuss, walking a tightrope between what could be perceived as being anti-accountability and what could be perceived as ableism. But regarding what you said about ANI: I think the best thing we can do about these topics is discuss them when there's no immediate reason to discuss them. If everyone's thinking about a specific editor when they discuss the topic, that will color their opinions.
P.S., not to come across as talking down to someone only a few years my junior, but a lesson I learned in my first wiki-life, reflected in the second paragraph in my userpage: The best thing you can do for your wiki-mental-health is avoid any page where the word "indef" gets thrown around. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi.05:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
To open in response to your last comment: well, a lot of people are scared of ANI, but I'm scared of political articles, and I'm sure I've seen you edit those. 😛 We all see different hotspots.
I'm definitely familiar with what you say about knowing it, or how different it is to be in an environment where people openly discuss that moderation and norms are shaped by neurodivergence, as opposed to the weirdly "everyone knows but no one knows" Misplaced Pages environment. I'm unsure if it's possible at all on Misplaced Pages to change the latter to the former, simply because we (in the societal sense) currently conceptualise neurodivergence as a product of diagnosis. Even for things like autism (and I concur, with hangups and caveats that are all frankly well outside the scope of what I aspire to discuss onwiki, with the "will claim neurodivergent, will pass without comment on autistic" identification here) where there's a relatively robust self-advocacy community, it's still in some ways reasonably and in some ways not treated as offensive to tag someone as autistic who hasn't been tagged as such in a medical context, and plenty of things I'd very much like to have robust self-advocacy communities outside of medicalization do not. There's an age factor here, in that a lot of the core editor (and especially content-writer) base is from age cohorts where a lot of what's diagnosed now wasn't, for better or worse.
As for Ironholds, well. I'm familiar from the "read about it after the fact" perspective with that case, for whatever that counts as familiarity. I don't think the behaviour I read was at all appropriate, and I think it's reasonable to expect an admin of any neurotype to know that. Simultaneously, the thing that really interests me about that case (using 'case' here in the broader sense rather than the ArbCom term of art) is the "seven RfAs" bit, and seven RfAs is characteristically autistic to me, for both good and ill. It shines through as both the way one can ascend past a lot of the mental limitations allistic people self-ascribe, and work tirelessly towards the pursuit of a goal, and simultaneously the way one can just not know when to quit.
To circle back around to ANI, I've been thinking about it because it actually did come up there lately, and in part due to a thread I'd created; the subject of that thread was...outed? as autistic by linking to a diff he'd written at a much smaller venue by a well-meaning party partway through, and he clearly wasn't happy at all about it. At the same time, in a different thread, another disclosed autistic editor suggested the reason a third party might have been acting in the problematic way that got him brought there was that he could be autistic, and the readers of that thread interpreted it as a personal attack on the subject. The discussion is worthwhile reading (and my comments in it reference a third, related case where an editor was clearly in severe distress over being a thread subject in a way that nearly went very poorly indeed, and where some of the reopening comments trying to address it were imo atrociously worded). Vaticidalprophet05:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's actually those ANI threads—including a remark you made about how many/most editors at least have subclinical "symptoms" of autism (scare quotes mine)—that first got me thinking about this topic. Just because I never comment there doesn't mean I don't stay up to date on the latest drama. I agree that there's a cultural/generational issue here, and such things will always be a challenge for an international, intergenerational project. A norm like tone-tagging (beyond the common "/s") could do a world of good, but I think it'll be at least a decade till you could get a majority of editors on board with something like that. (Not like, making it mandatory by any means; just instilling it as a norm.)
The other day, in the course of saying something about Misplaced Pages, I explained to my partner what deletionism and inclusionism are, and she'd said something like, "I hate to tell you, but I think I'm an inclusionist." Today, shortly after sending my last message here, something suddenly hit me, and I said to her, "Wait, what makes you think I'm a deletionist?" To which she said, "Because you need everything to be just a certain way." I'm guessing you know the kind of "certain way" she meant.
And it occurred to me that you can pretty easily predict how drama-heavy a particular area of the wiki is going to be by just how strongly people need it to be a certain way. There's a reason I refuse to touch any edit that has anything to do with categories. There's a reason that the major topic area with the worst-written articles is, by far, math. And you can call the tendencies that beget this "neurodivergent", or just... "particular"... And those particularities carry over to administration too. Ironically, I would argue that the very resistance to change things in a more overtly neurodivergent-embracing direction is itself of tendencies that, in many cases, fall into what I'll again call "either neurodivergent or just very particular." ANI being a mess of massive walls of text is the way that Makes Sense, so that must never change, no matter how flawed it is. For Misplaced Pages to stop being hostile to newcomers, we'd have to restructure some things that are The Way They Should Be, so I guess it'll keep being hostile. And so on and so forth.
As to Ironholds, to be clear, I didn't mean to make it seem like a "wink wink nudge nudge" thing which case I was referring to; rather, I was trying to use it as a general example since, as I said, once you get into any one specific case that complicates the analysis. (Mx. Ironholds is, incidentally, a researcher and commentator on autism issues these days, though they're no longer active here. And yes, that's an off-wiki identity still linked on their userpage, before anyone says anything.)
Back to your point about the ANI threads: It'd be nice to have an essay as a companion to WP:CIR (maybe WP:Idiosyncratic editors) that discussed how best to handle competency issues in ENDOJVP editors but stopped short of saying "All of these editors are probably autistic." I know you followed the somewhat tragic tale of the now-3X'd SoyokoAnis (talk · contribs). I'm certainly not going to try to diagnose her with anything, but in the threads about her there was clearly a lot of dog-whistling and subtext, as there is basically anytime CIR comes up with an adult native English speaker, because, yeah, CIR is usually about language/culture, age, or neurodivergence. Perhaps it would be nice in such contexts to have a diplomatically-worded essay to point to that nutshells to: "Some editors interact with the world in very different ways than others. Maybe this is for neurological reasons, or maybe it's just how they are." and then... And then what? Then a conclusion drawn from that, but I'm not yet sure what that conclusion should be. (And not that in her particular case there would have been a different outcome necessarily; just that it allows for more honest discussion.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.06:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, Soyoko. I admit to less sympathy to her than you or Elli (who was my main point of contact with her saga), but that's not to say a lack of it. She didn't scan to me as adult (and, as someone who first edited as a young child, I suspect some of our current policies about not disclosing the ages of young editors might actually be counterproductive -- but that's another issue...), with the consequence I was mostly viewing her CIR issues through the lens of youth rather than neurodivergence, but I can't exactly say the latter was never a consideration. It did stand out to me that the RfA candidate she insisted on nominating was a disclosed autistic editor.
I know of two essays currently about specific neurodivergences. I can't pretend to like either of them. I'd happily MfD WP:AUTIST, where its every word strikes me as Making Things Worse, if I thought that proposal had a chance in hell (I've already spent my nominating-bad-essays-and-failing points for the month). There might be something useful in its bones, though; it apparently hit someone's sense of "this is me" enough for WP:OCD to be based on it. Vaticidalprophet21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion (hope I'm not barging in too much).
Misplaced Pages is... an interesting environment, I guess, for neurodivergent people. Given, well, the way the site works, I think it's likely to attract them (what normal person spends their free time writing an encyclopedia for free?) Most people find the whole concept entirely foreign.
As for Soyoko, yeah, I think it's likely a combination of some type of neurodivergence and youth - neither of which are incompatible with Misplaced Pages, but if someone with them makes wrong assumptions about how the site works... it's not gonna be fun. Hell, looking at my first edits, I'm surprised I didn't get many warnings, given how terrible they were.
I dunno. This is kinda a ramble because I'm not sure exactly what I should say here? I guess, "be kind" has mostly worked for me - and is what, I think, worked for getting me on the right track. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Elli: I do think that Misplaced Pages's generally moving in the right direction on all of this. As I said to SoyokoAnis, I really doubt she would have been extended as much AGF back when I made this account (2012), which is one thing that made her situation extra frustrating. Then again, one still sees cases where if CIR issues aren't resolved after the first or second attempt at intervention, someone just hits the block button. I recently saw one of my least favorite things, a "Sock of someone or other" block. They're used as an excuse to say "We can label this intentional disruption rather than CIR because they're probably socking." Somewhere between begging the question and a thought-terminating cliché. But still, overall, progress, yeah. (Also thanks for dropping in to this chat. )
@Vaticidalprophet (but also still @Elli): I don't know if I'd agree with deleting WP:AUTIST, but I do think it misses the point. Partly because it's hard to describe the "honeypot" effect without resorting to stereotype. Partly because it's hard to describe autism itself without resorting to stereotype. But the essay manages to cut too much slack to neurodivergent editors while still not giving neurotypical editors particularly good advice about how to deal with us; and the advice it does give isn't very helpful when most neurodivergent editors are not open about it (if they even know themselves), and applying the label speculatively is, as you've said, a thorny issue.
So, seriously, if you (either of you) would be interested in working on an essay with me, I think there's room for improvement in the neurodivergence essay category. I'm interested in the idea of something that isn't explicitly about autism, but rather, without outright saying so, says "We're all at least kinda autistic here". I'm thinking of a title like WP:Needing things to be a certain way. In my mind, the essay would start out with something like, If you edit Misplaced Pages, that means you see a need for things to be a certain way. Quite likely, your first edit was noticing that something was incomplete or incorrect and fixing it. But why does it matter that the world know that the Third Amendment has been incorporated against the states in the Second Circuit but nowhere else? Why does it matter whether "Ljubljana" is spelled correctly in an article about baseball? Because things need to be right. All of us, to some extent, see things this way. And then go on to discuss how this applies to things like WP:CIR, WP:CIV, WP:TE, WP:POINT, and WP:RGW. And then give actual useful tips that can be applied to all editors, not just ones with autism userboxen. Stuff like:
Accept that Wikipedians are more likely than most people to have strong opinions on "little things" like punctuation or reference style. To you, they might be small, but if those things are important to the way things need to be for someone, they can become very personal.
Someone's view of how a conversation should work may not be the same as your view, or indeed, as the view of society at large. In particular, certain editors may value straightforwardness as a virtue significantly more than others, often based on a feeling that conversations are simply meant to work that way. This should not excuse incivility, but understanding this may help to reach constructive solutions in conflicts.
It can be very hard for Wikipedians to let go of something they are passionate about, even when consensus is against them. If this leads to someone becoming disruptive on a topic, then even as you nudge their focus elsewhere you should be respectful of their passion. And whoever comes up with a way to gently keep editors from returning to these passion topics will have averted the indefblocks of countless mostly-constructive contributors.
Wouldn't be the whole list, just the first three things that come to mind. In neurodivergent terms these are "sameness"/general particularities, communication issues, and special interests, but framed generally it's just a lot of the stuff we see all the time on Misplaced Pages. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi.06:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You're not funny, but here's something that's definitely not a laughing matter - why aren't you an admin yet? Once you're back, I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd nominate you ~TNT19:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
No doubt about that. When I've seen your talk page comments I have always been really impressed and feel like someone with those skills would fit perfectly in the role of an admin. --Trialpears (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I already am an admin, on the very prestigious testwiki and testwikidatawiki, thank you very much! No, but in seriousness, thanks for the kind words, y'all. I had this conversation with Tavix and Ritchie333a few years ago, and think I was right to not take either up on his offer then; I don't think I was quite ready. Despite having been around a while, I feel like I only came to really understand Misplaced Pages in the past year. And, to paraphrase John Wick, people keep asking if I'm ready to be an admin, and yeah, I'm starting to think I'm ready.
