User talk:Tamzin

Selected WikiLove

Chosen at random8 from the 42 barnstar sections at User talk:Tamzin/Nice things. []

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for being able to make tough blocks, while maintaining the humility to not do so lightly. —Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks, Bagumba. :) (Incredibly slow response, sorry.) At some point soon I'd like to write up a self-audit of my blocks to make sure I'm staying true to my stated principles in blocking... We'll see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Selected WikiHate

Warnings from the late great Nosebagbear and whoever whomever whoever most recently edited this page

Hello, I'm Tamzin. 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)

Hello, people from the future. Confused why your name shows up here? See here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Toki Pona in the wild? Mute olin!! :D Atomic putty? Rien! Atomic putty? Rien! 16:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Atomic putty? Rien! "Quantity of love"? :P (For "much love", use olin mute, or more properly mi olin mute e ni 'I love this', although ni li pona mute 'This is very good' is probably more idiomatic, since the colloquial English use of "love" to mean "like a lot" doesn't really translate.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin omg ur so right, sorry I’m rusty. I love finding ppl who speaks Toki Pona outside of the discord server, it’s like a little linguistics easter egg Atomic putty? Rien! 12:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin P.P.S. Apologies for my English, German’s actually my first language ^-^ Atomic putty? Rien! 12:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Special:Diff/1148616329. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the [[:|article's talk page]], and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.
Please note that such behaviour is distinctly unacceptable on Wikipedia. However, I realise you are still new to Wikipedia and learning the rules - please feel free to ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you are unsure about making an edit. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

f u delete this or im gonna tell the mods on u. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

tsk, really should have discuss[ed] the matter with the editor at [...] the [[:|article's talk page]] — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Special talk:Diff/1148616329? Sounds like a good place for settling disputes TheresNoTime ;)

Talk pages for special pages when? /j Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Meta-WikiHate against my mother of all people

Re above: by itself, from whomever is correct, if that's the end of the expression, placing 'whomever' in the objective case, due to its function as the object of the preposition from. But, in the longer expression From who[m]ever edited this page, who[m]ever is not the object of the preposition from; rather, the entire noun phrase who[m]ever edited this page is the object, and that is an independent clause, containing a subject (who[m]ever), a transitive verb (edited ), and an object (the noun phrase, this page). In this independent clause, the subject is in the subjective case (a.k.a., nominative case), thus it must be whoever. The object noun phrase (this page) is in the objective case (invisible, because most nouns don't change; but if it were a pronoun, like they/them, then it would be whoever edited them). Upshot for this expression: it must be from whoever edited this page. See the first example here, for example. Moral of the story: Moms aren't always right. Oh yeah, and one other thing... congrats on your election. But, first things first, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I prefer "whomsoever." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 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^{[cetacean needed]} (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.)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Outrageous, Tamzin. I demand you resign your patrollership. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you like being called Tammy?

Is there a personal reason for it? 2607:FEA8:FE10:80D0:19BA:6297:7766:A64 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Many brave Tamzins died in the Great Tammy Wars. Some find strength in looking back, but I find it easier to forget. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

RE: Would there be interest in a bot that makes a "watchlist" just for recently-edited pages?

OMG YES! El_C 14:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Watching my watchlist gets boring at some hours of the night. wizzito | say hello! 02:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@El C, TheresNoTime, and Wizzito: Well, currently item 1 on my big-project wiki to-do list is some content work (gasp! I know), and item 2 is the second round of 'zinbot automatic patrol circumstances, which I got consensus for months ago but still haven't run with, but this is item 3. If anyone else would like to take a stab at it (hint, TNT), what I'm thinking of is something like:

{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = <!-- Watch all pages linked from these pages, emulating Special:RecentChangesLinked for them. Separate by newline. --->
|source_user = <!-- Watch all pages edited by these users in provided timeframe. Separate by newline. -->
|user_days_back = <!-- How many days back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 7. -->
|user_edits_back = <!-- How many edits back in a user's contribs to follow. Default: 200. -->
<!-- Either of `user_days_back` and `user_edits_back` can be set to None, as long as the other has a value -->
|namespace = <!-- Name or number of namespace(s) to watch. Use 0 for mainspace. Separate by commas. Default: All. Prefix with - to mean "everything but" -->
<!-- Days back, edits back, and namespace can be overridden per source page or source user, by appending a # and then `days=`, `edits=`, or `namespace=` to the entry. You can also use a `prefix=` parameter. -->
|always_watch = <!-- Will be watched even if not covered by the above parameters. E.g. Your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|never_watch = <!-- Will be ignored even if covered by the above parameters. E.g. your own talk page, AN/I, etc. ... -->
|update_frequency = <!-- A number in minutes, or "auto". At "auto", the bot will update as frequently as possible, with the understanding that after each update you are moved to the back of the queue for updates, and the bot only edits once every 10 seconds. -->
}}

