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 ascontentious 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
theHorn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
the region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups
post-1978 Iranian politics
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
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 somethingis a DS topic when itisn't, thanvice versa.
hi, i don't really know exactly what to put here but i guess i'll just thank you, tamzin, for inspiring me to edit. you were really an inspiration. and even though i don't edit much i'm forever indebted to you in helping me find a new hyperfixation and transitioning from a wikipedia reader to editor (sometimes) and eepy girl. have asplendiferous day <3 pali sina li pona e nasin mi.pauliesnug(message /contribs)10:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm ChildrenWillListen. I wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use yoursandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at theTeahouse. Thanks.Nosebagbear (talk)
Block me if you must, but you'll never catch my socks!
(They're very cozy slipper-socks with like a stylized dog face on the top and then little fake ears on the side. Very cozy socks. AND YOU'LL NEVER CATCH THEM!) --Tamzin (she/they) |o toki tawa mi.13:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atomic putty? Rien! "Quantity of love"?:P (For "much love", useolin mute, or more properlymi olin mute e ni 'I love this', althoughni li pona mute 'This is very good' is probably more idiomatic, since the colloquial English use of "love" to mean "like a lot" doesn't really translate.) --Tamzin[cetacean needed](she|they|xe)02:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atSpecial:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.
If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the [[:|article's talk page]], and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result inloss of editing privileges. Please note that such behaviour is distinctly unacceptable on Wikipedia. However, I realise you are still new to Wikipedia and learning the rules - please feel free to ask at theWP:TEAHOUSE if you are unsure about making an edit.Nosebagbear (talk)11:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, @Tamzin, that that statement is in breach of rule 1 of this talkpage listed at the top. If you do not retract the comment, I may need to tell this user about the poor behaviour by yourself.Nosebagbear (talk)14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re above: by itself,from whomever is correct, if that's the end of the expression, placing 'whomever' in theobjective case, due to its function as the object of the prepositionfrom. But, in the longer expressionFrom who[m]ever edited this page,who[m]ever is not the object of the prepositionfrom; rather, the entirenoun phrasewho[m]ever edited this page is the object, and that is anindependent clause, containing a subject (who[m]ever), a transitive verb (edited ), and an object (the noun phrase,this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in thesubjective case (a.k.a.,nominative case), thus it must bewhoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, likethey/them, then it would bewhoever editedthem). Upshot for this expression: it must befrom whoever edited this page. See the first examplehere, for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right?Mathglot (talk)08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you dug into the page history to find thatI did originally have it right. My lovely mother, whom I will stress is a published author and editor and taught me everything I know about writing, concedes defeat on the matter,Mathglot. However, for questioning the woman whom brought me into the world, you've still earned a place in the WikiHate section, congratulations or not. (Also thank you.:) )--Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 onmy talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@El C,TheresNoTime, andWizzito: Well, currently item 1 on my big-project wiki to-do list is some content work (gasp! I know), and item 2 is the second round of 'zinbot automatic patrol circumstances, which I got consensus for months ago but still haven't run with, but this is item 3. If anyone else would like to take a stab at it (hint, TNT), what I'm thinking of is something like:
{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist|source_page=<!-- Watch all pages linked from these pages, emulating Special:RecentChangesLinked for them. Separate by newline. --->|source_user=<!-- Watch all pages edited by these users in provided timeframe. Separate by newline. -->|user_days_back=<!-- How many days back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 7. -->|user_edits_back=<!-- How many edits back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 200. --><!-- Either of `user_days_back` and `user_edits_back` can be set to None, as long as the other has a value -->|namespace=<!-- Name or number of namespace(s) to watch. Use 0 for mainspace. Separate by commas. Default: All. Prefix with - to mean "everything but" --><!-- Days back, edits back, and namespace can be overridden per source page or source user, by appending a # and then `days=`, `edits=`, or `namespace=` to the entry. You can also use a `prefix=` parameter. -->|always_watch=<!-- Will be watched even if not covered by the above parameters. E.g. Your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->|never_watch=<!-- Will be ignored even if covered by the above parameters. E.g. your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->|update_frequency=<!-- A number in minutes, or "auto". At "auto", the bot will update as frequently as possible, with the understanding that after each update you are moved to the back of the queue for updates, and the bot only edits once every 10 seconds. -->}}