As I've said before, I consider my account's rename last October to be a soft clean start (redlinking to remind myself to write that wrote it!), not because I necessarily had anything to be ashamed of, but just because I didn't really like the person I'd been. My philosophy with this has been that I wouldn't speak much of past accomplishments, and in return would ask people not hold past failings against me. (The failings may well be more numerous in my mind than in reality, but either way.) I couldn't really ask the latter of RfA voters, so I'd be willing to run at least partly on my pre-User:Tamzin record, but primarily I'd want to run on my work in this incarnation. Work I'm very proud of, but which I feel is a bit incomplete, and a bit short-lived.
Excluding this mental health leave, which is thankfully coming to a close (which is good because I've been itching to fire up AWB and fix the 170ish articles that mislabel a Swedish source (ISO 639:sv) as being in Northern Sami (ISO 639:se)), I've been continuously active since January, so I think I'd want till at least this coming January to build up a bit more of a recent track record, as well as show my commitment to maintaining a reasonable activity level, especially given that I was almost completely inactive from March of 2018 through September of 2020. I'd also want to wait till I've done a bit more quality content work and gotten 'zinbot approved at least for the task I've already coded for it and hopefully for a few others. But I'm reasonably confident that I can get all that done by January.
On that note:
In general, yes. I'd like to run, shooting for January.
To the person who recently emailed me offering a nomination, if you're reading this: I'll get back to you presently about what that might look like (a.k.a. try to talk you out of it ;) ).
@Firefly: We all know you're overdue for adminship yourself, and you've been active again about as long as I have. Wanna flight it up? Can flip a coin on who goes first, or run at the same time.
I'm always very worried about echo chambers and groupthink, so if anyone's reading this and thinks they'd be landing on the oppose side of things or would be on the fence, please feel free to let me know your concerns, here or by email, so I can either adjust my parameters of what I should do before running, or at least draft a good response to a potential tough question.
@TheresNoTime: I'm the funniest person you've ever met, and you know it. :P
I’m immensely flattered that you think I’m qualified to run! I would definitely be up for an ‘RfA flight’ as and when the time came - assuming I could find anyone silly enough to nominate me and they thought I was ready around the same time. :) I absolutely echo point 4 of your post and invite anyone with concerns about my eventual suitability to let me know. Mostly though I’m just glad you’re up for running! firefly ( t · c ) 18:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a buzzkill but I'm still bearing the scars of my own RfA and that was six years ago this week. It was brutal. My advice is
a) make sure that those people who believe in you are aware that you are having an RfA...some people don't look at their Watchlists and may not even know that an RfA is happening;
b) start an RfA at a time when you feel strong and can be present 100%. You shouldn't respond to every criticism but you'd be surprised how often an editor starts an RfA and suddenly becomes busy and disappears from Misplaced Pages for a few days. Those are never successful. You have to be present;
c) Stick with it through the entire week. There is generally a burst of support at the beginning and then the opposers show up after a few days. I think there are some editors who would be admins right now but they withdrew their nomination after the critics began speaking up. But unless it's an unexpected tidalwave of "No"s, the close votes can go back and forth and it could turn in your favor if you hang in there and don't throw in the towel.
Just a few ideas for anyone considering an RfA. Right now, it looks like you have a lot of support! Liz00:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I have a fairly non-trivial COI here, but can you please hurry the heck up and run before the end of 2021 Tamzin? This has been a slow year, Eostrix notwithstanding, and we could do with another Blablubbs-esque RfA.... ~TheresNoTime01:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
EFM
Template:Known issue
Thanks for your work at EFFP. You might want to consider making a request for EFM access at WP:EFN so you can edit the filters directly to implement fixes yourself (if you're comfortable implementing them). Or just run for adminship, which would include EFM access. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not really related, so taking it to your talk page (Topic: Gendered pronouns)
Initially ran 26 October 2021 to 30 October 2021. Featuring Hijiri88, Ezlev, Aerin17, and BDD. Collapsed but still open to new comments.
Arrgh... it's been a while since I thought about gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources (ref) in relation to contemporary Japanese popular media personalities. English-language "reliable sources" focusing on Japanese popular culture tend to be sub-par (one of the sources initially cited in relation to Utada's gender identity proactively used singular they without any request from Utada to do as much, and also seemed to be conflating non-binary gender identity with same-sex sexual orientation...), and Japanese-language sources are extremely unlikely to make as big a deal out of it as English ones because of how the Japanese language works.
Japanese doesn't use pronouns anywhere nearly as much English, because content that is implied from context (as the referents of pronouns almost always are) is usually omitted: the Japanese for "I ate it" isn't "Watashi-wa sore-o tabeta" (literally "I it ate") but rather "Tabeta yo" ("Ate sentence-terminal-particle") and "I met her" isn't "Watashi-wa kanojo-ni atta" but rather "Atta yo"; "I ate it" or "She ate it" in Japanese would only specify the subject if it were in response to the question "Who ate it?", and even then "she" would necessitate a separate indication of who the girl/woman in question is, such as pointing, which is rude. (Needless to say, the Japanese version of Utada's website doesn't use any pronouns where the English version uses "she" and "her".) I actually recently found out that both the "Japanese words for he and she" that I learned in my beginner Japanese class were recent coinages based on English/French, the "word for he" being a redefined word classical Japanese pronoun that originally referred a person or thing that is far away from both the speaker and the listener, and the "word for she" being the same word, in the classical Japanese equivalent of the genitive case, with the noun "woman" attached after it. This kind of development would not be possible, needless to say, if personal pronouns were as entrenched in the actual Japanese language that people spoke every day as they are in English or French. I suspect this is why "pronouns" aren't really a thing on Japanese Twitter (etc.) like they are in America and Europe: it's my impression that a not-insignificant percentage of American pop-stars have their pronouns listed in their Twitter profile, and this percentage probably skyrockets when one only counts those pop-stars who have stated a gender identity other than cisgender male or female, but with Japanese pop-stars (even those who also hold American citizenship and live in Europe, and "occasionally tweet in English"), the former percentage is probably close to zero and the latter may be higher, but as far as I'm aware Utada is the most prominent case at the moment, and...
So yeah, it looks like the Utada case is going to be solved by a consensus of editors based on the fact that sources affiliated with the subject use a particular pronoun pattern, but if more Japanese (etc.) pop stars, voice actors/actresses, live action actors/actresses, video game producers, etc. with anglophone fan-bases and extensive coverage in English-language blogs and "reliable sources" that are little more reliable than blogs, start coming out as non-binary, gender-fluid, etc., a discussion might need to be had about how the MOS passage you quoted applies to such cases. A huge hullabaloo was made about a decade back about whether personal websites (or websites maintained by publicists) should take precedence over academic publications with regard to MOS:JAPAN#Modern names (with reference to whether long vowels should be marked), which I think kinda missed the point there (if we take URLs or copyright information on Japanese-language websites into account, we get people named "Sakaguchi Jun'ichirō" being identified as "Sakaguti Junitiro" just because the webmaster created the URL based primarily on how Japanese text is input on a keyboard).
But I suspect that, when it comes to gender identity, personal/official websites should definitely take precedence over third-party sources that often pass for "reliable" in pop culture articles, no matter how many such sources there are or how recent they are compared to what we assume to be the latest update on the personal/official website.
@Hijiri88: I think we often run into a problem of overly generalizing Anglosphere gender norms to other cultures. What you're saying about Japanese language and culture is very interesting; I don't speak any Japanese, but I speak French, and even in that language relatively close to English, many English-centric assumptions prove false. The whole relationship between social gender and grammatical gender is different when applying any noun to yourself contains an implicit statement of your gender. (It's also, incidentally, the most frustrating part of transitioning when you don't speak the language often enough to form new habits. I've gotten weird looks once or twice for calling myself américain rather than américaine.) One can see a bit of that disconnect going on at Talk:Claude Cahun, where people are struggling with how to apply the subject's gender expression in French in the 1950s to an English-language article in 2021.I'm not sure there's an easy solution to it, though, because this problem runs deeper than just Misplaced Pages. For instance, without taking a side on the issue of the term Latinx, I'll observe that a lot of the debate in the U.S. about it seems to come from people who are not familiar without how gender works in Spanish. A lot of English-speakers tend to expect our concept of "my pronouns are ______" to extend to languages where gender is more complex than just third-person pronouns and the occasional "son"/"daughter" situation. And that includes RS—many of which, as you allude to, barely even understand the concept of non-binary gender to begin with. So we get screwed over by the RS, and then by people who read them and then make good-faith changes based on their bad takes. The complicated pronoun situation I've been most involved in has been that of James Barry (surgeon). There's no language angle there, but nonetheless his article's been done a great disservice by the surfeit of articles in somewhat reliable sources saying "You'll never believe what this empowering lesbian, forced to crossdress, accomplished" or "You'll never believe what this pioneering trans man accomplished".Which gets us to the awkward sourcing question: Generally, someone's gender identity is the sort of thing we'd want very high-quality sources for. At the same time, we don't want to misgender someone just because major RS have been slow to pick up on something. Ellar Coltrane started taking they/them pronouns long after leaving the spotlight, and for over a month our article on them sourced their pronouns to their Instagram bio, till they got a brief write-up in a newspaper we could use instead. Given how many long-dormant BLP stubs we have (another rant for another time), there are plausible scenarios where a self-published source or suboptimal-quality source could be our only reference on someone's pronouns for decades. Not to mention people who are only mentioned in passing in articles. I've been in the news a few times in my life, mostly when I was very young. In the past I've been mentioned in mainspace, although I currently am not; but if someone were to re-add a mention of me, to get my name and pronouns right they'd have to cite like... a blog post I wrote when I came out, I guess? That's not exactly ideal, and would be weird to see alongside a cite to a major RS, but it's preferable to just getting people's pronouns wrong.At some point we're probably due for an RfC on when, if at all, it's acceptable to use they/them pronouns in cases of ambiguous gender. I don't really want to be the one to start that, though. :D Anyways, this is turning into a ramble, but thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts. (I designate this a talkpage-watcher-friendly thread, by the way; interested to know what others think.) -- Tamzin (she/they) 05:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Arrgh. Your James Barry example made me think of George Eliot and even more contemporary women writers who used male or "ambiguous" pseudonyms (or variations on their real names), such as D. C. Fontana. By the standards of some modern popular media, we should be calling them all transgender men or at least gender-fluid, except that we're lucky enough to have good documentation of the actual reasons for their hiding the fact that they were women. Ironically, the same is essentially true of a certain living author (who I won't name, but I think you can probably guess who she is), whose views on non-cisgender rights have turned out to be somewhat questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: This is as much me thinking aloud as anything else, but I'm going to ping you so I don't feel like I'm talking to myself. :) (Not to say a response is unwelcome, by any means, just that this may not really be written like a response to your own points, and you could be forgiven for not having much to say in response.) Oh I'll also ping BDD—with the same caveat—since he expressed some interest in this topic at Talk:Claude Cahun.The way I see it, we have four categories of cases where pronouns aren't as simple as "just say what they want":
Unknown identity, where the person's story does not involve participating in any gender-segregated activities. It was surprisingly hard to find a good example of this (since for most historical figures we can infer gender based on segregation), but after looking around in Category:Unidentified people I did find Italian Unabomber as an example—someone we have no interviews with, no profile of, etc.
Known identity but unknown gender identity. For many articles we don't explicitly know someone's gender identity, but there's a general precedent that we take fem-presenting AFAB as presumptive evidence for she/her and masc-presenting AMAB as presumptive evidence for he/him. This is imperfect, but it's probably the least bad approach. Issues arise in three cases:
Subject has indicated no gender presentation at all. E.g., picking another at random from that category, Neuroskeptic.
