Misplaced Pages

To-do list for User:Tamzin: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2020-10-07

1. Take a look at all the very interesting things Kipod has done with that rollback script; I keep on meaning to do this, Kipod, and it keeps on slipping my mind. Sorry.
2. Finish fixing templates with this error. Feel free to help, if you'd like! See Special:PrefixIndex/Template:User wikipedia/ for a list of all effected templates.

Blocked

I've taken a deeper look at your edit history, and it's clear that you are a returning user with an agenda. I don't particularily care which user that may be; the fact is that since the mere month this account has been active I've seen you in several venues stirring up drama and that alone is reason to believe that you aren't here to write an encyclopedia.

Editors here have much better things to do than play games with trolls. Please return to your real account and make a proper unblock request there. In the meantime, this account has been blocked indefinitely. — Coren  02:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked on the basis that I am "a returning user with an agenda" who is "stirring up drama." I aim to appeal this block by challenging both of these claims.

• The first and simpler claim is that of disruption. I imagine this could refer to: some early contributions I made to Talk:Breast cancer awareness; a little argument on a rather contentious AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam); the rather complicated case of User:Francparler (aka User:Idontfeelthesame); and perhaps my habit of sometimes being over-zealous in my AfD !votes, specifically in !voting for speedy deletion when not warranted. However, I have never been warned for disruption, nor for any other offense. I am sure that, without a doubt, there have been times where I was dramatic, to the point of (unintentionally, though I suppose it doesn't make a difference) disrupting the project. For any such times, I do indeed apologize, but I urge the reviewing admin to consider whether those moment themselves warrant a block.
• The more relevant complaint, ultimately, is that of any potential sockpuppetry. <Personal information redacted.> I have, in the past, created two accounts: User:Snowforme and User:SnowflakeAZ. The former made a handful of edits; the latter made exactly one, a vandalism, as part of an injoke with a friend. I have lost the passwords for both; I apologize for my brief affair with vandalism. I've also made minor contributions from various IPs throughout my adolescence, as have most teens, I imagine. I have never heretofore made any substantial contributions to Misplaced Pages or any of its sister projects.

I am not a "returning user clearly up to no good." I think the various objections this block has received (see WP:ANI#Personal attacks and unfounded accusations by User:Delicious carbuncle) show that I'm not "clearly" up to anything, and no evidence has been provided of exactly what "no good" I've come here to do. As for the "returning user" part, if the reviewing admin has any specific questions about the notion that I know too much to be a new user, I will gladly answer them. However, I've never heard of a good knowledge of the way things work being a reason to block someone. Also, please look at some of my early contributions - yes, I started an AfD on my first or second day (it's the reason I created this account, at first), but look at how much it sucked. I had a working knowledge of Misplaced Pages coming in (from lurking and basic IP editing), but I had just as much a lurning curve as any other new user.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this request.

1. Both are references to William J. Flake's remark to Erastus Snow upon the naming of Snowflake, AZ, "Snow for me and Flake for you," which I thought was hilariously gay for a couple of Mormon missionaries.

Accept reason:

I've said elsewhere that I remained open to an appeal from you, but that it had better be compelling for me to accept it. It was. I'm still very much unconfortable with the number of coincidences around you but it would seem that they are just that – coincidences. I suppose a nasty side effect of routinely working around the worst Misplaced Pages attracts colors perceptions, and I saw more around you than an outsider would have.

Please accept my apologies for the block. I realise now in retrospect that I should have discussed this matter with you before blocking the account. I'll still offer a piece of advice, however: don't delve too deeply and quickly in the back-office aspects of the project – it's rather seedy back there and you'll end up with a jaundiced view. Not unlike mine, I suppose. — Coren  06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In one of the many IRC chats I was involved in during my block, I commented on the irony of being the subject of the same type of bold action I so often promote. Indeed, in some ways, I see no reason to consider this anything more than the sort of friendly fire one often encounters in the "seedy side" - reverting back to a vandalized copy, confusing the good guys with the bad guys, etc. Perhaps the best analogy would be one of my hallmark hasty "speedy delete" votes at AfD: Somewhat disruptive, wasting a little time from other editors and reflecting poorly on myself, but, ultimately, a moot point. At the end of the day all that happened was that two whining editors started noticeboard threads, and the wrong one got blocked for a few hours. (Though I'm aware I'm now too involved to pursue any further action against User:Delicious carbuncle.) You had the judgment to review your own actions and revert them in a situation where you could have probably gotten away with brushing it all under the rug - or, at the very least, you could have sulked in a corner while another admin dealt with my request, and politely refused comment afterward. But no, you chose to unblock me yourself, and I do take that admission of error at its full value. Hell, your unblock summary was so courteous than my block log looks better now than it did at the start of all this.