Thus mine might look like

{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist
|source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log
               User:Tamzin/XfD log
               User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable <!-- Open TPERs -->
               Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/ <!-- Only watch active RfD subpages. -->
               User:Mz7/SPI case list <!-- Active SPIs -->
|source_user = Tamzin
               'zin is short for Tamzin
|user_days_back = 2
|user_edits_back = None
|namespace = -Category, File <!-- I don't really edit these namespaces -->
|always_watch = User:Tamzin
|never_watch = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
|update_frequency = auto
}}

That would render as {{Special:RecentChangesLinked/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/links}}, while a bot would update the /links subpage in accordance with the {{{update_frequency}}} value.

Should be pretty straightforward to set up, when I get around to it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"hint, TNT"—thank you but no -- TNT (talk • she/her) 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what do I do? You're not my mom/s! El_C 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, Tamzin! I was rummaging through the NPP archives and stumbled onto this discussion. First, my belated THANK YOU!! Second, please see this redirect which showed up in the NPP queue as a result of: 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · ←Blanked the page and then reverted 07:39 · Turtle-bienhoa · Undid revision 1097374915 by Turtle-bienhoa (talk). Is there any way we can get the Bot to recognize that type of activity so that it doesn't remove reviewed status? Best ~ Atsme 💬 📧 14:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Article suggestion for talkpage watchers!

Hello, talkpage watchers! If anyone's looking for an article to write, here's one that I think is really interesting, easily notable, and maybe has GA potential, but with which I have a minor COI: Edgar Labat, a Black man wrongfully convicted of rape in Louisiana in 1953. At the time he was freed (1966), he was the longest-serving death row inmate in U.S. history. He was the subject of protracted litigation throughout that time and became a cause célèbre, with lots of coverage. This Time article gives an overview. Newspapers.com^TWL 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)

Hi! I was just randomly browsing around when I clicked on this redlink out of curiosity and noticed that Draft:Edgar Labat exists, and in fact has just been created within the past couple of days. Just wanted to bring to your attention (if you aren't already aware)! jcgoble3 (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh that's great to see! @FantasticWikiUser: Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help with this draft. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I saw this post and decided to create it, but the issue is I am completely new to Wikipedia content creation and I'll probably try to figure out some more of the content creation side of things and try finding more references before I go further. Hopefully I get it to a start-class state, but I'm not sure how long that will take. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@FantasticWikiUser: Well it sounds like a great first effort! Personally I love writing about stuff from between WWII and the Internet age, because there's often a wealth of sources that are completely untapped. (See for instance my articles 1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster, Ash Street shootout, and 1997 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.) Based on your account creation date, I assume you don't yet have WP:TWL access? If you'd like I can make clippings of some of the results at . Ideally you don't want to build an article wholly around newspaper sources like that, but you can still get a lot of useful details that way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have TWL access and I did think it would be useful to be able to cite the newspaper so that would be helpful! Also, thanks for linking those articles, I will now study them to try and get a better understanding of what writing this type of article is like. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

bcc

I didn't know {{bcc}} existed. I wish there was a list of semi-obscure and occasionally helpful Wikipedia features. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

'zinbot question

Hey Tamzin. I was curious, would it be much effort to modify task 1 of 'zinbot to also mark pages sent to AfD as reviewed? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Would this be a useful essay? Or is this topic either irrelevant or sufficiently covered?

Hey, I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to you because of your excellent work on Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, as well as the discussion at Talk:F1NN5TER about doxxing. The question of how to treat sources that are at least somewhat reliable but are (rightly or wrongly) perceived as prejudiced (either broadly or based on protected class) has been repeatedly discussed on Wiki. Therefore, I think that writing up a „how-to-deal-with-this“ might be useful, titled something along the line of WP:PREJUDICEDSOURCES. What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting

Drmies (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yeah, I noticed that too. Possibly better to leave the ES but yeet the IP, rather than the other way around, to leave a clearer record if anyone ever adds it back? (I'd suggest OS over RD; email me if not clear why.)

But yeah, seriously, at least the sixth time I've seen this with a BLPNAME violation being worsened when it turns into deadnaming someone and/or forcing them to overpublicize a transition. A friend's boyfriend, Seph Mozes, reached out to me years ago about the plight of being deadnamed in his mother's article but not having publicly transitioned. I offered to remove it as a BLPNAME violation but he was worried that, given his mother's fame, celebrity journalists would notice the removal. Not a likely event, given that most journalists can't even find the history tab, but I understand why he was that concerned after a childhood in the spotlight, and he shouldn't have been in that position to begin with. I would have been in the same position, during my 9 months of partial social transition in 2019, if Rms125a@hotmail.com hadn't had the sense to remove my name from my dad's article in 2013. In the past few years I've also run into the non-notable-trans/enby kid problem at Mike Tyson and Eric A. Meyer as you know, and also at Terence Tao, Bob Lee (businessman), and Tony Hawk.