Subject has presented in a way too inconsistent to draw any non-SYNTH inference from. E.g. my favorite example, Thomas(ine) Hall... I swear not just my favorite because Thomasine and Tamzin are variants of the same name.
Subject's gender presentation differs from that associated with their gender assigned at birth, but they have made no statement regarding gender identity. There's tons of living people like this, but BLP forbids us from documenting it in most cases. It thus comes up more often with long-dead figures like James Barry.
Known identity, but ambiguous or inconsistent gender identity. Ruby Rose, Sophie Xeon, Vi Hart, and Alexis Arquette all come to mind, as does Utada Hikaru—in each case a different kind of ambiguity or inconsistency. (Often, as in the cases of Rose and Arquette, this may be someone who is genderfluid, and it may well be that they see no ambiguity or inconsistency but the sources reporting on them did.)
Known identity and gender identity, but it is unclear what pronouns should follow from that. Especially common in non-binary Westerners from before Stonewall who went on the record about their gender, like Claude Cahun or the Public Universal Friend.
In #1, #2.1, and #2.2, I think it's really author's preference (à l'EngVar) whether to do they/them or avoid pronouns. I think readers understand the concept of the gender-ambiguous they, given that it predates the singular-personal-pronoun they by several centuries. The important thing is not defaulting to he/him or she/her based on stereotypes. On #2.3, I've made clear my view at the Barry RfC that MOS:GENDERID should apply there the same as anywhere else: Binary presentation should be met with the corresponding binary pronouns unless there's clear evidence that the person did not identify with that gender (or, for more modern subjects, that they did not want those pronouns). On #3, I think we should default to not changing pronouns unless the subject requests it, because anything else would be presumptive, and shouldn't "compromise" on they/them. Avoiding pronouns sometimes might be the least bad option; sometimes we also just have to figure, if this person really cared that much, they'd probably reach out and ask us to change it. For deceased subjects like Xeon and Arquette, all there really is to do is follow the final statement, at least as best we can manage (bit complicated in both cases). And on #4, I dunno, I'm not opposed to they/them pronouns for someone who explicitly eschewed gendered pronouns in their lifetime like the Public Universal Friend. But they're almost the exception that defines the rule. The vast majority of people covered under #4 did refer to themselves with gendered pronouns, and I think we need to follow people's final wishes even when we suspect they might have preferred some modern option.K, that was a lot. Respect to anyone who's read to the end of this. Responses welcome, but, as noted before, this was as much thinking aloud as anything else. -- Tamzin (she/they) 04:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Wow, Tamzin, if this is what comes out when you think aloud then you should think aloud as often as you feel the urge to. (When I do it, it doesn't end up nearly as... coherent.) I think the categories you've laid out here and your explanations of how you think they should be handled make a lot of sense – this is definitely something I want to come back to and read more closely when I have more time. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see your 2. and I immediately think of ancients of whom we know some details but nothing that makes their gender (or at least biological sex) clear. Hieda no Are and Junia (both long assumed male but now widely considered by specialists to be women who were misidentified as a result of linguistic ambiguity) are interesting cases, but there are others who don't even have names, such as "the X poet", where X is the name of some work of literature written, or likely written, anonymously. A number of authors of Japanese literary works are assumed, based on their content or style, to have been written by male authors (court nobles proficient in literary Chinese, Buddhist monks, etc.) or women (members of the literary salons serving this or that empress, or more often than not just Takasue's daughter), so I guess in English they can be referred to as "he" or "she" once these authorship theories have been elaborated upon. (Needless to say, this is quite unrelated to the distinction between biological sex and gender identity, which I believe was not widely recognized until recently. I'm pretty sure throughout most of human history biological sex was of interest for the purpose of carrying on family lineages and gender identity -- or, indeed, sexual orientation -- didn't enter into the equation.) As for 2.3, it'll be interesting to see, if Misplaced Pages lasts as long, how our little encyclopedia will deal with such cases once such subjects have passed on and BLP no longer applies. Probably have to have an RFC in each article. 😅
As for 3., I think that, as a general rule, the "traditional" pronouns/determiners may be best, unless and until they specifically state that they don't like it, since it can probably be safely assumed that in such cases no one will find this usage either awkward or hurtful. (There do seem to be people who, for their own reasons, think anyone with any of these gender identities "should" use specific pronouns, but I don't think they can be assumed to find it personally hurtful, I'm pretty sure such people are a negligible minority even within the LGBTQ+ rights community, and I suppose they will probably eventually be outright rejected by said community for advocating a position that runs completely counter to said community's goals, similar to those who believe anyone with a particular sexual orientation should disclose said orientation publicly to "create awareness", as though public awareness were anywhere near as important as the feelings of the individual in question.)
4. strikes me as particularly ... well, outside my area of interest and expertise. Japanese poets before c.1880 referred to people as kore if they were "near" and kare if they were "far away", so the idea of pronoun preferences based on sex or gender would have been completely alien to them. Modern Japanese is a bit iffier since late 19th-century literati, in translating European literature (into what essentially amounted to a new, artificial literary language) took that word kore and used it to translate "this" (or "it"), kare to mean "he", "him", or "his" (Japanese uses postpositions to mark the subject, object, and possessive/genitive), and kano-onna (the genitive form of kare and the word for "woman", literally meaning "that woman") to mean "she", "her" or "hers". Since Japanese doesn't actually use pronouns very often, especially when speaking of people (it's quite rude... I think the same is true of English, at least because it implies you have not taken the effort to learn a person's name), this new Europeanized style was comfortably adopted into the standard Japanese written language, and consequently the spoken language, and now scarcely a century later Japanese gender-minorities are being told by non-Japanese-speaking netizens that they "should" use gender-neutral pronouns in English... "Ironic" might not be the word for it, but...
Hello! You probably don't know me, but I watch your talk page and saw this interesting discussion, so I thought I might share my thoughts if you don't mind :)
It seems to me that the hardest cases are the ones where the subjects are long deceased, and the issue is trying to translate their gender expression at the time they lived to how we might classify them today. The discussion goes something like, if this person were alive today, they might be considered a , so one the one hand that means we should refer to them with , but on the other hand, we shouldn't press terms upon them that they didn't use to refer to themself. Of the ones mentioned above, the ones that stand out to me are James Barry, Thomas(ine) Hall, and Claude Cahun. (The same problem applies to historical people whose sexual/romantic orientation was unclear, but it's easier to avoid making a statement one way or the other when you don't have to deal with pronouns.)
Modern people, on the other hand, tend to declare what their preferences are for pronouns, and the question is just how to interpret that. For example, Vi Hartindicated that they have no preference and do not care which pronouns they are called by, and Rebecca Sugar stated clearly that she uses both she/her and they/them. It seems like these kinds of cases ought to be more straightforward, though evidently nothing is straightforward. Aerin17 (t • c) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Shoot, I forgot one! (This is an addendum to my own rant, not a reply to Aerin17, whose post I appreciated but don't think requires a reply; indentation is to visually distinguish my own comments from Aerin's.) Sometimes an author will self-identify as "a man", or "a woman", or "the mother/daughter/wife of Such-and-such". (I won't pretend there isn't a gender disparity in the examples selected here; there is, but that's just because unfortunately most of the relevant examples are women whose identities are only known in connection to their male relatives.) So we know their gender (insofar as, with the ancients, we usually have no choice but to assume gender aligned with biological sex) but practically nothing else. Given that, as far as I am aware, none of the languages Japanese between around 800 CE and around 1400 CE could have been familiar with had gender-based third-person pronouns (Chinese, like Japanese, nowadays has a fairly arbitrary distinction in the written language between "he", "she" and "it", but this seems to be recent, and Sanskrit -- which some of the Japanese Buddhist clergy may have had some limited awareness of... -- ... might distinguish the three?), I don't know if any of them would care if they knew that centuries after their death people were talking about them in a language distantly related to Sanskrit and using strange pronouns that classified them by their gender, but I think such questions, regardless of how interesting they might be for some folks with unusual hobbies might be, are probably not all that important as far as we are concerned, since all of them are also very much dead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I started writing a few comments, but ended up like a writer in a cartoon, constantly tossing drafts into the trash. I largely endorse your four-part division above. Surprisingly, I am more inclined to accept they/them for #4. It is possible, but unlikely IMO, that such people would reject they/them pronouns today. And ultimately, we have to make some assumptions about such people—the use of he/him and she/her very much included. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@QoopyQoopy: Ah. You dropped an "e", then. ;) Well cool, say hi on the server sometime. I'm wan Tansin—ken tonsi li ken jan there. Also, if you aren't aware of https://wikipesija.org, check that out! I'm not too active there atm, but it's a fun project, with a long-term goal of getting WMF backing. Which is a long shot, but would be really cool. -- Tamzin (she/they) 02:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
RE: Would there be interest in a bot that makes a "watchlist" just for recently-edited pages?