Thus mine might look like
{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist|source_page= User:Tamzin/spihelper log User:Tamzin/XfD log User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable<!-- Open TPERs --> Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/<!-- Only watch active RfD subpages. --> User:Mz7/SPI case list<!-- Active SPIs -->|source_user= Tamzin 'zin is short for Tamzin|user_days_back= 2|user_edits_back= None|namespace= -Category, File<!-- I don't really edit these namespaces -->|always_watch= User:Tamzin|never_watch= Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|update_frequency= auto}}
That would render as{{Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the{{{update_frequency}}} value.Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it.--Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tamzin! I was rummaging through the NPP archives and stumbled ontothis discussion. First, my belated THANK YOU!! Second, please seethis redirect which showed up in the NPP queue as a result of: 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · ←Blanked the page and then reverted 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · Undid revision 1097374915 by Turtle-bienhoa (talk). Is there any way we can get the Bot to recognize that type of activity so that it doesn't remove reviewed status? Best ~Atsme💬📧14:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, talkpage watchers! If anyone's looking for an article to write, here's one that I think is really interesting, easily notable, and maybe has GA potential, but with which I have a minor COI:Edgar Labat, a Black man wrongfully convicted of rape in Louisiana in 1953. At the time he was freed (1966), he was the longest-serving death row inmate in U.S. history. He was the subject of protracted litigation throughout that time and became a cause célèbre, with lots of coverage.ThisTime article gives an overview.Newspapers.comTWL has lots more.And there's scholarly coverage. My COI is relatively small (my grandparents advocated for him and he lived with them briefly), enough so that I'd be fine assisting once written, but I shouldn't be the main author on this.--Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)18:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to you because of your excellent work onWikipedia:Hate is disruptive, as well as the discussion atTalk:F1NN5TER about doxxing. The question of how to treat sources that are at least somewhat reliable but are (rightly or wrongly) perceived as prejudiced (either broadly or based on protected class) has been repeatedly discussed on Wiki. Therefore, I think that writing up a „how-to-deal-with-this“ might be useful, titled something along the line ofWP:PREJUDICEDSOURCES. What do you think?FortunateSons (talk)14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Yeah, I noticed that too. Possibly better to leave the ES but yeet the IP, rather than the other way around, to leave a clearer record if anyone ever adds it back? (I'd suggest OS over RD; email me if not clear why.) But yeah, seriously, at least the sixth time I've seen this with a BLPNAME violation being worsened when it turns into deadnaming someone and/or forcing them to overpublicize a transition. A friend's boyfriend,Seph Mozes, reached out to me years ago about the plight of being deadnamed inhis mother's article but not having publicly transitioned. I offered to remove it as a BLPNAME violation but he was worried that, given his mother's fame, celebrity journalists would notice the removal. Not a likely event, given that most journalists can't even find the history tab, but I understand why he was that concerned after a childhood in the spotlight, and he shouldn't have been in that position to begin with. I would have been in the same position, during my 9 months of partial social transition in 2019, if Rms125a@hotmail.com hadn't had the sense to remove my name from my dad's article in 2013. In the past few years I've also run into the non-notable-trans/enby kid problem atMike Tyson andEric A. Meyer as you know, and also atTerence Tao,Bob Lee (businessman), andTony Hawk. Not sure what to do about this. It's not a trans-specific issue, obviously, just more obvious there. BLPNAME violations are ubiquitous, possibly on more bios than not. Perhaps some cleanup project is needed, especially for minor children. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe)20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I held off on asking you if we should do additional prep to getEnd Poem up to FA consideration state, as I'd had one article myself in that pipeline & I'd not wanted to bite off more than I could chew and have two up at once. Now, that one I mentioned earlier didn't go anywhere, so I'm down to do whatever process you'd like to do with End Poem like a peer review, if you wish, knowing the ultimate goal would be getting a shiny gold star. If not, then perhaps another time.