Not sure what to do about this. It's not a trans-specific issue, obviously, just more obvious there. BLPNAME violations are ubiquitous, possibly on more bios than not. Perhaps some cleanup project is needed, especially for minor children. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd love to work on that cleanup project or start it! pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 14:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Excellent edit summary

Great wording on this. "Low profile" is just the term I was looking for. "Non-notable" (my previous go-to) sounds mean in that context. Joyous! Noise! 23:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Joyous!: Thanks! Taken from the wording of WP:BLPNAME and WP:LPI (an imperfect essay that works well enough here). I'm trying to do a cleanup of needless kid-naming in bios... 9 down so far, thousands more to go. See § Interesting for backstory on this. Feel free to join me! I'm starting with the results of this search. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

End Poem FAC?

I held off on asking you if we should do additional prep to get End Poem up to FA consideration state, as I'd had one article myself in that pipeline & I'd not wanted to bite off more than I could chew and have two up at once. Now, that one I mentioned earlier didn't go anywhere, so I'm down to do whatever process you'd like to do with End Poem like a peer review, if you wish, knowing the ultimate goal would be getting a shiny gold star. If not, then perhaps another time.

Hope you've been well.
"And the game was over and the player woke up from the dream. And the player began a new dream. And the player dreamed again, dreamed better. And the player was the universe. And the player was love.
You are the player.
Wake up." – Julian Gough The universe. BarntToust 18:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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. BarntToust 20:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

oh my. Hoping you recover swiftly. BarntToust 21:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh if you're wanting for something to stare at on a screen, I suggest you check out the movie Inception if you haven't already, or if you have, it's a good film to rewatch since on Netflix along with a bunch of other Christopher Nolan classics. I was just reminded about it because I was just writing about how it compares to the End Poem, and I have to say that it would be the craziest experience to watch it while scatterbrained. Again, my sincerest wishes for your speedy recovery! BarntToust 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a horrible idea, for the exact reason you think it's a good idea—said in the nicest possible way. 🤣 A few years ago, when I had pancreatitis, and spent like a week feverish, in extreme pain, and/or high out of my mind, I sort of found this inner state of perpetual half-dreaming. This was, no doubt, related to my dissociative identity disorder, and since that time the parts of me have coalesced in a way that makes me for most purposes not multiple... but that dreamworld remains, and looms large at a time like this. Maybe that makes no sense, but I think it actually has a lot in common with what Gough says about the End Poem. So yeah, something like Inception sounds like playing with fire haha, tempting the awesome power of whatever strange headspace lurks within me. I do like the movie, though! Old enough to have seen it in theaters when it came out, and I think again at some point since then. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?"

— Edgar Allan Poe, "A Dream Within a Dream" (1849) BarntToust 00:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

the concerns you've shared about the primary sourcing are what I've figured, so yep, I think there are a few refs I can use to cut back that. The use of Substack has largely been relegated to the copyright section, so I'll be reading up on all the good sources that cover this.

I'm not as concerned with the Boing Boing interview, as WP:RSPLIST says that besides no consensus for the site's overall reliability, there are stories and pieces done by subject matter experts, and I'd wager that interview conducted by Tom Chatfield falls well within the lines. Before that, I probably should flesh out the part about his personal crisis, reclusion to the Netherlands, shroom trip and subsequent meeting with the universe. I think there's more there for me to write about, so long as it received third party coverage.

Once the overall sourcing concerns are resolved, I think I'll at some point put it up to peer review. Thank you again for all your work with this! BarntToust 12:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I admire you and your contributions a whole lot. Keep doing what you're doing :] Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 20:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

For your thorough response at RfD, and lots of other good work you do. I'm not always sure if it's worth the time to provide this level of detail on every occasion, but it sets a high standard for the quality of remarks in Wikipedia discussions and helps educate other editors to become better contributors. I know that editing Wikipedia can be challenging and thankless at times, so I wanted you to hear it from me: Thanks for all your work! Daask (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

More SCOTUS redirects

Hey Tamzin. Thanks for your help with the SCOTUS redirects. I just noticed that the query you did to tally all of them missed the earliest volumes, which have a different name structure because the volumes included cases from courts other than SCOTUS. Volume 1 didn't even have any SCOTUS cases.