@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 -->
Misplaced Pages: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 = Misplaced Pages: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 (she/they) 03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Tamzin, sincere thanks for your contributions to Draft:Casa Ruby. I had lost some steam after trying to clean up at Ruby Corado (which still has quite a lot of unsourced BLP, promotional language, and general style issues). I think the Casa Ruby draft now meets WP:NORG and could be moved to mainspace as a stub, but I'll take a pass at it sometime this week to make it a bit more substantial. And of course, any further help at these articles is greatly appreciated. Thank you again, Politanvm18:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Politanvm: Well, like I said, I was glad to see someone's working on it. Casa Ruby strikes me as the kind of organization that, were an article on it to land at AfD, at least one person would !vote delete simply because people are bad at understanding the significance of local organizations in cities they're not from, but which would be kept in the end. They're probably the second-best-known LGBTQ-oriented nonprofit in one of the largest cities (with one of the most notable LGBTQ communities) in the country, and I think the sources bear that out. Another paragraph or two and I think it should be good to go as stub-bordering-on-start. -- Tamzin (she/they) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Only 3 months later, inspired by your RfA, I've built it out and moved it to mainspace: Casa Ruby
I just wanted to thank you for your review on the Subtropical Highland Climate section of the Oceanic Climate page. It's certainly appreciated! G. Capo (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
Thank you for moving several of the surname articles that I started from xxxxxx (surname) to xxxxxx, thus making them the primary article. Much appreciated. Edwardx (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Edwardx: Thank you! This is going to be one of my go-to gnomish tasks for a while—not surname articles specifically, but more generally pages in Quarry 63493, "Possible non-CONCISE titles on enwiki", which looks for cases where the primary landing page for a term is a redirect to something other than a DAB page or list containing the page title as a substring. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, many such pages are valid, and with name articles I'm skipping past any that redirect to a specific person (even if—between you, me, and 132 talkpage watchers—I think that some editors are a bit overzealous in declaring people the primary topic for a mononymous forename or surname). You're welcome to help out with the query if you'd like, as is anyone else; maybe work from the back, or skip a few thousand rows, to avoid collisions. (N.B.: I may revise and re-run the query later if I run into a streak where I'm getting a lot of false positives for a specific scenario, like I did with DAB pages and lists.) Either way, again, thanks for the acknowledgment. Been doing other stuff the past few weeks, but when I get back to this query you'll probably see me lighting up your watchlist again. :) -- Tamzin (she/they) 04:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Gerda. This means a lot to me, especially given the circumstances and given the date (see userpage footnote 2). After years of, as you allude to, mostly working on improving articles by trimming them down, it's been a very eye-opening experience to build a full-length article from the ground up. I'm glad I got to have this experience with a list that's meaningful to me, although the downside of that is being very aware of how quickly this list grows. A small fraction of those killed overall, but as Masaq' Hub says in Look to Windward, "It's always one hundred percent for the individual concerned". -- Tamzin (she/they) 02:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, this means a lot to me, - see my talk today and 23 March. We have one name in common even, and named victims stand for all the unnamed. - "Stand and sing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Congratulation to being an admin now, and I'll come to bother you when I need (to not bother El C, 28bytes and Floq all the time). I didn't quite know where to place this, - too many images at the bottom, but move if you think here isn't good. I have the quirky DYK today, which is rare, and I don't quite know why music for peace was deemed quirky. Enjoy thinking of dolphins! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: Ah okay, thanks. Fixed in the article. Something about the mix of the idiomatic "point" and the prepositions there was really tripping me up. I really need to brush up on my French, but haven't had occasion to spend much time in France the past few years, and that's the only way I've ever really managed to stay fluent. Summertime soon, though, and we get plenty of Québecois tourists here, so maybe I'll find someone to chat with. -- Tamzin (she/they) 15:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
My last change regarding the garden of eden page
My change was to correct the name of the area is neutral and if you look from a historical point of view and not bring politics into this subject you will see, I'm asking you to be neutral and read about the names of this place it was never been called the Persian Gulf and it is wrong to claim that name without evidence of nations calling it that from the now time and historically even in western media and literature it is called Arabian Gulf please fix this error 151.254.242.101 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey! So I noticed that there have been 2 (That I noticed) reports relating to something involving the RickRoll Land draft at EFFP. I don't have any problems with the reports specifically, but I do have a problem with the draft. Based on what I see on the draft, it seems like a clear violation of WP:NOT based on WP:MADEUP. However I'm not sure if it would actually qualify as a WP:NOT violation since technically, a YouTuber (Who doesn't even have their own article yet) created it and not someone on Misplaced Pages. I'm asking you since I think you dealt with both reports and I'd like your opinion on what should be done with the draft. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#654516:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Well, it's a draft. The only speedy deletion criteria they're covered by are the G-series ones, none of which apply here. Particularly problematic drafts can be taken to MfD, but drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. There's lots of stuff incubating in draftspace that is not notable and never will be. Eventually people get bored enough that six months go without an edit, and then the draft is deleted. Assuming that it doesn't become notable... With online trends, you can never really tell. Every meme article was MADEUP at first. -- Tamzin (she/they) 16:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Alright sounds good. I would've immediately assumed it was just a joke article, however it was (apparently) created by a YouTuber even though it has no sources whatsoever which means that it wouldn't qualify for G3 (Unless for whatever reason that info was completely fabricated). Thanks for giving me your opinion on it. I'll probably keep an eye on it for a while to see if it ever becomes problematic enough to go to MfD. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#654516:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Rashism
What was the reason for the move? It's a neologism that appeared back in 2016 and is only mentioned in Ukrainian media. Couldn't find it in the academic sources. This term cannot be used as a name for a Misplaced Pages article. It basically doesn't exist (there are no quality RS that mention it). Please move it back to Russian fascism.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Gaura79: Thanks for reaching out. My move of the page was procedural in nature, based on an informal consensus (permalink) on the talk page. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter myself. As I noted when moving the page, if there is any further disagreement as to the page's title, the next discussion should be a formal RM . For instructions on starting that process, please see Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Please let me know if you have any further questions. -- Tamzin (she/they) 11:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
You are the one, perhaps!
Hi, Tamzin, I hope you are well. I was just noticing that I have created over 110 articles on this Misplaced Pages, and also improved about 11 articles, among which I helped to make two good articles. So what I did moments ago is that, I made Template:User improved to indicate on my userpage, the number of articles that I have improved, because one can't include those in the articles created, even if the whole of the content, is ones own work. I would like you to fix the template stuff for me, because I have no knowledge of "template-editing". I just happened to make few little templates. I don't also feel the name is a nice one. Regards, ─ The Aafī23:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@TheAafi: It looks good to me! The only technical issue is that you should get rid of the <includeonly>...</includeonly>, so it shows up when viewing the template page. Personally I'd change the wording of the text a bit, but that's not really a technical question. And the name seems fine to me! -- Tamzin (she/they) 05:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Pakistanpedia and Lillyput
Do you have a question? When I filed the two recent reports, I was concluding that the sockpuppeteer was trying to create a walled garden of articles on some films and actors. I didn't think that there was current log data. That's about all. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: My question is just if you have any thoughts on the IP's allegations there. The filing doesn't present enough evidence, and the filer is unavailable to expand it, so I thought I'd reach out as a Hail Mary, in case you had anything to add based on your experience with the case. -- Tamzin (she/they) 04:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
No. My own opinion is that the IP is probably a different sockpuppetmaster who is an enemy of Pakistanpedia, but I am cynical about IP editors reporting conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, IP 24. All I did was remove the content on the page as a proactive measure. Some time after that, a steward suppressed the whole account, taking those edits with it. If you want to get that reversed, you would have to talk to the steward team. (To be honest, as it stands, that page should just be deleted, seeing as the only public revision is the blank one.) -- Tamzin (she/they) 03:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I think deleting the page would just make it look even worse. If you can take the heat for being the last editor to the page, I'm minded to let it stand. Otherwise I could remove your username from it. -- zzuuzz03:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't mind being the last one in the history, no. But to avoid confusion I've left a note in the page history directing concerned parties to the steward team. -- Tamzin (she/they) 03:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
OK. There's a small chance it might get restored one day, btw, but that's above even my pay grade. The peanut gallery may wish to know that having both seen the contents, I think we'd agree there wasn't anything very exciting there .. no rants or manifestos or anything, basically just a few userboxes. -- zzuuzz04:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm L3X1. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Raymond Spencer, 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.)
Just saw your request for adminship. I would possibly accept... But I doubt that I made sufficient amount of recent edits on Misplaced Pages. I like your userpage style, more than 0 edits. I used more than 1 edit, but please believe me when I say I was not copying your idea. I didn't even know you until now. And about the notice on your talkpage not appearing on mobile, my talkpage on my home wiki has one I made from scratch. It appears to show on mobile. Just thought that might help. -- L10nM4st3r(talk)08:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@L10nM4st3r: I don't claim any monopoly over silly userboxen. :D As to the mobile notice thing, yeah. I'm still thinking about the best way to do that. Thanks for the suggestion. Will consider it. -- Tamzin (she/they) 08:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad to see this. I can't remember when it was that I asked you (as PinkAmpersand) about RfA and you declined. Must have been quite a few years ago now. Anyway, looks like a slam-dunk pass from where I'm sitting. Ritchie33318:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Heh, Tavix linked it in his vote. I did plan on taking y'all up on that at some point, but then wound up dropping off activity-wise for a bit (see Special:Diff/1084656730). But I do appreciate both of you for having suggested it back then. :) I'd actually forgotten about it until someone looking through my talk archives found it in June or July, and it's what got me to start thinking about going for it. -- Tamzin (she/they) 20:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering when you would be nominated, and I think (and hope) that it will pass. As an unrelated side note, on the 2022 Vector the foundation seem to have moved the table of contents to the left sidebar. Zippybonzo | talk18:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm becoming concerned that the number of supports is increasing fast enough that it might endanger my record if this goes on for 7 days. Please consider either withdrawing the request, or loudly and publicly saying something boneheaded as soon as possible to slow the support, or violating some bedrock WMF policies and at least earning it. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: loudly and publicly saying something boneheaded as soon as possible to slow the support Well if you insist... Floquenbeam is a great admin! -- Tamzin (she/they) 00:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Y'know, Floq, you really jynxed it. Because I'm not gonna beat that record, but I might give you a run for your money on the record for most controversial RfA with above 250 support. I didn't look all the way back, but I'm pretty sure the list goes you, Dihydrogen Monoxide, EvergreenFir. And I've already surpassed Evergreen for third in that dubious ranking. So, thanks a lot, jerk. /s<3 -- Tamzin (she/they)
I'll have to console myself with "highest number of opposes but still passed". I think even "highest number of participants" is in jeopardy. I don't know about "most controversial RfA with above 250 support"; that sounds like one of those made-up baseball statistics, like "highest OBP in second game of a doubleheader". But there were tons of votes in mine, and it went to a crat chat, and it passed, so at least I win that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I swear, Floq, I'm gonna ban you from this talkpage if you keep talking about things that will or won't happen. /s P.S. Who's the only pitcher to throw three pickoffs in an inning? -- Tamzin (she/they) 20:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Asking for a friend: how mad would you be if I were to saythey were to say "Congratulations on your RFA passing!" right now? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
On that same token though, if you do receive 117 opposes (which I sincerely hope you do not), you must garner 351 supports or face the bureaucrats. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 01:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Contrary to common misconception, RfAs in the discretionary range don't need to go to a 'crat chat. They usually do, and I'm guessing this would, but it's not required. When I started editing, 'crat chats were by far the minority of discretionary-range closes. -- Tamzin (she/they) 01:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Privacy policy
Hi Tamzin. One extra thought about the suppression and restoration of the question at RfA. "If I use my name, it's OK, if I use a pseudonym it's not" was a line I could enforce - and indeed referenced before making the suppression. Instead I will say that this is a level of nuance that I don't think fair to expect from OS in terms of enforcement - that is you reserve the right to have non-peseudonomous accounts be considered OUTING unless you also link to your real name with those accounts. It can be tricky enough for me to figure out if there has been disclosure onwiki such that something is not OUTING, and asking me to do that on other sites feels a step too much. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
re: "fair to expect from OS in terms of enforcement": This would be completely right if you were somehow criticized for guessing wrong. But I doubt anyone on the planet thinks you did anything wrong. No one expects you to research each person's off-wiki posting exhaustively before suppression. Tamzin's just given you further info, which led you to unsupress. Seems like the system worked perfectly. The only imperfection is the extra work caused, which is probably not going to happen very often. And, the main reason I'm sticking my nose in here: I hope you didn't misunderstand my comments in that thread as any kind of criticism of the suppression; it most definitely wasn't. If I was still an OS, I'd have suppressed it too, in the absence of Tamzin's request to the contrary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I think this is an OS success story @Floq. An anonymous editor saw something that was OUTING, came onto IRC, requested help, an admin saw, revdelled it, asked for oversight, it was oversighted as a tool of first resort, it became clear the target was OK with the comment, and it was undone. I have truthfully spent more time on this userpage about this than in the suppressing and unsppressing - in fact the only reason the original suppression was close was I double checked Tamzin's privacy notice.My comment is about next time, when maybe Tamzin hasn't seen the edit between the time it was posted and the time it's suppressed and can't give informed retroactive consent. If Tamzin had said "I am OK answering this question" or "I am OK with this account being linked" as to why it should be restored, I wouldn't have said anything here. But the actual response to you was it satisfies my test of a site where I participate under my real name. To which I say "No, it fails the test that was setup" and adding nuance to make clear that it didn't fail the test feels like it would - and did based on the change below - make the ask complex. When an OS request comes in, I often feel some compunction to respond to it. Even if I would rather not pause my TV show, put down the book I'm reading, or stop what I was doing at work, I will generally try to make time for it because the things we oversight can cause real damage and real harm and the ask on my time, in 90%+ of circumstances, is small compared to the good I can do. Having an individualized workflow for what should be suppressed is one thing, having it take real detective work on my end is a different thing and not part of the bargain for me. If I wanted non-simple work that I was obligated to do, I'd have opened some ArbCom appeal I haven't weighed in on. And that's why I'm pushing back on adding nuance here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, thought I'd replied, but apparently there was an edit conflict with Floq and I mixed that up with the earlier edit conflict with Sdrqaz' deletion and closed out the tab. Sigh. Let's see if I can remember what I'd typed... @Barkeep49: You make very good points. I certainly don't want to make things any harder for the OS team. This is the first time my waiver of OUTING has come into play anywhere, and it clearly still has some kinks to work out. Does this address your concerns? Trying to burden-shift onto the !outer. (Wait how the Hell is that a redlink? Next you'll tell me fee shifting is... Oh gosh.) -- Tamzin (she/they) 00:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
In one sense it does address my concerns. In another sense, not really as I explain above to Floq. It feels like part of your concern is that someone could get in trouble with the OS'er in this circumstance. It never entered my mind to warn or sanction the editor who asked the question, so if that's your concern I wouldn't sweat it, and would go back to the original wording. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Signing comments on RfA pages
Hello Tamzin, I hope you're doing well during what I'm sure is an unsettling period of 7 days. As far as I know, it is clearer to sign answers to questions on RfA pages, as they are comments you wrote, in addition it clearly denotes the end of the comment, helpful for ones that span paragraphs. I noticed the first one was signed, but none of the others were signed. I first applied the unsigned template, as I do normally, but I looked for reference at the previous RfA, by Colin M, and saw those weren't signed either, so I reverted it.