Hope you've been well. "And the game was over and the player woke up from the dream. And the player began a new dream. And the player dreamed again, dreamed better. And the player was the universe. And the player was love. You are the player. Wake up." –Julian GoughThe universe.BarntToust18:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of this, I've made a pass at greatly expanding the whole "creation" sectiont—the highlight being that I wrote about how Gough believed that the universe took control of him during inception and basically wrote the latter half of the poem. I have no idea if there are any guidelines about writing about spiritual content on Wikipedia, lol but I'm sure trying my best.BarntToust20:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm in bed with a fever right now, which means I've got lots of time to stare at a screen but am very scatterbrained in doing so. Might reply to this in like 10 minutes. Might be a few days. We'll see! --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)21:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh if you're wanting for something to stare at on a screen, I suggest you check out the movie Inception if you haven't already, or if you have, it's a good film to rewatch since on Netflix along with a bunch of other Christopher Nolan classics. I was just reminded about it because I was just writing about how it compares to the End Poem, and I have to say that it would be the craziest experience to watch it whilescatterbrained. Again, my sincerest wishes for your speedy recovery!BarntToust21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a horrible idea, for the exact reason you think it's a good idea—said in the nicest possible way. 🤣 A few years ago, when I had pancreatitis, and spent like a week feverish, in extreme pain, and/or high out of my mind, I sort of found this inner state of perpetual half-dreaming. This was, no doubt, related to mydissociative identity disorder, and since that time the parts of me have coalesced in a way that makes me for most purposes not multiple... but that dreamworld remains, and looms large at a time like this. Maybe that makes no sense, but I think it actually has a lot in common with what Gough says about the End Poem. So yeah, something likeInception sounds like playing with fire haha, tempting the awesome power of whatever strange headspace lurks within me. I do like the movie, though! Old enough to have seen it in theaters when it came out, and I think again at some point since then. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)22:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Isall that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?"
@BarntToust: I really like your idea of talking more about the poet's craft! Our articles on art are often weirdly silent about the actual art part. It's great to get into that. I do worry that this is a lot to source to an interview. Are there any secondary sources that talk about Gough's craft? In either case, I have pared things down a little, just some details that were excessive or repetitive in my view; let me know if you disagree about any of that.As to FAC, hmm. It's not the kind of article that I would personally be bringing there on my own. But if you want to bring it there, I'll do my part. I think our biggest weakness is going to be the amount sourced to Gough (either directly or through the Chatfield interview). So if you can spot any opportunities to reduce our reliance on those primary sources, that would be great. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)05:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the concerns you've shared about the primary sourcing are what I've figured, so yep, I think there are a few refs I can use to cut back that. The use of Substack has largely been relegated to the copyright section, so I'll be reading up on all the good sources that cover this.
I'm not as concerned with theBoing Boing interview, asWP:RSPLIST says that besides no consensus for the site's overall reliability, there are stories and pieces done by subject matter experts, and I'd wager that interview conducted byTom Chatfield falls well within the lines. Before that, I probably should flesh out the part about his personal crisis, reclusion to the Netherlands, shroom trip and subsequent meeting with the universe. I think there's more there for me to write about, so long as it received third party coverage.
Once the overall sourcing concerns are resolved, I think I'll at some point put it up to peer review. Thank you again for all your work with this!BarntToust12:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For yourthorough response at RfD, and lots of other good work you do. I'm not always sure if it's worth the time to provide this level of detail on every occasion, but it sets a high standard for the quality of remarks in Wikipedia discussions and helps educate other editors to become better contributors.
I know that editing Wikipedia can be challenging and thankless at times, so I wanted you to hear it from me: Thanks for all your work!Daask (talk)15:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tamzin. Thanks foryour help with the SCOTUS redirects. I just noticed that the query you did to tally all of them missed the earliest volumes, which have a different name structure because the volumes included cases from courts other than SCOTUS. Volume 1 didn't even have any SCOTUS cases.