• United States Reports, volume 2
• United States Reports, volume 3
• United States Reports, volume 4

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)

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)

Closing this loop! I did this manually a while ago. Someone accidentally deleted a bunch of pages because they thought they needed to run the whole script again, lol. lethargilistic (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

About End Poem

Hello Tamzin! Hope you've been doing well since last we crossed paths on Wikipedia: the reason I'm reaching out now is because of another time we spoke about getting the End Poem maybe up at FAC; big concerns were mainly primary sources. I recently tried messing around with {{Primary sources reflist}}, but could not for the life of me get that template working in list-defined reference format (would be Gough's two references, Rosenfeld's music reference, and Persson's tweet reference, the four primary sources in the article)—like the rest of the sources in the article. I'm not sure if I'm just a clueless goof as I often am, or if using list defined reference format with that template does not work for whatever reason?—I would not know who to go to to see about altering that template to fix that if so. Admittedly, I think that using that template would probably bring some semblance of help adding a fancy legitimacy to the sources were it ever to be set up at FAC, if that makes sense. "You can't really question the use of primary sources since we've taken the time to separate them out in their own special little column, which exists in tandem with the fact that they are totally okay to use", or something like that. Best wishes to you—BarntToust 03:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hope

I hope I didn't make you regret pinging me to you-know-where recently. Like I said there, bringing visibility to sexual minorities from the past is important, and that goal is hurt, not advanced, by dragging in sloppy sources in order to make heroes out of people who don't deserve it. EEng 19:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@EEng: I don't regret pinging you. You're... yourself, as always, and I do hope we can keep tempers cool, but I agree on what you're saying here. I wrote an essay recently, User:Tamzin/Vicarious misgendering, that discusses some of the forces that I think are at play in cases like this. I scoped it more around contemporary figures, but I should probably add a bit about historic figures. I completely understand people's temptation to look at some figure from the past and, seeing themself in them, project a particular gender identity. As a private matter, I don't see a problem with it; for instance, I see a lot of myself in Thomas(ine) Hall, and not just because of the name. Likewise for artistic works; interpretations of Joan of Arc as transmasculine, as an empowered proto-feminist woman, and as a conservative Catholic woman all have their merits. And scholarly interpretations in the same vein also have their place, but they have a tendency to be misconstrued by laypeople as statements of fact rather than revisionist analyses using intentionally anachronistic language.

Where it becomes an issue, then, is the claim that there's some objective truth about a historical person's gender. In a lot of ways, regardless of the merits of a case, I think that represents misunderstanding of both historiography and cultural relativism. You see this on all sorts of labels. I've met a lot of people who insist that "gay" is an objective term that can describe any man who is exclusively attracted to men, regardless of whether the word "gay" existed in their era, which is a fascinating misconception given that that's not even true today. For some reason it seems that, to some people, labels like "gay" and "trans" are these nuanced, complicated things when we apply them to ourselves, but easy litmus tests when we apply them to anyone else.

The real loss in this is that, as you say, there's a wealth of knowledge in the nuances of life for historical gender-nonconforming figures. The fact that someone like Sewally/Jones can't be easily categorized as a trans woman, transfeminine nonbinary person, cross-dressing gay man, or cis straight man who only departed from that for money, is a really important historical lesson, and one that can teach us a thing or two about the present day. For instance, the kathoey article currently defines them as "people ... whose identities in English may be best translated as transgender women in some cases, or effeminate gay men in other cases", which is about as systemically biased a statement I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia's partly to blame on this. Maybe with ledes like "A trans woman or transgender woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth", we promote a false sense of certainty in what that label means, belying the ambiguity known to scholars and individual trans people alike. Or maybe some people will just always want things to fit into neat buckets. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Always impressed with how you approach working with other editors, and the humility you show in the process when expressing your own imperfect approach. Cheers to you Tamzin! TiggerJay (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

TJ i second that Tamzin could have really come down on me the othet day, but she just gently chastised me. Jp33442 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Irene Ryan

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)

Block evasion

Hello, the user you recently blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Retana1 is back again under this IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.191.51.46 FMSky (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked, gently for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Back again, and still not communicating at all https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/201.191.218.160&target=201.191.218.160&offset=&limit=500 FMSky (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked 1 week, a bit less gently. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@FMSky: BTW, 201.191.218.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 201.191.51.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) are both viable rangeblocks here. If you see more activity, let me know and I can give two weeks to whichever they pop back up on. Even the /16 looks relatively safe to block if it comes to it. Btw, interesting that at the very start of this, it wasn't bands, and they used edit summaries. Does "tightened plot summary" ring any bells for you? I'd Quarry it, but querying edit summaries often times out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

This range has become very active again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.191.218.0/24 Could it be shut down for a while? FMSky (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, awaker now. Blocked 2ww. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thats a good start, wish they would just start communicating FMSky (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

A question?

I know a while ago I'd asked about a potential WP:FAC for End Poem. With time comes change, and I'd like to ask if you what your thoughts are about eventually getting it over there to be judged. I looked into peer review, and I think maybe this would be worthwhile to consider.