The obvious solution to this problem is to ask you to sign them yourself. I didn't reach out to you about it initially because the last two times I have posted it here, you haven't taken too kindly to it. However, I hope my message here has a different tone, and it's more so my intention to get the confusion cleared up-- as I found the page by editing normally and think they would be better that way. So, would you be willing to sign them? Naleksuh (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Naleksuh: Traditionally RfA answers aren't signed. I've removed the one signature I'd included by accident.Your message confuses me: You seem to be aware that I don't want to interact with you, but seem to not get that that means the correct response is to leave me alone. Why you think that your own misunderstanding of RfA norms creates a good exception, I do not know. I do not think you mean me ill will. I think I'm in the minority in that regard, as a number of people have told me they're concerned about your behavior toward me. Certainly it's a bit harder to assume good faith when you choose to contact me at a time when you know I risk consequences at RfA if I do anything elsewhere on-wiki that could be taken as causing drama. But I will continue to AGF. I think that you have some uncanny knack to always land on the worst possible misinterpretations of subtext and tone, and that it makes you come off as malicious when you're not. So this time I will be very clear, for both our sakes: Please do not post on this talk page again, except for procedural notifications (e.g. if you RfD a redirect I created). Where possible, please leave me alone elsewhere on Misplaced Pages as well. If you would like to acknowledge this message, you can do so with the thank button (just the once). -- Tamzin (she/they) 04:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like you're on track to pass. In case I forget, just thought I'd wish you good luck! I look forward to coming across your signature in the future :) — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
All's well that ends well. It was interesting to see how many times checkusers were used during this RfA – after all, SPI skills were the most important thing. Congratulations, Mathsci (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar
A barnstar seems performative, but a private email seems not brave enough, so I'll selfishly choose the former, and hope that it incrementally lifts your spirits as much as an email might. An honorable >70% "pass" is better than a silent 99% "pass". I can't find it now, in that increasingly unfollowable discussion, but somewhere you said this discussion is making you question whether you want to spend time in a community that turns a blind eye towards those who would erase you. Remember not to ignore the other +/- 250 people. Wishing you resilience for the next few days, and beyond. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
+1 Surveys since 2016 consistently find > 75% of Americans think polarisation is getting worse and it needs to be addressed, so can't blame the few who are opposing. Though it does seem quite a misreading of your track record. My reading is your radical transparency & decency on this issue is likely to have a net depolarisation and NPOV enhancing effect, which is much needed. 264 dwarves 40, or even if the oppose count grows to 90 before the end. That said, if it does get too stressful, we'd want you to do what seems best for you, of course. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ascendingrisingharmonising: Normally I'd say this is off-topic, but hey, anything to pass the time right now. I started learning Toki Pona for the same reason that Sonja Lang invented it: to simplify my thoughts. I was in a bad place, and doing a lot of therapy, and the therapy wasn't helping much. I started learning Toki Pona—just through reading pu—and found that that was helping a lot more! So I kept going. I would journal in Toki Pona at least once a day, and after a while I joined the largest Discord server for it, ma pona pi toki pona. (You can find a link if you Google it; now's a bad time for me to violate WP:SPAM.) There, I could talk in Toki Pona with others, by text and by voice, and I learned it a lot faster.As to how long it takes to learn... There's a fairly common misconception that you can become fluent in Toki Pona in a matter of days or weeks, and that just isn't true. What is true is that you can learn how to assemble a grammatically correct sentence quite quickly, meaning that you can write things for yourself that you'll understand later. What takes longer is learning to understand what others say, and learning to express your thoughts in a way that isn't just translating from your native language, but rather thinking in a pona manner. For instance, I recently saw a new speaker talk about drinking telo pi kili lili loje jelo, 'liquid of the red yellow circular fruit'. They were still learning to combine words, and it was good that they'd figured out the right words to fully express the concept "orange juice", but a friend corrected them: "You can just say telo, 'liquid'". Because Toki Pona is a language about simplifying things. That takes some getting used to. I still wouldn't call myself quite fluent. I can speak fairly fluently in conversation, but I haven't quite internalized the pona mentality 100%.Anyways, given that this is off-topic, if you have further questions about Toki Pona, feel free to reach out by email. Or I suppose it would be on-topic to discuss this on my Meta talkpage, since there's an active request for a Toki Pona Misplaced Pages and the language is already in use on Wikisource. -- Tamzin (she/they) 18:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Tamzin, just hang in there, insofar as you mean well for the collaborative project and you truly want to serve, you would get the bit. Just hang in there it would all be over soon and you shall emerge successful. Celestina007 (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Celestina007. Don't worry, I'm not giving up on my supporters. People have put too much time into defending me for me to throw that away. -- Tamzin (she/they) 22:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Casualdejekyll, I understand, I believe we have all failed RFA candidates, I mean the collaborative project as a whole, now, for a collaborative project which has the mantra of RFA isn’t a big deal it sure is looking like a big deal with the unnecessary pillorying of the candidate. The community complains that in the last 4 years the number of editors willing to serve has diminished exponentially. I think it was a sysop I regard, I think it was Ritchie333, who first admonished us long ago to stop deceiving ourselves and categorically stared that Adminship is Infact a big deal. In the end I trust Tamzin would emerge successful, insofar as they mean well for the community and truly want to serve which I believe they do. Tamzin is familiar with policy, they have a clue, they have a perfect temperament and most of all have demonstrated a need for the tools, these are the requirements & Tamzin checks all boxes. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
My admin criteria is purposely much lower than many other editors' - and makes no explicit mention of edit count or any such statistics. I should probably save it on a userpage somewhere so I can refer it to other people more easily. casualdejekyll22:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the community also underestimates its ability to deal with rogue and problematic admins, Celestina007. I don't expect Tamzin will be one, and I'm glad they're on the way to passing, but if they are the community will be able to address anay problems that arise. I'm somewhat surprised that the opposing votes do not even mention Tamzin's high regard for transparency and disclosures -- all indicators of an editor who'd follow ADMINACCT. — Ixtal ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
It's worth noting our color matched before a commenter on the RfA pointed out the accessibility issue with it. I just figured that I'd solve it the same way you did casualdejekyll22:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
needed information
Dear admin, by mistake it got clicked . Now, should I file this again or the old one can be considered. RS6784 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@RS6784: Don't worry, I'd already noticed the issue and fixed it for you. :) Your filing is now in the queue to be reviewed. In the future, yeah, it's the first box that shows up in "How to open an investigation:", not the second. The second is only for non-autoconfirmed users. (Also, I'm not an admin.) -- Tamzin (she/they) 23:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I hope you're doing okay. This may have been better as an email so no worries if you remove this. I agree with what I said in my oppose, but I support the great work you're doing here at Misplaced Pages, and I support Tamzin the person, so please don't get discouraged from continuing to do the good work you do improving the encyclopedia. When/if your RfA goes through, I hope to see you around and hope that we can all move forward without any hard feelings.Endwise (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm a supporter and I feel exactly the same way. The smiley just made my day. I gotta say: this is one of the more interesting RFAs to read. There is real clash of ideas and while it must be nerve-racking to be the candidate, I am grateful they stood for sysop and like my new friend Endwise, hope their wiki-career continues to inspire, regardless of the outcome. BusterD (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
At the time of writing this, Tamzin actually ended up winning the rfa. Congrats Tamzin! Even though I opposed, like this person said here, please don't be discouraged to edit Misplaced Pages. Keep doing good work in improving Misplaced Pages! Have a good day! Toad40 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations!!!!
Congratulations on WP:300, with almost being the most supported RfA of all time. This is nothing to scoff at and is an incredible acomplishment. PerryPerryDTalk To Me05:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Don't worry, you're only about the 100th person to. :D (Not even sure that's an exaggeration.) You've gotta put a # before the colons. -- Tamzin (she/they) 08:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm so totally blaming Primefac for my mucking up the numbers. I don't know how to blame them for me getting it wrong the 2nd time, but I'm sure I can find a way Nosebagbear (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The Best Drama Barnstar
The Best Drama Barnstar
The Best Drama Barnstar is awarded for having a bit part in one of the best dramas of the year. Thank you for your diligent work. -- zzuuzz21:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Y'know I said in advance people should say "break a leg" and not "good luck"... Maybe all this happened because some didn't listen.Curtsies and/or bows. -- Tamzin (she/they) 21:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-related.. somebody needs to start reverting me if I add more to the already bloated RfA. I'm getting into the same territory Perry was. casualdejekyll00:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Get some sleep
A process not for the faint of heart. I'm stressed and I barely contributed. The way you handled the process makes me proud to have been a supporter. BusterD (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Add: Immediately after I sent this reply, my mother (who schlepped out here 9 hours from D.C. without a car, just to keep me company as things got intense), made the same suggestion. So congratulations, @BusterD, you're an honorary Jewish mother. -- Tamzin (she/they) 03:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll give you a ring if I'm ever in town, we'll bake it together :) I have to agree with BusterD's initial comment, too. My browser history shows that I hit refresh on your RfA more often than I did my own, and that's really saying something. seriously, Tamzin, you did a fantastic job. In this weird Jewish quasi-family that's forming here (actually not the first time this has happened to me), I've never been prouder to call you my sibling. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, you've managed to succeed at something that a certain someone on Wikipediocracy rather hilariously failed at, which is make me cry. /pos Thank you, Claudia. <3 I hope you know I'll be first in line whenever RfA/theleekycauldron 2 rolls around. (I'd offer my nomination, but you'll probably have to wait another decade or two before I'm no longer the most controversial possible nominator... Probably better off going with Icewhiz and a GRP co-nom.) -- Tamzin (she/they) 04:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
well, you never know how low that bar goes... I could always nominate myself :) <3 wikipediocracy is totally a shitshow, but good god did I laugh out loud at parabola's rants. A+. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I self-nommed on Wikidata... 34-0. I had 2,013 edits and four months' tenure. Held the record for most successful RfA there for years, still I think 4th or so. Imagine if it worked that way here. -- Tamzin (she/they) 08:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron - as I understand it the real value of nominators is in the advice and behind-the-scenes work they can offer rather than the endorsements they give. Sure, some people will vote along the lines of "I trust any nomination by X", and that is of course a benefit, but that might be 2 or 3 votes out of hundreds. What all this is getting at is - don't dismiss the idea of a self-nomination. I think we might do well to bring back them back as "something we do"... Apologies to Tamzin for using her talk page to blather on. firefly ( t · c ) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Firefly: Oh, I couldn't agree more; mother prune hamentashen up there was invaluable during my run. (seriously, can't thank BusterD enough.) I'd love it if self-noms became more normalized for others; I think they're not because while the particular nominator might not matter so much, people expect that any serious adminship candidate has been around long enough to build the connections to rustle up those nominators. But it'd be nice to not have that expectation :) Tamzin, I have to ask you if you purposefully ran at 2013 edits because that's the year you ran... if so, kudos, that's fantastic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Late Happy 1st May!