I think the redirects to here made by Pickle should be speedy deleted based on the big RFD. Could you do that? I'd tally them myself except that it seems like you had a way to do it procedurally.lethargilistic (talk)03:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I actually thought of that edge case! And then forgot to include it in my query. 🤦 Yeah, I'll handle this, although maybe not this week. Thanks for pointing this out. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)09:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tamzin! Hope you've been doing well since last we crossed paths on Wikipedia: the reason I'm reaching out now is because ofanother time we spoke about getting theEnd Poem maybe up at FAC; big concerns were mainly primary sources. I recently tried messing around with{{Primary sources reflist}}, but could not for the life of me get that template working in list-defined reference format (would be Gough's two references, Rosenfeld's music reference, and Persson's tweet reference, the four primary sources in the article)—like the rest of the sources in the article. I'm not sure if I'm just a clueless goof as I often am, or if using list defined reference format with that template does not work for whatever reason?—I would not know who to go to to see about altering that template to fix that if so. Admittedly, I think that using that template would probably bring some semblance of help adding a fancy legitimacy to the sources were it ever to be set up at FAC, if that makes sense. "You can't really question the use of primary sources since we've taken the time to separate them out in their own special little column, which exists in tandem with the fact that they are totally okay to use", or something like that. Best wishes to you—BarntToust03:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I didn't make you regret pinging me to you-know-where recently. Like I said there, bringing visibility to sexual minorities from the past is important, and that goal is hurt, not advanced, by dragging in sloppy sources in order to make heroes out of people who don't deserve it.EEng19:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: I don't regret pinging you. You're... yourself, as always, and I do hope we can keep tempers cool, but I agree on what you're saying here. I wrote an essay recently,User:Tamzin/Vicarious misgendering, that discusses some of the forces that I think are at play in cases like this. I scoped it more around contemporary figures, but I should probably add a bit about historic figures. I completely understand people's temptation to look at some figure from the past and, seeing themself in them, project a particular gender identity. As a private matter, I don't see a problem with it; for instance, I see a lot of myself inThomas(ine) Hall, and not just because of the name. Likewise for artistic works; interpretations of Joan of Arc as transmasculine, as an empowered proto-feminist woman, and as a conservative Catholic woman all have their merits. And scholarly interpretations in the same vein also have their place, but they have a tendency to be misconstrued by laypeople as statements of fact rather than revisionist analyses using intentionally anachronistic language.Where it becomes an issue, then, is the claim that there's some objective truth about a historical person's gender. In a lot of ways, regardless of the merits of a case, I think that represents misunderstanding of both historiography and cultural relativism. You see this on all sorts of labels. I've met a lot of people who insist that "gay" is an objective term that can describe any man who is exclusively attracted to men, regardless of whether the word "gay" existed in their era, which is a fascinating misconception given thatthat's not even true today. For some reason it seems that, to some people, labels like "gay" and "trans" are these nuanced, complicated things when we apply them to ourselves, but easy litmus tests when we apply them to anyone else.The real loss in this is that, as you say, there's a wealth of knowledge in the nuances of life for historical gender-nonconforming figures. The fact that someone like Sewally/Jonescan't be easily categorized as a trans woman, transfeminine nonbinary person, cross-dressing gay man, or cis straight man who only departed from that for money, is a really important historical lesson, and one that can teach us a thing or two about the present day. For instance, thekathoey article currently defines them as "people ... whose identities in English may be best translated as transgender women in some cases, or effeminate gay men in other cases", which is about as systemically biased a statement I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia's partly to blame on this. Maybe withledes like "A trans woman or transgender woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth", we promote a false sense of certainty in what that label means, belying the ambiguity known to scholars and individual trans people alike. Or maybe some people will just always want things to fit into neat buckets. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)12:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always impressed with how you approach working with other editors, and the humility you show in the process when expressing your own imperfect approach. Cheers to you Tamzin!TiggerJay(talk)15:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin. I know the censuses pertain to the Noblitts we're looking for because I know they were living in San Francisco at the time. I also know that James Noblitt died in 1913 in California in San Francisco.and is buried in San Francisco National Cemetery. That's why he's not on the 1920 Census with Irene and her mother, Katie. They are living with Anna (née Noblitt) Wilkerson and her husband. Lastly, the city directory (for phone numbers) in 1918 San Francisco lists an Irene J. Noblitt, actress. That's not a common name nor is it a common occupation. Actors changed the spellings of their names all the time. Sometimes they went by a different name altogether. I'm not understanding why the news articles are having such a hold when her parents and sister were all Noblitt. Her parents wouldn't assign her a different surname at birth. Men and woman weren't even hyphenating their surnames in 1902. Everybody had the same surname; the husband's. If this was a discussion trying to determine when a name was changed or a marriage took place, it would be harder. But it's not. It's her name at birth. We aren't questioning her parents' names, and one would think one should if we're questioning her name. We have government and city documentation.Clarawolfe (talk)11:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Havent seen the film plot shortener before, could it be that theyre a different user? Anyway blocking these ranges seems like it would stop all disruption. Maybe make it so that they can still respond to talk page commentsFMSky (talk)19:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know a while ago I'd asked about a potentialWP:FAC forEnd Poem. With time comes change, and I'd like to ask if you what your thoughts are about eventually getting it over there to be judged. I looked intopeer review, and I think maybe this would be worthwhile to consider.