Otherwise, I hope you've been having a rockin' good time with life; I remember last time we ran across each other here, you'd mentioned you had moved, I think. I hope that's gone well for you and that those new horizons have been bright for you! BarntToust 02:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you so much Tamzin for your wonderful and unthanked administrative work at WP:ANI and blocking. You deserve this barnstar. Keep up the good work, even when you get little recognition. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 04:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Your suggestion

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. TarnishedPath^talk 08:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

What to do with gibberish now U5 is deprecated

User:Tinni baldur

I don't often tag things for U5 (more often I declined to delete them) but this is a good example of one that is in my view, well, gibberish.

Now U5 is deprecated, what can we do about it other than ignore it or send it to MfD? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

@Ritchie333: Per Wikipedia:User pages § Handling inappropriate content, The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable. So in general I would say the best answer is to let the user know they are misusing their userpage and ask them to fix it. That said, since this user has no other edits and since this is very obvious misuse of userspace, I wouldn't blame you for skipping that step and blanking it yourself, and then leaving them {{uw-userpage}} or a custom note. If they revert, well, that's a user-conduct issue and quickly approaches WP:NOTHERE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. I'd say "Geocities is thataway" but a) that's not appropriate to say to newcomers and b) it shows I am old. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

(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)

I'll geve them a "NOTWEBHOST." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Re this, somebody in real life did call me the Bonnie Blue of live music (I play regularly in three bands these days and dep for quite a few more). :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Anniversary Tamzin 🎉

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)

Module:Forward

Hey @Tamzin, what's up? I was on the way of writing a code for pretty much the same result of your module for forwarding parameters between templates, which I need for a copule of templates in the eswiki. And then I bumped into your module. Could you tell me if it's working correctly, and if yes - if it would be ok to import it to the eswiki? Cheers. Virum Mundi (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Virum Mundi: Oh wow, I forgot all about that module. Well, I haven't touched it in years, but {{SPI report}} (the only template that uses it) still works fine, so, it seems the module still works? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it... cool... so Ill take a shot at it in testwiki, see how it works. Tnx! Virum Mundi (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

@Virum Mundi: If I'm understanding your issue correctly, would Template:Wrapper (Module:Template wrapper) work? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Filter 1263

• 1263 (hist · log)

You should change line 1 from user_age == 0 to user_type != "named", and perhaps rename that filter if necessary. Thanks. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@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)

Block of Special:Contributions/~2025-31210-46

Hi!

I saw that you indef-blocked that account. Do you know how this will affect the underlying IP address? (Since it's a temporary account)? I was considering blocking for the usual 31 hours but this makes me wonder -- Luk ^talk 17:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Luk: I've actually been working on a table on this! WP:TMPA#Impact for administrators. Per that, looking at the row for an indef block of a TA with account creation blocked:

• The TA is blocked indefinitely (obviously lol)
• Anyone who tries to edit from its most recent IP in the next 24 hours, or any IP it tries to edit from within 24 hours of that edit attempt, gets autoblocked for 24 hours
• Anyone who, under those same circumstances, tries to create an account (including by trying to edit while logged-out, which would ordinarily create a temp account) is told they cannot (and thus cannot edit)

As to length... previously we had two paradigms for vandal blocks, which I'd summarize as "Block an IP for two school-days so hopefully whoever's using it tires themself out; block an account indefinitely if it's clear they're only here to vandalize." Temp accounts fall into a gap between those, in my opinion: They're more clearly tied to one person (specifically, to the browser session that made the edit), so there's less need to worry about collateral damage; but at the same time, part of the logic for indeffing VOAs has been that someone choosing to create an account just to vandalize is a strong signal that that's all they'll do, and with temp accounts that's no longer true. Still, I think temp accounts are considerably closer to the named-account paradigm, and so I've been going with indefs for accounts whose only edits are bad-faith and who've been duly warned. Especially because, the way autoblock works, in most cases this is essentially the same as a 24-hour block on the underlying IP.

I'd definitely be very open to promptly unblocking any dime-a-dozen vandal who requests, though, and I definitely don't intend to hold people as strictly to WP:SOCK for good-faith edits after a TA indef; based on the anecdotes I've collected at the related essay User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, I'm guessing most community members will feel the same. In practice it's always been the case that vandals who want to "go legit" (like me, once upon a time!) just create a new account and move on, and get away with that because good-faith users usually don't get checkusered. If it comes to it, I've been toying for a while with trying to get something into policy like Editing after a block for routine vandalism (i.e., not harassment, malicious BLP violations, elaborate hoaxing, or long-term disruption) is generally not considered sockpuppetry if the edits on the new account are constructive. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks (I'm really glad I asked)! -- Luk ^talk 19:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Where is the general warning to WikiProjects Weather and Tropical Cyclones

@Tamzin, QuicoleJR, WhatamIdoing, and Rosguill: The ANI thread was closed as successful. But it has been archived and I couldn't find any at WT:WEATHER and WT:WPTC. ~2025-31466-23 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

I can do it tomorrow. (Timezone-neutral translation: in 8 to 24 hours.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31466-23:  Done. . -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

A goat for you!