Since all this was about how new I am, I note a further irony in that I created my account a few days too late to vote in the ArbCom elections. But I rather like it this way: I'll never have to decide whether or not to vote for you, but I know, at the very least, that it wouldn't be a cut-and-dry answer. You are a good man.

Merci bien. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, also, I figure you might as well go ahead and indefblock what I'll call my "proto-socks." ;) As I said above, I've lost the passwords, and if someone hacked them I imagine I'd have a pretty hard time defending against sockpuppetry accusations, since I've already confessed to owning them. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't generally block older abandonned accounts; but you needn't worry about sockpuppetry accusations stemming from them: disclosed past accounts are – by definition – not socks.

Good return to editing. — Coren  12:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

favorite novel

Do you have a favorite novel or author? Just wondering. I used to like John Barth. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the above question is maybe a little too sneaky. What I'm getting at is that you don't write like a 16 year old. If you're really who you say you are, it might ease some doubts if you were to contact WP:OTRS to confirm your identity. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Did I accidentally stumble into some surreal parallel world here? 66.127.54.40 is some random not-very-anonymous IP address, so is not going to be identifying to OTRS, or to anyone else, anytime soon. So it's asking someone else to do so? Eh? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be a named person connected with a WP biography subject. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. Keep it that way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Meh, after further thought, none of of the above seems like a bright idea. I'm uncomfortable with this whole picture, and I probably shouldn't have said anything. I hope Coren is still keeping an eye on this page to stay aware of further developments if any. I'm going to disengage. I think Coren's advice is good. Happy editing. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

While I'm aware that this user's retracted their suggestion, I think they're asking a question that a lot of you out there, my friends included, are probably wondering about. I didn't get to it in my unblock request mostly because I'd already written so much, but not, as I move forward, it's what matters most in terms of my community standing. I think I'll write a little subpage on it. I'll put a link up here when I'm done. Thanks. (Oh, and my favorite author's probably Asimov, favorite novel's Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. What did you expect me to say? Harry Potter?) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies

I will take Coren's unblock as an affirmation that you are who you claim to be. Please accept my apologies for accusing you of being another incarnation of PaoloNapolitano/Fluttershy, but the resemblance was uncanny. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Coren's admission of guilt does not absolve you. If the resemblance was uncanny (which seems rather unlikely, as I have the same edit patterns as any number of WikiGnomes), then the proper procedure was to take it to SPI, which I waited 4 hours asking you to do. I'm afraid, as much as I'd like to let bygones be bygones, DC, that this is the case of "too little, too late." You insulted me repeatedly, and dismissed all honest communications on my part; I can forgive Coren because, as I've explained above, he undid his mistake, and apologized for it in no uncertain terms. You, on the other hand, have just gotten away with a string of incivil remarks that you refused every chance to retract, and now, to boot, I won't be able to participate in any discussions the next time you do this, because I'll be considered too involved. So I appreciate your willingness to say you're sorry, but what you wrote above is not an apology. Rejecting it is the one solace I may take from this whole affair, and, respectfully, it is a solace that I will take. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Involved only applies to administrators taking administrative actions. You don't have to worry about that. However, you said that Coren undid his mistake and so you forgave him. I believe that DC is now trying to "undo" his mistake when he said "Please accept my apologies for accusing you." I am sure DC has learned a big lesson about being hasty to spot a Fluttershy reincarnation and I think it would be generous and highly dignified of you to accept his apology.--v/r - TP 15:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If your symbolic non-acceptance of my apology makes you happy, then stand your ground, but I don't think you have quite grasped the situation. I erred in identifying you as a Fluttershy sockpuppet and my comments very likely influenced Coren's decision to block you. I made a mistake and Coren made a mistake. We have both apologized. What you seem to have missed, however, is how this ended up happening. Coren had already identified you as someone to keep an eye on. I took one look at your contributions when you suddenly appeared in that WP:AN conversation and knew without a doubt that you were not a new user. Even adding in the other accounts and IP you identified (which have a small number of edits), you really haven't done very much on WP. Yet here you are expressing your opinions on WP:ANI about WP:IAR and sockpuppets after having had this account for only a couple of weeks. I mean, you can understand why people might find that suspicious, can't you? I'm just glad we cleared this up and can both get back to doing whatever it is that we do. And don't feel like you can't comment on my activities, although it might help if you toned down the rhetoric a little. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why you might find that suspicious. I'll be writing a little userspace essay on all that in a bit, to clear up any lingering doubts. However, your response was highly inappropriate. You launched an ad hominem attack against my valid points, repeatedly insulted me and dismissed me, in a way that users are told not to treat even the most obvious vandals, and called into question my very identity. TParis, I very much agree with your point; I would love to accept DC's apology. However, I go back to some of the things he said - "you aren't the new and uninvolved 16 year old gay user you pretend to be." If you want any indicator of my youthful naïveté, it's that I cannot think of any situation in which that statement would ever be acceptable on Misplaced Pages.