Otherwise, I hope you've been having a rockin' good time with life; I remember last time we ran across each other here, you'd mentioned you had moved, I think. I hope that's gone well for you and that those new horizons have been bright for you!BarntToust02:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would take quite a bit of refactoring to take it from a userspace essay to a project space essay, so I don't think I'll take you up on that offer.TarnishedPathtalk08:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see stuff like this all the time and U5 has been my standard in such cases. I'm not excited about leaving such pages in userspace for six months.BusterD (talk)11:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: PerWikipedia:User pages § Handling inappropriate content,The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable. So in general I would say the best answer is to let the user know they are misusing their userpage and ask them to fix it. That said, since this user has no other edits and since this is very obvious misuse of userspace, I wouldn't blame you for skipping that step and blanking it yourself, and then leaving them{{uw-userpage}} or a custom note. If they revert, well, that's a user-conduct issue and quickly approachesWP:NOTHERE. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)11:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I use Tumblr. I used to use Geocities, but meh. Now that they re blocked, just ignore it. Not sure what's happening on their sandbox. Didn't look. As it is a fictional story and does not even pretend to be an article, maybe MFD?-- Deepfriedokra (talk)12:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
U6 will get it in six months. And since Ritchie's blanked it there's no real harm in that, IMO. That was sorta the idea with the U5→U6/U7 replacement, letting most of the nonsense get chewed up procedurally without having to waste volunteer time assessing it. In this case, the user conduct issue was resolved just as quickly as if it had been U5, and the NOTWEBHOST revisions will be deleted in due course with less admin overhead. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)12:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Tamzin. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 13 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee❚❙❚❙❙✉15:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Tamzin, what's up? I was on the way of writing a code for pretty much the same result of your module for forwarding parameters between templates, which I need for a copule of templates in the eswiki. And then I bumped into your module. Could you tell me if it's working correctly, and if yes - if it would be ok to import it to the eswiki? Cheers.Virum Mundi (talk)16:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Well it works fine, unfortunately couldn't find a way to go around the sust:, which is kinda what I need (adjustable template, can't be converted to text). Bummer, I really need a solution to call all the params from a template into another without having to write a line for each possibility (there can be many, and can be none, depends on the situation). If you have any idea regarding how this can be done, would appreciate it. Anyway tnx a bunch!Virum Mundi (talk)07:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after working with Template:Params (trying all sort of stuff), looks like I could finally put together some code which does what I need, so... thanks for your time!Virum Mundi (talk)11:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Noreste: Thanks! Done. After checking like 20 times that I hadn't clicked "enable" by accident. I haven't changed the name though. It still does implement a "massive IP block", equivalent to rangeblocking (up to) 0.0.0.0/0 and ::/0, even though for most users they won't be able to see the IPs being affected. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)17:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you indef-blocked that account. Do you know how this will affect the underlying IP address? (Since it's a temporary account)? I was considering blocking for the usual 31 hours but this makes me wonder --Luktalk17:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Luk: I've actually been working on a table on this!WP:TMPA#Impact for administrators. Per that, looking at the row for an indef block of a TA with account creation blocked:
The TA is blocked indefinitely (obviously lol)
Anyone who tries to edit from its most recent IP in the next 24 hours, or any IP it tries to edit from within 24 hours of that edit attempt, gets autoblocked for 24 hours
Anyone who, under those same circumstances, tries to create an account (including by trying to edit while logged-out, which would ordinarily create a temp account) is told they cannot (and thus cannot edit)