You have done a great job writing the essay on participation of people with mental disorders in Wikipedia. The message is very important. Thank you!

BlockArranger (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Filter tripped??

Hi Tamzin, just got a message yesterday that there was some edit filter tripped by some of my students at the University of Edinburgh?? Is that right? I can't find the thread about it anymore, must be archived. But I believe it might be something to do with them using Wiki Love on each others talk pages to greet each other? Why would that hit an edit filter? And are you saying they may need to be 'confirmed' editors before they can do this unless they may hit that filter again??? any advice gratefully rec'd. Cheers! Stinglehammer (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: The message, now removed, is at special: permalink/1320597294. Several of your students tripped an edit filter that blocks rapid editing of user talk pages by unconfirmed accounts. There isn't really anything that can be changed on the filter's side to prevent that, since the considerable majority of edits like that are abusive; mass wikilove is a rare exception. Fortunately, though, as an event coordinator you can grant them confirmed, which will exempt them from that filter and most others. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You may be referring to this filter hit where one of your students was attempting to perform "unusual" moves, including trying to move a draft article into Wikipedia space instead of mainspace. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Temp Account blocked

Thanks for blocking ~2025-31702-50. Do you think their edit at Special:diff/1321053871 could get RevDel'd? Ultraodan (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ultraodan. Ordinary profanity usually isn't revdelled under RD2 or RD3. Unless there is some context I'm missing? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Different admins may give slightly different answers on this, but personally I generally don't revdel generic insults against people. Slurs, yes. False accusations, yes. But usually not "Fuck so-and-so". Again, you'll probably find other admins who disagree. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Concur with Tamzin. That's pretty mild. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for the explanation. I wasn't sure where the line is so thanks for making it a bit clearer. Ultraodan (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

TPA + Personal Attacks

You might want to strip TPA here User talk:~2025-32132-89, they just resorted to insulting you on their talk page. Kind Regards Squawk7700 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) C.Fred done dood it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Margarida Corceiro

Thank you for your rev-deletes here. However, more BLP violations have come in since you redacted that batch, and I'd recommend removing those too, if not outright protecting the page because of them (I have filed a request at WP:RFPP for this article, fwiw). Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for making the page protection request. The page has been protected now and at least two vandals have been infef'd, thanks Tamzin! I was writing about this on User talk:lp0 on fire § Reported vandals on Margarida Corceiro. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 14:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I've indef semi'd given the history of the vandalism. Also got fed up and revdelled about 200 revisions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Mon Dieu. That must a record! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Well I sorta cheated by including some that didn't strictly meet RD2 (see my explanation at AN). I've seen larger revdels where the whole thing was valid. Primefac RD1'd 1,323 revisions of How to Win Friends and Influence People after I flagged it as copyvio-by-excessive-plotsum. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay @Deepfriedokra you got me curious. If I've done quarry:query/98992 right, the most revdels on a single page by a single admin is iOS version history by MER-C, which at a whopping 13,089 is over triple the runner-up, a sandbox deletion that seems to be a special-case in that it was U1-thru-RD5 rather than a normal RD. Perhaps this should be on WP:RECORDS. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

wow -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that. Persistent and pervasive copying of Apple's release notes by multiple users. MER-C 20:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

A modest proposal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Arbitration_Committee_election_candidates_needed ? --GRuban (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Flattered, @GRuban, but if there's any indicator of my moral growth in the past year, it's that there isn't even the slightest part of me tempted to run this year. That said, have you considered running? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't even make admin when I ran; also I'm not nearly active enough.--GRuban (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You still have time. You can do it! What's the worst that can happen?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@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)

UTRS appeal #108304

Oh, dear. I've gone cross-eyed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I have no strong feelings about this block, other than to note that they've disclosed their IP, so I don't need to fuss about with WP:TAIVDISCLOSE and can just say to see User talk:47.205.180.147 for their previous block.