And nominators might have it difficult to find editors to have not a phrase that can be opposed by lets say in some words we might not be able to repeat in a discussion. And least I wouldn't have been able to use such words as Hammersoft did. But for now that's allowed, we have a Sysop precedent.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
You are an incredible human being. You are an amazing editor and a beautiful part of this community. Your impact is most definitely felt and it is such a positive for this encyclopedia that I don't believe that could even be questioned. But more than that, the civil way you have conducted yourself through the difficult events of the last week and the lovely way you interact with those around you on a daily basis can only ever be matched. It saddens me that you were so affected by everything that you lost sleep, though I understand full well the intimidation you may have felt, or that you were stressed to a breaking point. But I am equally thrilled that you had those around you supporting you through the process. Regardless of the outcome I want you to know you are supported, as a fellow editor and human being. Keep shining your Light and singing your Song. I don't think there is a barnstar here for that but there is in my world and you've earned it. --ARoseWolf13:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
For when there is no other barnstar for a situation.
PerryPerryD, not to hijack Tamzin's talk page but it looks like they redid that barnstar. It looks incredible. I'm all about some rainbow (lol). --ARoseWolf14:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Excellence
Congratulations again on WP:300, achieving the most !votes in an rfa since 2019, being the most supported rfa since 2019, and staying calm during all of this. Regardless of the result, Its clear that people appriciate you. so dont forget that. PerryPerryDTalk To Me13:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Grats from me too. But I think it was bigger than Perry thought. In my reading you have the most participants ever in an RFA, the most supports in an RFA, the most kbs of discussion, one of the few records you don't seem to have is most opposes.... ϢereSpielChequers20:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, kudos on your excellent demeanor throughout. That is, in great part, what convinced me to stay in the support column. Your temperament throughout, despite the stress and timbre of the conversation, is a good look. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Enjoy your day on the beach tomorrow, and hopefully this all won't spoil the day for you. Happy editing, and maybe soon happy mopping too. Dreamy Jazz22:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Makin' sure it's not lost on others... I admire your sand (#3). You've been on my Awesome Editor list for a long time, and it looks likely that you will soon go on my Awesome Admin list as well. You probably already know this, that when we see dolphins, then we can be confident and assured that there are no sharks around. Just another reason to love those cute, big-brained swimmers!P.I. Ellsworth - ed.09:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The beach was nice. I saw a lot of dolphins. Here are three of them, on their way to jaywalk (jayswim?) across U.S. Route 9. -- Tamzin (she/they) 00:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Noticed your notice above and in case you haven't found it, there is a really good template called {{If mobile}} I've been using when I close move requests. The template I use, {{Requested move/end}}, does not appear in mobile view, and I use If mobile to let my closure appear for mobile users. You might find it useful at the top of this page and in other applications. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.10:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I have closed your RFA as successful, congratulations. If you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me or any other administrator. Useight (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Congrats - enjoy the scary new buttons everywhere. :) More seriously, you'll do brilliantly, I have every confidence. firefly ( t · c ) 13:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, Tamzin! It's no cetacean, but I see above that you already have found one. Time for a new signature? ;) HouseBlaster13:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations on the result of your RfA, which looks like it was a pretty stressful one. It does look like you've achieved a record number of supports, though, which is a notable achievement. These things were a lot less stress in my day - but back then, Trump was only a clown on the TV. Anyway, I think you need a porpoise for your new abilities. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Hearty congratulations, Tamzin. You finally did it. I was really worried with your RFA seeing all the oppose votes. Enjoy your adminship. Regards, Itcouldbepossible14:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations. Going through chats is never fun, I know from personal experience. May your tenure as an admin be free of angst and drama. Although, if you crave that, you could consider RfB eventually . -- Avi (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Avi that's just pure evil and you know it . Besides, anyone with any chance of passing an RfB did their RfA like fifteen gazillion years ago, anyway. hot take: instead of the current system bureaucrats should instead be a committee like ARBCOM but separate, and they should return to being a "normal" admin after their term is over casualdejekyll15:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, Tamzin. And sorry our exchange came back from the dead to make it such an absurdly close thing. I'm sure you'll do a great job. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It’s a shame that it took all that to get to this point, but this is the right outcome. Congratulations, Tamzin! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 15:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Crikey, I thought I'd seen baptismsbyfire, but this was something else altogether. Still, you have the mop now - may you use it wisely. I was impressed with your communication throughout the RfA, which in this case made a serious difference. Ritchie33316:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
To say "congratulations" feels wrong — well done for passing, but that RfA has so little to congratulate. I'm so, so sorry we the community are in this state. — TNT (talk • she/her) 16:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, I think that the socks won’t congratulate you though, so I will on their behalf, otherwise, you might get fed up of them. But in all seriousness, you have a couple of achievements, the 1050th admin, the most voted RfA and probably the most controversial RfA for a while. Zippybonzo | talk17:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
For your courage and bravery in mounted RfA combat, I award you this unusually powerful 16X SUPER STAR WOMBO COMBO MOP. May it serve you well in the timeless quest to rid the Wiki of scum and villainy! CaptainEek⚓18:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations on breaking two records within your RfA! You faced the bureaucrats gracefully. May you use the mop wisely and in a record-breaking manner! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 18:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations! Sorry that the community has once again proven that they do not want new admins. Most of it is nothing to do with you. You made the mistake of needing the tools at a time when RfA has almost successfully killed off all candidates. You are an excellent editor, don't take the discussion at RfA too seriously, thanks for persevering when other candidates in similar positions have chosen to withdraw, and good luck as an admin! — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations! I am late to the party but I wanted to wish you all the best for the future. I also "believe strongly in telling the truth", and I have nothing but respect and admiration for how you stayed honest under intense scrutiny. That reassures me that you will have a principled approach to adminship and that you will do more than just fine. Good luck! — The Most ComfortableChair07:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, Tamzin! I felt guilty for not speaking up at the RfA in support of you, but I knew you would make it anyway. Your tenacity at SPI convinced me long before that you were going places around here. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Congrats on the extra tools. It's always great to see a SPI regular who I don't disagree with on proposed admin actions get the tools. Dreamy Jazz16:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I know I said this over on the Discord, but just wanted to reiterate it here: massive congratulations on passing the RfA. I wasn't around at the time, but you would have had my full support - I wasn't aware you'd received the highest amount of support !votes ever, crikey - what an achievement! I also highly admire how you answered all the questions put to you with civility and decorum. You'll be a great admin for sure; I have full confidence in that. Patient Zero04:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Look Tamzin
Tamzin You do know you owe me a pack of fine Marlboro cigarettes for being the first to congratulate you on your successful RFA in advance right? Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
CONGRATULATIONS!!
You didn't just win–You set records
As others have pointed out above, yours was the most voted RfA. And now the real work begins. Atsme💬📧17:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Well that was fucking weird
Me on day 8 (of 9) of 7. Not quite the tan Paine Ellsworth was hoping for, I think.
I have been writing out some significantly longer thoughts as the RfA progressed, and will post them once I've cleared my head a bit more and thoroughly read every oppose. Briefly, though:
I want to thank my supporters for the most-supported RfA in English Misplaced Pages history, the 11th time ever outside of ArbCom elections that 300+ EnWikipedians have gotten together and agreed on something. I am so immensely grateful for the time and emotional energy you all put into supporting me.
I take this outcome as, at once, a vindication that expressing the opinion I expressed is not incompatible with adminship, and, per 28bytes, a rejection of any suggestion that such an opinion should ever become policy—not that I've ever suggested it should.
Y'all better prepare yourselves for a whole bunch of... me being a pretty fucking boring admin. I am entirely happy to go back to doing what I had been doing for 11 months before this RfA: Not expressing divisive political opinions on-wiki. For those of you with a love for drama, here are some divisive non-political opinions to argue about:
As a certified cat lover, I'm going to say - let's agree to disagree. Personally, I think a pint of Curious Brewing IPA is better than Pepsi and Coke, but that's just me. Oh, and brown sauce goes great in a stir-fry. Ritchie33320:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm a cat lover as well, but they're not pets, they're essentially broody, alcoholic roommates. They wander around, sometimes they decide they need to get right in your face to tell you how much they love you... man... and then you do the wrong thing and they fly off the handle. They also leave piles of puke around. Reminds me of my living in my first apartment.
Also, isn't the whole IPA thing done yet? When can we go back to real beers without needlessly excessive hopping. I'd rather drink a nice stout or porter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
That you left RC Cola out of the equation tells me you're woefully inexperienced with flyover country. The beachy smile and the tattoo tell me we made the right choice. I'm so tickled we have you on the team. Now go forth and block someone. Plenty of work to do. Get the sand out of your keyboard and get to work. BusterD (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Tamzin. you would totally be justified to kick these two off your talk page after such foul language, BusterD excluded. Ritchie is a known problem, though. You didn't get the asparagus did you? (inside joke) --ARoseWolf20:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Can't get Moxie in Chicagoland (that I can find). I couldn't find it in NYC, but could at a little market in Putnam County. A long way to drive for something that's not even in a glass bottle anymore. BusterD (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You just don't want it hard enough. I had some pals from England over to my neck of the woods for my wedding, and they were very impressed with Moxie. They said it was the first soda they had that didn't just taste like sugar. They expressed mild disappointment that there's no way to get it in the land of Queens and Kelpies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Just my luck right now... Wanted to do one easy admin thing. AIV? One case there is complicated. U1/G7? Involved w/r/t the only entry. G6? Empty. G5? Only tagging there was out of order. That last one at least gave me occasion to use {{admin note}}, so, that's something. And of course I've pressed the "edit source" button on Main Page, stared at that for a long moment, and then freaked out and closed the tab.I've never had Moxie. Been at one restaurant in Salem, Massachusetts, that served it, but they also served egg creams, and I don't think I've ever in my life said no to an egg cream. Still, in terms of "soda that dn't just taste like sugar", I can't imagine it could surpass a nice authentic craft root beer. I root-beer-evangelized TheresNoTime a bit when she was here. Just, none of that Barq's stuff. Ewww.Okay, actually off to my head-clearing. Not all fun and dolphins. Gotta go pick up my new glasses from the shop. Pink frames! To finally match my signature. :D -- Tamzin (she/they) 21:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
the fact that you don't like barq's is undoubtedly the opinion I take the most issue with. Although I'm a hardcore Dr Pepper stan myself, complete with the (correct) omission of the fullstop. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@BusterD: Now go forth and block someone.Done. A sock of a supporter, no less. Hopefully off to a better start than my infamously bad first block on Wikidata (a completely unneeded 10-minute block of d:User:Dexbot... Which has since gone on to delete redirects to my userpage twice. Coincidence, I ask‽). -- Tamzin (she/they) 22:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I got you beat. I actually had to immediately unblock my first block because I had incorrectly read edit summary times between warning and blocking. I felt like such a noob (with sixteen years of service). BusterD (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I said that "great" would be a boneheaded take, but "good" is a divisive one, so that's not inconsistent. :P -- Tamzin (she/they) 21:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I'd say that seems like wikialwyering, but you can block me now, so nevermind. Looks like the only record I was able to hold on to is most opposes in a successful RFA. By the skin of my teeth. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I thought, by their own admission, that Floq was a "meh" admin. It even says so on their talk page. Ritchie33321:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the club of those who survived a harrowing RfA! You'll emerge stronger than if you had unanimous approval but it's not a club that many editors want to join, no, membership is thrust upon you. You might be surprised if you looked back through past RfAs over the years at how close the votes were for some admins who are now respected and appreciated. My only advice to you is
a) never be afraid of asking for a second opinion from an admin who works in the area you have wandered into...unless it's a vandal running amok, it's better to not act too quickly and come to the right solution,
b) remember the kernel of the Opposes, the questions some folks had about your ability to be a good administrator but forget who said what. Occasionally, when I've gone back to my RfA and saw editors and admins who had no confidence in me and I've been surprised because they are people with whom I now have a good working relationship. I'm sure some of the words stung but it's best to move forward and be focused on learning how to use the tools. Let your future work show how some misgivings were exaggerated.