For you, DC, I have the same standard as an administrator reviewing an unblock request: I am perfectly willing to forgive your mistakes, if and when you acknowledge that you did, in fact, make mistakes. There is a certain level of mistake for which an explanation is all that's needed - if you'd taken me to SPI, for instance, that would have been that sort of mistake. You have provided me with such an explanation; but you went outside of the bounds of common sense, and its an acknowledgment of that that is now appropriate. That's the difference between Coren's apology and yours, and that, not any personal grudge against you, is why I'm not yet prepared to accept an apology.

Please don't take this as any sort of righteous indignation, DC. I'm trying to be frank with you. If you think I'm setting the bar too high, or being too full of myself, I understand. I'm glad, at the very least, that you don't bear me any ill will. Likewise. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

F&A, I don't mind apologizing or admitting my mistake, but your arguments in the WP:AN discussion were completely without merit. you complained that I violated WP:NPA by making unsupoorted allegations, yet this is exactly what Shrigley did, only their accusations were of a much more serious nature. Odd that you can't see that. Incidentally, Shrigley's first edit is strongly suggestive that they were not a new user and they too were mistakenly blocked early in their time here, so you are in good company. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

RevDel request

Given the extraordinary circumstance under which I felt obliged to publish some personal details, would an admin be so kind as to delete all revisions of this talk page starting with my unblock request and ending with the one immediately before this (timestamps 5:03 to 7:03)? Such information will always be available if someone stalks my contributions extensively enough, but I'd prefer not to have it all in one place. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Please send a request to oversight to finish it up, though. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oversight declined, but they didn't say to undelete. I think I'll change my editnotice to note that some revisions have been deleted for privacy reasons, and that if editors need access to any diffs, or would like to request that the revisions be restored, they should contact an administrator. Cross the bridge when (and if) we come to it, but not hide the bridge's existence from anyone. That sound fair? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I see no need for a notice. Oversighted edits are, unfortunately, a dime a dozen, and if the idea is to not reveal information, then pointing anyone to the existence of information is not the best suggestion. Just leave it be, and if anyone asks, the standard answer is "protection of privacy". A la prochaine, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't think I've ever caught being too cautious before. Now you've done it twice in a row! Good point, Doc. — Francophonie&Androphilie 01:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess "better safe than sorry" is better advice than whatever I suggested, I suppose, but one does get tired of hoops and the jumping through thereof. I wouldn't be surprised if it's that kind of scrutiny makes some editors wary. But on the internet no one know you're a dog--that goes for me, you, and everyone else. It takes years here to figure out the reality behind the user name, and sometimes one finds very unpleasant surprises. I met a few of these here folks in real life, but I suppose even that's not a guarantee of anything. Maybe I should stop watching the Bourne movies. Anyways, let me know if I can help with anything, and don't neglect your school work. It's not French or English you have to work on, it's math, always math. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you possibly add an article to the French Misplaced Pages for Miklós Kretzoi?

Hello Francophonie&Androphilie, I'm Peter aka User:Shirt58, quite possibly one of the most bizarre yet low-profile editors in the top 2 000 by edits, or something like that.
This rather eminent scientist has already extant de:Miklós Kretzoi, it:Miklós Kretzoi, and hu:Kretzoi Miklós articles, but there is no fr:Miklós Kretzoi at present. "Uncle Miklos" as he was known to his students and colleagues does get a mention here. Teh Dramahz aside, we are here to write an encyclopedia.
--Shirt58 (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

For the real French expert on this talk page, you might want to talk to the flipside of said Dramahz - Coren parle Français comme langue maternelle. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

D'accord. To be completely honest, I was suggesting this in an attempt to steer you away from all teh dramahz. Someone else might possibly take that topic it up. I'm still concerned that - if you are possibly a minor as you claim you are, in whatever jurisdiction you are in - you are giving far too may details about yourself here.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)