Incidentally, was just about to drop you a line to say I just tried something billed as okra juice... except looking this up, apparently this is a mistranslation and it's lightly fermented roselle juice. Oh well. Very tasty either way, okra or not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Hafta give it a try. (I'm aging with time like yesterday's wine. -- Willie Nelson.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Down your way they sell it as agua de jamaica or just jamaica. Although that'll be the sweet version; for sweet-and-sour just add time. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I know where I can get ahold of some red hibiscus. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Quick undeletion

Hey Tamzin, I see you're around. mind doing a quick undeletion for me at Special:Undelete/Theorem-proving? With the exact deletion reason (in wikimarkup) with all the text after the colon and before the end of this sentence (that's also in nowiki tags, for potentially slightly easier pasting): per Graham's request, so that [[special:diff/334469745|this edit]] makes sense. That diff link doesn't go to the right place, but it will with the revision undeleted. It turns out that along with importing an edit in December 2009, I accidentally replaced an article, because the edit I imported (from 2005) came after what was then the latest edit (from 2004). I didn't know about this problem until later. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Graham87:  Done :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks; perfect! Graham87 (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Lam312 rangeblock

Appreciate the action on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lam312321321. In response to your comment about the rangeblock, I'd suggest adding English Renaissance, Talk:Conservative Party (UK), Talk:Scotland and Talk:Culture of England. Thanks. Belbury (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

"Sex Matters (advocacy group)"

I need help from someone experienced in these sorts of topics. Yesterday someone changed this article to "anti-transgender advocacy group". Which I think is wrong considering the History section currently says "Sex Matters has been described variously as 'anti-trans', a 'human rights charity', 'gender-critical', and a 'women's rights group'." So I don't see why this would be in the opening statement. I tried an edit request on the talk page to no avail ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I think given their edit summary, they're using the logic used in a consensus at Talk:LGB Alliance as the rationale. It's worth noting your edit request wasn't outright rejected, though. They just told you to get consensus on the talk page first. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

But this is a completely unrelated organisation? ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't remark on whether or not I thought the rationale was valid, just tried to provide my understanding of what the rationale was. (Sometimes a consensus can apply to multiple articles, but I haven't looked into this one enough to know.) And then I (perhaps too vaguely) alluded to a suggestion of getting consensus on the talk page you edit requested on for the type of edit you want made. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

The lead sentence already said it was an advocacy group opposing transgender rights in the United Kingdom; I don't think that rephrasing "opposing transgender rights" to "anti-transgender" and adding a link to Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom constitutes a major change to its meaning, tone, or neutrality. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The other version is not accurate either ~2025-34097-51 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It's what you were advised to do when your edit request was rejected. (Without spending more time and energy looking into this than I have tonight, I'm not sure how relevant that kind of boilerplate advice is in this scenario.) I just noted it because I saw it and thought that that was a bit different than "to no avail" is all; I meant it as a clarification. It is worth noting neutrality doesn't (always) mean you describe the subject of an article neutrally; it means you represent significant views by reliable sources proportionately/fairly. I don't know enough about the subject to know if such a change is POV because I have no frame of reference for how most sources discuss the subject of the article you're talking about here (see aforementioned about time and energy). - Purplewowies (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Heads up

Media mention by Ashley Rindsberg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

a site admin who ... rejects the notion of gender identity ... Is Fox suddenly pro-gender-ideology now? Lol. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Longer response. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

That is longer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I've come across his writings about what he doesn't like about WP (I think that's all his writings about WP) before, and there's nothing unique about that, there's a guy called Bandler who writes with a similar angle, and it obviously has a paying audience. But it's a little funny to me that WP has been provided with a very professional image of Rindsberg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Bandler, was quoted in a few of his articles. I appreciated that he at least cared about getting the facts right; was less impressed with some of his decisions about who else to rely on as sources. This Rindsberg article is really bottom-of-the-barrel shit, though. Other complaints by Bandler and Rindsberg have at least been coherent arguments that we're giving undue weight to some sources; here he can't even really point to something he thinks we've been incorrect about, and is just relying on pure religious hysteria. Personally, my Jewish upbringing didn't include anything about defending Jesus' honor against accusations of being gay, but maybe things were different in whatever shul he was raised in. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Great "The Aristocrats" reference at the end. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

IP auto reveal

Hi, asking here since you seem to be knowledgeable relating to temporary accounts.
How do I turn on autoreveal? I have all the permissions for it and followed the video (displaying Special:RecentChanges) and I am not seeing that feature in the Tools menu. Did the WMF not enable this feature after all? I do have a couple of gadgets in that menu but I am not sure that having those would make a difference. Thanks, Cutlass^Ciera 17:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cutlass: It looks like auto-reveal is only available to admins/crats/CU/OS, as well as some global groups. I may have misstated this at some point; since I'm a global abuse filter helper it wasn't obvious to me that I was getting admin-like TAIV access even on wikis where I'm not an admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

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. Cutlass^Ciera 17:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@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)

Thanks

Hey Tamzin, I often enjoy reading your comments when I come across them. Always well-thought and balanced. I appreciate the work you put in here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Saw your recent updates. Kudos for relinquishing admin rights in good spirits, good luck with your work on a new wikimedia projects, and excited for your eventual return as an admin to en.wiki User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

and kudos for pressing all the buttons to elicit the fox news piece, and the excellent rebuttal blog post. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