I thought that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was very good overall. Also congratulations and best of luck. GAB03:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience, Tamzin. You conducted yourself with aplomb through a stressful process, and I look forward to you continuing to be a net positive in our community. Happy editing! bibliomaniac1503:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I mean, yes, obviously, dogs are better pets. And I am clearly far too cool to have a clue about the three pop-culture judgements. But... the pepsi error - no, this was concealed information by a rouge admin. We've Been Tricked, We've Been Backstabbed and We've Been Quite Possibly, BamboozledNosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I just want to know if you like tea. I can't remember the last time I had a coke or pepsi product. --ARoseWolf12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey. I know I'm a bit late, but I just wanted to say, congrats. I've seen you a lot around the wiki, and certainly would have voted for you if I could. Have a great day. :) 98.179.127.59 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Belated congrats from me as well. Your talk page is much more entertaining than that RfA was! Have enjoyed reading your various sub-pages as well. The project - and the community - are the better for your presence. Funcrunch (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't usually think highly of people's pet RfA questions, but after seeing Drinking orange juice right after brushing your teeth is fine, I think I'll have to do the same. I feel like that's the sort of utterly disqualifying opinion people should know up front. Congrats on making it through with a sense of humor intact. :) — Rhododendrites \\ 00:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Floquenbeam: Ha, you did this like a second before I was going to. Funny enough, this isn't even fucking up with admin tools. It's a mistake I could have made in the past as a pagemover, and managed to avoid last time I moved my userpage... I knew there was another box I needed to uncheck. (Cleaning this up, OTOH, is an admin-needed task, so way to go, denying me that. :P ) But yes, thank you to you and leeky for pointing this out. -- Tamzin (she/they) 23:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Even though you may still be mad at me (feel free to remove), I just wanted to congratulate you on receiving the mop even though I couldn't make up my mind. If I could, I would go back to support. I am sure you will do a great job as an administrator as you showed no signs of poor judgment in the last 10 months anywhere. You did not deserve any of the abuse you received from the more vicious opposers. Again, congratulations. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Scorpions13256: I'm not mad at you, and have never been mad at you. Thank you for this. A word on indecision, though: My whole point in all this has been that it's important to really believe in what you believe in. Sometimes that means settling on a position that you wish you didn't have to settle on—like giving a deeply unpopular answer to a question because you believe strongly in that answer and believe strongly in telling the truth. Or like staying on one side, be that support or oppose, even if doing so hurts. I hope that makes sense, and hope it isn't an unwelcome thought. Either way, I hope you know I appreciate your work here, and again, I haven't been mad at you at any point throughout this. -- Tamzin (she/they) 05:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bobe8q8661: I was just going to post on your talk page about this. I restored your draft because, based on what you've said about yourself and TriMain182681 (talk · contribs), I believe that you requested deletion of the draft to allow TriMain to resubmit a substantially identical page without the record of a previous AfC decline and copyright violation removal. That would constitute a "bad faith" deletion request, and is thus ineligible for G7 speedy deletion. I've redirected TriMain's draft there; he's welcome to work on improving the draft you started. -- Tamzin (she/they) 07:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk to the question you asked there. Please don't edit comments after they've been replied to. -- Tamzin (she/they) 07:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, I didn't edit "your" comment or reply. I had only edited my "own" comment. (See page history)
Now, may I ask you for help? I need to delete my draft. Please delete it for myself as I am the owner of it. That will be a great favor by you to me. Bobe8q8661 (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you edited your comment, after I had replied to it. You should not do this. As to deleting the draft, I have already replied on your talk page about this. Let's keep discussion there. Also, thank you for signing your posts, but you still need to indent them. -- Tamzin (she/they) 07:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Your offer to discuss how to handle edits
Hello. I’d like to take you up on your offer to discuss how to properly handle edits with you.
I recently said in a reply to Deepfriedokra that I don’t understand how I could have handled the situation better, and I still don’t. How can I avoid edit warring with someone who keeps putting information that I know is wrong and possibly harmful back on the page, ignoring what others have told them about the need to discuss it first?
I’m doing my absolute best here. Just trying to make sure that those who rely on Misplaced Pages are properly informed and not misled. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@VictimOfEntropy: The best way to not edit war is... to not edit war. Sometimes you just have to accept that the article is going to be wrong for a little while while things shake out... or for a longer while because your view turns out to be the minority view. I get it. I have been on the receiving end of plenty of reverts, and it is in-fucking-furiating when I'm right and the other person is wrong and they won't see it. But... I remind myself that there's no point in reverting if I know I'm going to get reverted in turn. In fact, that's how I define edit warring: reverting when you know you'll be reverted back. Instead what I remind myself is that if I'm as right as I think I am, other people will agree with me. I'll make my case at the appropriate venue, and people will see my logic, and the article will turn out the way I wanted. And if they don't, then oh well, there's nothing I can do. To pick one example, the article James Barry (surgeon) doesn't use the pronouns for him that, in my opinion, it obviously shouldas a matter of guidelines. But... I made that case, and couldn't get a consensus for it, so the (in my opinion) error persists. And... Oh well. I suck it up, and focus on other articles, because for every minute I'm arguing about one article, that's a minute I could be spending on improving another article.I hope that makes sense. Maybe not the advice you were looking for. You've caught me right before my bedtime (as evidenced by the ellipses every other sentence and probably a few typos I've missed). If you want a version of this that's a bit more lucid, see rules 2 and 3 at User:Tamzin#Five rules I try to follow. -- Tamzin (she/they) 11:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: No, I understand what you’re saying. It may be disappointing, but I understand that it’s good advice in general. But I feel like this particular instance is different because the wrong thing is something that someone with an urgent need to know the right information might come to Misplaced Pages and find instead. I said in my reply to Deepfriedokra (which might never be seen, because I still don’t know how to reply to people correctly) what I was afraid might happen if I failed to get the article right. Here’s the comment I wrote:
@Deepfriedokra: I don’t understand how I could have handled the situation any better than I did. Jamberpilot repeatedly edited the page so that it said abortion was illegal in Ohio at a point which is approximately 6 weeks LMP despite the fact that it is currently legal and available up to 22 weeks LMP in that state. That is a horrible way to misinform people, and it could have horrible consequences. Drmies undid Jamberpilot’s edits and told him to discuss it on Talk, but he just left a message on the Talk page and then immediately restored his false information on the article, and even lied in his edit claiming that it had been discussed when it hadn’t. Misinforming people has real consequences, like what we’re seeing in the real world, and Jamberpilot just repeatedly refuses to accept facts or have discussions before making these edits. People rely on this site to teach them about the world, and there’s a lot that needs to be done better. How can I let false and misleading information remain on a page just because the person who put it there is very persistent and refuses to discuss it? What if a woman in Ohio who didn’t realize she was pregnant until she was 8, 12, or 16 weeks along came to Misplaced Pages to learn if she could get an abortion, and cried in despair because she saw the page after Jamberpilot put that false information on it and before Drmies or I could fix it? What else could happen?
Anyway, thank you, Tamzin, and don’t let me keep you from sleep, although this whole thing has kept me from sleep, along with a crazy thunderstorm that seemed to have perfect timing. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
UTRS
Looking forward to seeing you there. Always looking for new users to click expire on the tickets from my "girlfriend." You'll no 'em when you see'em. laughs, then sobs --Deepfriedokra(talk)14:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Last night (U.S. time, at least), you kindly interjected when an editor was engaging in some rather overly-enthusiastic bolding and responded with the relevant information on how discussions on Misplaced Pages are conducted. I appreciate that! Also, besides being a newish admin, I noticed you're a present trainee on the Sockpuppet busters. If you find time, please take a look into this Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista. I can't tell if its stuck in limbo or if this is the norm for investigations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I restored the edit history to this talk page since the comments involved questioning whether or not an article on this subject should exist or be deleted. When you move a draft or article on to a page that was a redirect, it will delete the previous page history. You might check on this and restore the edit history if you believe it is relevant to the current article.
I posted an additional comment in the discussion we were having on my talk page yesterday. Since the editor has been blocked, it's really a moot question now but since I didn't ping you, I thought I'd let you know. Hope you are having a good day. Liz01:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that. :) I'd restored the old versions of the article, but wasn't sure if I should do the same for the talk too. Good to know, and I've reassembled the past threads on the page now. And yes, I saw your post on your talk. I'd already taken both editors to SPI by then, and the CU came back technically indistinguishable, so after some further review of their behavior I indeffed both (plus an apparent sleeper). Wasn't planning to jump right into SPI blocks just yet, but that one sort of landed in my lap. -- Tamzin (she/they) 02:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Congrats (the gazillionth one)
I know I'm a bit late but congrats on becoming an admin. While I Did change my vote from full support to neutral leaning support, I felt that as long as you didn't let your political stance influence your decisions that you would make a great admin, and you probably will do exactly that. So again congrats. Hey, now that you're an admin you don't need someone else to block the socks you find and you can do the blocking yourself And now I can bother you whenever I need someone to take a look at an SPI for me. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#654518:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
FYI
Hello Tamzin! Just wanted to let you know I reverted this ridiculous edit from your talk page. I don't typically like messing with others' talk pages but felt it necessary here... Congratulations on your new adminship! SPF12118818:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Tamzin, I have revision deleted that threat. Congratulations! You conducted yourself very well under pressure. I am sure that you will be a very good administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thank you. One of the more interesting weeks of my life. Glad to be out of it, and on to doing boring mop work. Already had one troll suggest that I'm a Trump supporter for enforcing WP:BLPABUSE, which I'll take as a sign I'm doing it right. -- Tamzin (she/they) 00:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that person again. All really one-note. I guess I should at least be grateful they got my pronouns right. Thanks for reverting. I'll go have a chat with T&S. -- Tamzin (she/they) 00:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The rant by that troll was really bizarre, and your block is 100% correct. I think that goes without saying. Anyway, despite my opposition for a very narrow reason, I would like to put that behind us and have a cooperative relationship going forward. I hope that you feel the same way. Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Yep. When they accuse you of being exactly the opposite in real life of who you really are, you are definitely doing right. --Deepfriedokra(talk)01:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Absolutely. I've been in a similar situation: I narrowly opposed theleekycauldron's RfA and then reached out to them. They have been incredibly kind to me, and indeed have become someone I'd consider a good friend. I hope to follow the example they've set, with you and anyone else. You're one of the admins I most respect, and I look forward to working alongside you. -- Tamzin (she/they) 03:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I really admire the lack of editing you've done on the page of your father - I apologize if I speak of him in a way I have no right to. I have considered creating a page for my father, but I'm the only one who really knows him, of course leading to WP:OR, WP:COI, and WP:N difficulties. Reminds me of all the people on WP:WWA. Lucksash (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Why no animated gifs?