As to length... previously we had two paradigms for vandal blocks, which I'd summarize as "Block an IP fortwo school-days so hopefully whoever's using it tires themself out; block an account indefinitely if it's clear they're only here to vandalize." Temp accounts fall into a gap between those, in my opinion: They're more clearly tied to one person (specifically, to the browser session that made the edit), so there's less need to worry about collateral damage; but at the same time, part of the logic for indeffing VOAs has been that someone choosing to create an account just to vandalize is a strong signal that that's all they'll do, and with temp accounts that's no longer true. Still, I think temp accounts are considerably closer to the named-account paradigm, and so I've been going with indefs for accounts whose only edits are bad-faith and who've been duly warned. Especially because, the way autoblock works, in most cases this is essentially the same as a 24-hour block on the underlying IP.I'd definitely be very open to promptly unblocking any dime-a-dozen vandal who requests, though, and I definitely don't intend to hold people as strictly toWP:SOCK for good-faith edits after a TA indef; based on the anecdotes I've collected at the related essayUser:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, I'm guessing most community members will feel the same. In practice it's always been the case that vandals who want to "go legit" (like me, once upon a time!) just create a new account and move on, and get away with that because good-faith users usually don't get checkusered. If it comes to it, I've been toying for a while with trying to get something into policy likeEditing after a block for routine vandalism (i.e., not harassment, maliciousBLP violations, elaborate hoaxing, or long-term disruption) is generally not considered sockpuppetry if the edits on the new account are constructive. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)17:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually curious on whether we could make some progress on that. We'd have to change IPs to temporary accounts because the WMF finally made the change, but other than that, I thought the wording was pretty good. Is there any chance it could be posted soon?QuicoleJR (talk)21:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiTamzin, just got a message yesterday that there was some edit filter tripped by some of my students at the University of Edinburgh?? Is that right? I can't find the thread about it anymore, must be archived. But I believe it might be something to do with them using Wiki Love on each others talk pages to greet each other? Why would that hit an edit filter? And are you saying they may need to be 'confirmed' editors before they can do this unless they may hit that filter again??? any advice gratefully rec'd. Cheers!Stinglehammer (talk)15:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stinglehammer: The message, now removed, is atspecial: permalink/1320597294. Several of your students tripped an edit filter that blocks rapid editing of user talk pages by unconfirmed accounts. There isn't really anything that can be changed on the filter's side to prevent that, since the considerable majority of edits like that are abusive; mass wikilove is a rare exception. Fortunately, though, as an event coordinator you can grant them confirmed, which will exempt them from that filter and most others. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)18:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more talking about my name being with the profanity. I'm not sure whether it should be or not, just want to make sure someone with tools can take a look.Ultraodan (talk)10:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your rev-deletes here. However, more BLP violations have come in since you redacted that batch, and I'd recommend removing those too, if not outright protecting the page because of them (I have filed a request atWP:RFPP for this article, fwiw). Thank you.JeffSpaceman (talk)14:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm on the brink of stepping back from admin work for a bit as it is (for good reasons, not bad ones). Even setting that aside, I've found the kind of work I do is the exact kind that admins wind up having to stop doing once they're on ArbCom. Fear not, I'll still be around to propose remedies on workshop and quibble about technicalities on things.:) --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)16:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: I have no strong feelings about this block, other than to note that they'vedisclosed their IP, so I don't need to fuss about withWP:TAIVDISCLOSE and can just say to seeUser talk:47.205.180.147 for their previous block.Incidentally, was just about to drop you a line to say I just tried something billed as okra juice... except looking this up, apparently this is a mistranslation and it's lightly fermentedroselle juice. Oh well. Very tasty either way, okra or not. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)02:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tamzin, I see you're around. mind doing a quick undeletion for me atSpecial:Undelete/Theorem-proving? With the exact deletion reason (in wikimarkup) with all the text after the colon and before the end of this sentence (that's also in nowiki tags, for potentially slightly easier pasting): per Graham's request, so that [[special:diff/334469745|this edit]] makes sense. That diff link doesn't go to the right place, but it will with the revision undeleted. It turns out that along with importing an edit in December 2009, I accidentally replaced an article, because the edit I imported (from 2005) came after what was then the latest edit (from 2004). I didn't know about this problemuntil later. Thanks!Graham87 (talk)10:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need help from someone experienced in these sorts of topics. Yesterday someonechanged this article to "anti-transgender advocacy group". Which I think is wrong considering the History section currently says "Sex Matters has been described variously as 'anti-trans', a 'human rights charity', 'gender-critical', and a 'women's rights group'." So I don't see why this would be in the opening statement. I tried an edit request on the talk page to no avail~2025-34097-51 (talk)19:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remark on whether or not I thought the rationale was valid, just tried to provide my understanding of what the rationalewas. (Sometimes a consensus can apply to multiple articles, but I haven't looked into this one enough to know.) And then I (perhaps too vaguely) alluded to a suggestion of getting consensus on the talk page you edit requested on for the type of edit you want made. -Purplewowies (talk)23:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So someone inserts something non-neutral and contradictory to the rest of the article, and then *I* have to find a consensus to remove it again? It's this how it is done around here?~2025-34097-51 (talk)00:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's what you were advised to do when your edit request was rejected. (Without spending more time and energy looking into this than I have tonight, I'm not sure how relevant that kind of boilerplate advice is in this scenario.) I just noted it because I saw it and thought that that was a bit different than "to no avail" is all; I meant it as a clarification. Itis worth noting neutrality doesn't (always) mean you describe the subject of an article neutrally; it means you represent significant views by reliable sources proportionately/fairly. I don't know enough about the subject to know if such a change is POV because I have no frame of reference for how most sources discuss the subject of the article you're talking about here (see aforementioned about time and energy). -Purplewowies (talk)01:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across his writings about what he doesn't like about WP (I think that'sall his writings about WP) before, and there's nothing unique about that, there's a guy called Bandler who writes with a similar angle, and it obviously has a paying audience. But it's a little funny to me that WP has been provided[5] with a very professional image of Rindsberg.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)07:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with Bandler, was quoted in a few of his articles. I appreciated that he at least cared about getting the facts right; was less impressed with some of his decisions about who else to rely on as sources. This Rindsberg article is really bottom-of-the-barrel shit, though. Other complaints by Bandler and Rindsberg have at least been coherent arguments that we're giving undue weight to some sources; here he can't even really point to something he thinks we've been incorrect about, and is just relying on pure religious hysteria. Personally, my Jewish upbringing didn't include anything about defending Jesus' honor against accusations of being gay, but maybe things were different in whatevershul he was raised in. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)08:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read worse than Bandler, but afaict, all his WP-writings are on the WP-is-mean-to-Israel perspective. And he seems to pick who to ask questions a bit one-sided.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)08:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!:D The original title of the essay, when I first drafted it two years ago(!), was "Gender-identity-critical: A compromise ideology for everyone to hate". Then I figured out how to rewrite it in a much less hateable way, but still wanted that name in there, but had nowhere to put it but tacked-on at the end. In which moment, searching for a segue, the voice of George Carlin came to me.:P --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)21:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, asking here since you seem to be knowledgeable relating to temporary accounts. How do I turn on autoreveal? I have all the permissions for it and followed the video (displayingSpecial:RecentChanges) and I am not seeing that feature in the Tools menu. Did the WMF not enable this feature after all? I do have a couple of gadgets in that menu but I am not sure that having those would make a difference. Thanks,CutlassCiera17:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutlass: Itlooks like auto-reveal is only available to admins/crats/CU/OS, as well as some global groups. I may have misstated this at some point; since I'm a global abuse filter helper it wasn't obvious to me that I was getting admin-like TAIV access even on wikis where I'm not an admin. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)17:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't get the extreme hangup with privacy in this sense - while there may be a potential issue with publicly displaying IPs, the level that it has been taken to seems rather over-the-top.CutlassCiera17:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutlass: My understanding is that it's out of the WMF's hands and largely about avoiding increased regulatory scrutiny that, in the worst-case scenario, could lead to a crackdown on things like CU access.I wonder if there would be community consensus for, say, including auto-reveal with rollback (which has a moderately higher amount of gatekeeping than TAIV) or making it its own right. And, if there were consensus for that, I wonder if the WMF would be amenable to it, would oppose it, or would impose certain conditions. At the global level,global rollbackers have the right, and while global rollback is a bit more gatekept than local rollback, that's at least some indication that the WMF is not expecting admin-tier gatekeeping for auto-reveal, like it expects with view-deleted rights. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)18:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tamzin, I often enjoy reading your comments when I come across them. Always well-thought and balanced. I appreciate the work you put in here. ←Metallurgist (talk)05:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: Certainly not a new user, although I think only a CU would be able to say whether it's the policy-violating kind of not-a-new-user. Longterm unregistered editors creating an account so they can create a page is a valid use of throwaway accounts, historically. What's the connection to RhymeWrens, though? I bumped into them a few times on the crimew article and they seemed good-faith;GARing it seemed fair enough given that the article reached GA before the thing crimew is now most notable for. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)17:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, hm. It was just the GAR, and on re-reading you're right that it doesn't seem problematic at all. I was in a bit of a hurry when I first posted here, please forgive the oversight. I might do some more digging, but there probably isn't much more for us to do here.Toadspike[Talk]00:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the other mail several days after your reply so wanted to make sure it reached, or if you opened the inbox since I know you were taking a new project and on the verge of admining break. With this, thank you again for your initial warm mail-reply which keeps motivating and encouraging, feeling part of a friendly attentive atmosphere. :-) This is why I also carefully thought of what and how to express on my next mail and briefly point other life-stuff for why it took me few days to send. So also notify that I briefly explained those on another mail I sent directly from the website, along with pointing my different mail-address for my mail chain-reply. Also, mainly for the share and for your general knowledge and experience (not as admin). In case you did see it, I understand if you haven't gotten the chance yet to read through the several things while you were closing some current admin corners and started with the new language project. And joining the others to wish you good luck (again, also here) with the new project and for a swift return to your activities here.אומנות (talk)14:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @אומנות, yes, I did completely miss that email. Apologies. Acknowledging that I can't help with any particular admin things right now, I'm going to respond here just in broad terms for transparency, without discussing any details of your email.
You, as a Wikipedia editor in good standing, are empowered to revert any vandalism you see, ARBPIA-related or not. You should report vandals toAIV and protection requests toRFPP. For ARBPIA matters that are unambiguously vandalism, using those boards is fine; more complex things should go toAE.
You also have discretion to enforceWP:ECR (except in those ways that require admin tools). Usually this meanshatting, striking, or removing comments, similar toWP:SOCKSTRIKE. When in doubt about how to handle an ECR violation, ask an admin, preferably one with AE experience. Just contacting someone on their talkpage works best. You're never going to get in trouble for asking.
Given the choice between AE and AN/I, I'd always recommend AE. There's a limit of 500 words total, including replies;https://wordcounter.net/ is as good a tool as any for checking your word count. Admins are reasonably generous with extensions.
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with ourdraftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simplyedit the submission, and remove the{{db-afc}},{{db-draft}}, or{{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
Hi, I saw that you deleted Ulyana Barkova a few years ago as it was created by a banned user. I wanted to recreate it, but I just thought I'd check whether there were any other concerns I should be aware of before I do so. Thanks!Spiderpig662 (talk)18:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderpig662: I'm not currently an admin, but, you never need permission to recreate an article that's been speedily deleted, as long as the deletion reason wouldn't apply to your version. Given that you are not—checks account age... ok, whew—given that you are not a sockpuppet of PlanespotterA320, that shouldn't be a concern for you.:) --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)18:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The script also counts revisions which were imported from another wiki in some cases (example), which may not be intended behavior. Anyway, thanks for the quick response.PS: Toki Pona is an interesting experiment; I've wanted to look into it, but I never seem to have the time for that.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)19:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm ChildrenWillListen. I wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use yoursandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at theTeahouse. Thanks.Nosebagbear (talk)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atSpecial:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.
Mathglot (talk)08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
--TNT (talk • she/her)21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.[2][3]. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)20:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply].jpg)
![[5]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aAshley_Rindsberg.jpeg){kind=link}