Congratulations on adminship, little user. (Bishzilla was once an admin.) But why no animated gifs? Bishzilla has access to some very fine animated gifs such as this and this, for posting on pages of favoured little users. Usually evoke pleasure and admiration. bishzillaROARR!!pocket11:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC).
I don't know this user's exact reason, but generally people who ask for non-autoplay media are doing so because some types of media can trigger photosensitivity or sensory issues (i.e. migraines, seizures, overstimulation, etc.); even if, say, a particular gif or autoplayed media isn't a problem for a particular person, if it autoplays they don't get a choice in the matter. People tend to ask that non-autoplay media not be posted either because they personally experience these things or want to make things less of a mine field for people who do. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
O towering ex-admin: It's a mix of what Purple said and my frustration with MW's lack of a way to pause gifs. If I'm spacing out while staring at a screen, and there's an autoplaying gif on it, I'll get sucked in like a moth to a flame. Not a medical thing per se, although I'm sure it's related to my neurodivergence more generally, same reason I don't do great in loud rooms. (Hmm, I wonder if there's enough RS for an article on high-fidelity earplugs that wouldn't just be an ad. Super-cool stuff.)Elsewhere on the 'pedia, just gotta deal with it, but I like my usertalk to be a calming space for me any anyone else who reacts negatively to autoplaying media, whether that's the subset of such media that can cause super-scary consequences, or the broader issue of them just being unpleasant.I do like your 'zilla gifs, though. :D -- Tamzin (she/they) 21:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I have another reason. Some devices run super-slow with normal images, if they are large enough. Nevermind animations! Even with a teensy-tiny GIF, I suffer 2 frames-per-second. ); And with enough, how the fuck am I going to read the rest of a page!? My device crashes if only 3 medium-large ones are shown. I've only tested those though. Not the small ones. -- L10nM4st3r(talk)15:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Coffee?
The Admin-Coffee
Hi, congratulations for becoming an admin; I know how important it becomes for some people to have admin like tools on any wiki, as I happen to be an eliminator at a different wiki. Coffee has got different variants, and I plan to launch a new one. It is called, "The Admin-Coffee", and you are gifted with this. Looking forward working with you on anti-spam... Love! ─ The Aafī17:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Thank you for this. :) I believe I toasted to your Noon Chai offer with some sickeningly sweet "chai" from Dunkin'. I'll toast to your coffee with some more pleasantly over-sweet mango Pepsi (which I only recently even learned is a thing). I look forward to working with you as well. -- Tamzin (she/they) 21:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
RfA debrief and acknowledgments
Hello, friends. I intentionally didn't say much in the immediate aftermath of my RfA because I wanted a bit of time to clear my head (and quietly reacquaint myself with the tools in the meantime). I've had a lot to think about, and a lot to say, and I've written it down at User:Tamzin/340/112/16: An RfA debrief.
The most exciting thing about publishing this is that I can stop thinking about this RfA and continue full steam ahead deleting (and keeping) redirects, blocking (and not blocking) suspected sockpuppets, and generally using my expanded toolset to make the community better.
For those who do have any lingering questions or concerns about anything that came up at the RfA, do please feel free to reach out, on this talkpage or by email.
A bit belatedly, I would like to thank:
My mother, for schlepping 16 hours to come keep me company as things got bad
My father (Z''L), for teaching me to stand up for what I believe in
My found family—BiomatrixBackup and her fiancée, who is too cool for Misplaced Pages—for letting me vent for hours
Drmies and BDD, for being the two best nominators a !gal could ask for
TheresNoTime, for pushing me to run, and so many other things
Firefly, my would-be flightmate if not for some slowness on my part, a faithful ally before, during, and after this RfA
Tavix, Ritchie333, Trialpears, RoySmith, Vanamonde93, and one admin I spoke to only by email, for nomination offers I was forced to decline due only to a surplus of options. Maybe next time, y'all! (Joke. Please no.)
MastCell, also for getting it, and for in doing so giving me the only good laugh I had all week
Every oppose and neutral that gave me constructive material to work with. There were many, and I will keep them in mind.
The entire English Misplaced Pages bureaucrat team, for their careful reading of consensus. At first I was grumpy when it went to a 'crat chat, but now I can say that 9 bureaucrats agreed that there was consensus. How many admins can say that?
In particular, Primefac, for consistently making sense of the chaos during the RfA
Every editor who makes this encyclopedia great
And of course, the cetaceans who swim in the waters off Cape May
Glad to hear that you took a little time to process everything. The comment related to your political status (or something) made me feel that if you could show that you won't let politics influence your decisions then you would be a good admin. Also glad to see that you've found the cetaceans you've needed . ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#654517:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
For the revdels. I didn't get a chance to see exactly who added what. They're might be some BLP notices worth handing out. I appreciate the quick response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
"Band Vandalism"
Hello Tamzin! I noticed that a user (who is now blocked for being WP:NOTHERE) triggered a filter with the description "Band Vandalism". I'm not really curious as to the specifics of the filter itself, but as to what "Band Vandalism" even means. I originally thought it would have something to do with vandalism on pages relating to bands but that's clearly not the case. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#654516:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf I just wanted to note that what I have figured out from looking at the details of the edit filter is that the words "follow me" and some others are disallowed by the filter. See the following text from one of their edits.
"I am a philosopher. The UN is harassing me because of my new philosophy. They get people to follow me in the street and track me online to suppress the new philosophy." I believe that it is just checking for certain words and marking them if it finds them in an edit.
Ah ok. So basically trying to get people to jump on the bandwagon. I think in this case it would technically be a false positive (since "follow me" isn't being used in the sense like "Follow me to the promised land!") but maybe it isn't. But that makes a lot of sense now. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#654516:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Never knew One Direction was popular enough that people did vandalism on Misplaced Pages related to it. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#654519:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Nice to see that you've joined the crew in this area. Good to have another set of eyes and a pair of hands (and a good brain, I might say). As an aside, what you had to go through recently looked somewhat taxing; good that you kept your composure! Schwede6621:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Well when Gerda tells me to watchlist a page, I do. :D Glad to help out. I'm sure within a year or 20 I'll no longer be terrified every time I see one of the "THIS IS ON THE MAIN PAGE RIGHT NOW" editnotices. And thank you. It was certainly a valuable learning experience. User:Tamzin/340/112/16: An RfA debrief is set to run in The Signpost this month, my effort to document what I learned; guess we'll see how a broader audience takes it. -- Tamzin (she/they) 10:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, and I agree with the "good brain" evaluation ;) - I've seen minor problems linger in that corner, - good to now about more eyes on the scene. Most often, I report my own mistakes, and then found it strange when nothing happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
14 May
I know I'm gonna be criticized for this, but someone has to say it and I got used to being criticized for saying these type of things.
I know it's none of my business but I've seen that you have names of several journalists killed while doing their duty on your user page. I'm just wondering why you didn't add the name of the Palestinian journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, who was shot dead by IDF while she was covering Israeli military raid on the Jenin refugee camp. Thanks! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Super ninja2: The journalists listed were all killed while covering the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a topic I've written extensively about. They are not the only journalists killed in the line of duty in recent months, but they are the ones I've chosen to write about, and thus the ones I list. I hope that answers your question. Thanks. -- Tamzin (she/they) 16:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Dr.Pinsky: Revdelled. And older stuff from that account revdelled. And account indeffed for spamming (very intermittently, but with no constructive edits in between). Thanks for pointing me that way. -- Tamzin (she/they) 20:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I understand your redaction. I just wanted to point out this article doesn't even have his name right, which should be a basic fact for an encylopedic article. The link is a public record that anyone can access. But anyway, sorry. Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Using wikisource and sps for such a controversial claims . Likely pov pushing. I cleaned it. Would you mind having a look? Dr.Pinsky (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Dr.Pinsky: From an administrative perspective, it looks like things worked as intended here: The IP removed for an inaccurate reason (unsourced), Theagentofblight reverted due to that inaccuracy, and you re-removed based on a modified reason (poorly sourced). At a glance, the two Green papers and the Mauss paper look reliable enough for our purposes, but there's definitely too much sourced directly to Mormon scripture in there. @Theleekycauldron and Ezlev: y'all've both written on Jewish–Christian relations before. Thoughts? And @PerryPerryD: I recall a standing offer from you to discuss LDS theology. Do you have any ideas on how to make that section better? -- Tamzin (she/they) 23:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Tamzin, I agree with you that the non-primary sources appear reliable and that the content sourced directly to the Book of Mormon is undesirable – the paraphrasing is fine, but how do we know it's due for inclusion without cited mention in RSes? It does look like Mauss and the Greens (also the name of a band I'm starting /j) could form the basis for the subsection on their own, for now, and I know there's more literature on the subject that could be found and added. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you for requesting my assistance, However I must inform you that as a simple Priest, I am not qualified to state my opinion on this material, Nor do i have any good contacts for verification at this time. Cheers. PerryPerryDTalk To Me02:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like Malcolmxl5 PC-protected the former. Guess we'll see if that holds or if semi is needed. As to the latter, I've started a discussion on the talkpage so y'all can stop edit-warring. :) -- Tamzin (she/they) 23:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I've put in a similar protection request for the Tops Friendly Markets page, as its very similar material being added to both articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Polycarpa aurata: I don't think that antagonizing them like that is helpful. They're clearly participating in good faith, and the "returning after 4 years" part kind of explains the "maybe not 100% in touch with current norms" part. -- Tamzin (she/they) 10:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Polycarpa aurata: I think that Why? Help me understand why this is important to you. comes off as questioning the other editor's motives and implying that they may be less than wholesome. And that seems to be how they've taken it, too. Usually, it's not necessary to ask someone why they're making a set of edits, since we should assume that the answer is "to improve the encyclopedia". -- Tamzin (she/they) 06:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I was hopeful that they and I could have an actual discussion as thinking and feeling persons so we could understand each other. I am not longer hopeful. I imagine something like this happens every time there is a mass shooting, especially when they are associated with some form of extremism. I think it would be useful to write up some kind of document that deals with the common issues, since mass shootings in the US show no signs of stopping. I am going to walk away from this terrible subject, but I will add this episode to the to my box of "things I have learned about Misplaced Pages". Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
File:Dr Pepper can.jpg
Hello, I'm Polycarpa aurata. 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)
Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
~TNT 19:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Fixed in the article. Something about the mix of the idiomatic "point" and the prepositions there was really tripping me up. I really need to brush up on my French, but haven't had occasion to spend much time in France the past few years, and that's the only way I've ever really managed to stay fluent. Summertime soon, though, and we get plenty of Québecois tourists here, so maybe I'll find someone to chat with. -- Tamzin (she/they) 15:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
. -- Avi (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
_of_7.jpg)
Ritchie is a known problem, though. You didn't get the asparagus did you? (inside joke) --ARoseWolf 20:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. A sock of a supporter, no less. Hopefully off to a better start than my infamously bad first block on Wikidata (a completely unneeded 10-minute block of d:User:Dexbot... Which has since gone on to delete redirects to my userpage twice. Coincidence, I ask‽). -- Tamzin (she/they) 22:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
--ARoseWolf 19:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