AfD

Did you have anything to do with this? (see the edit summary) I am inclined to think we have some socking to deal with...possibly related to RhymeWrens? Not sure. Toadspike [Talk] 16:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I see they tried to AfD as a TA and you told them to do it properly. So, that answers my first question. The second part stands, though. Toadspike [Talk] 17:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Come back soon. Dissent doesn't protect itself. Andre🚐 23:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi

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)

Hi, @אומנות, yes, I did completely miss that email. Apologies. Acknowledging that I can't help with any particular admin things right now, I'm going to respond here just in broad terms for transparency, without discussing any details of your email.

• You, as a Wikipedia editor in good standing, are empowered to revert any vandalism you see, ARBPIA-related or not. You should report vandals to AIV and protection requests to RFPP. For ARBPIA matters that are unambiguously vandalism, using those boards is fine; more complex things should go to AE.
• You also have discretion to enforce WP:ECR (except in those ways that require admin tools). Usually this means hatting, striking, or removing comments, similar to WP:SOCKSTRIKE. When in doubt about how to handle an ECR violation, ask an admin, preferably one with AE experience. Just contacting someone on their talkpage works best. You're never going to get in trouble for asking.
• Given the choice between AE and AN/I, I'd always recommend AE. There's a limit of 500 words total, including replies; https://wordcounter.net/ is as good a tool as any for checking your word count. Admins are reasonably generous with extensions.

All the best. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bombing of Trảng Bàng

Hello, Tamzin. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Bombing of Trảng Bàng".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Ulyana Barkova

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)

@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)

@Tamzin: Thanks for clarifying :) Spiderpig662 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

How does one learn toki pona?

After recent events, I suddenly want to learn the language of good. What is some advice you would give to someone who wants to do that? JJP_Master (she/they) 17:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: Personally I learned by buying Toki Pona: The Language of Good, doing the exercises, journaling a lot, and talking to people on Discord. (I moderate ma pona pi toki pona, the largest server. There is also kama sona, a specifically learning-focused server, among many others.) For further standalone learning resources, I've heard a lot of good things about Wasona. It cites me, so it can't be all wrong at least. ;)

You're also welcome to join us on the Toki Pona Wikimedia Discord. We have an #embassy channel for non-speakers who wish to support tokwiki and our related endeavors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Spurious editcount on tokwiki

Hello! I apparently have 1 edit on the Toki Pona Wikipedia, though I don't remember making any, and DeletedContributions doesn't list anything either. I did, however, purge a few templates to fix transclusion errors. Could this be some kind of bug in the migration script? Thanks. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen: Yes, actually I noticed this yesterday. Taavi figured it out (phab:T411199). However, that doesn't seem to have reset the edit counts that were mistakenly generated at 1. I'm not sure if that's doable / worth doing, but maybe Taavi has an opinion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The fix I wrote will roll out with the train next week, after which I can run the script again to reset those incorrect edit counts. taavi (talk!) 19:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen: tenpo ale la, sina jo e tenpo tawa toki pona. Tamzin, did I get that right? JJP_Master (she/they) 02:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: It's accurate as a word-for-word translation, but "have the time" is an idiom that doesn't translate directly, and tawa only covers the prepositional sense of "to", not the infinitive sense of "time to <verb>". Instead, you can replace jo e tenpo tawa with simply ken:

tenpo ... time
ale ..... [of] all
la ...... <regarding the foregoing>
sina .... you
ken ..... [are] able [to]
toki .... speak
pona .... [of] good/simplicity/peace

Or throw in kama sona before toki for "learn [to] know [to]". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, although I was using "toki pona" as a noun, rather than "toki" being a verb modified by the adjective "pona" (equivalent to "toki Inli"). Is that kind of formation frowned upon? JJP_Master (she/they) 03:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: I find that most proficient speakers do tend to use toki pona (or toki Inli, etc.) as verbs more often than nouns when conveying "to speak language X", on the basis that toki means both "speak" and "language" so it's more pona (simple, elegant) to merge the two. That said, there's nothing wrong about using it as a noun, and there's some contexts where that might be the most pona thing for other reasons. If that's your intention, though, you'll need a verb and something to indicate the object, which in fairness you did have in your original version, just the wrong ones. So you could repeat toki, with sina ken toki e toki pona 'you [are] able [to] speak <indicates direct object> [the] language [of] good/simplicity/peace'. Or you could change the first toki there to kama sona for 'you [are] able [to] come [to] know <indicates direct object> [the] language [of] good/simplicity/peace'. And/or you could use kepeken 'with' instead of e, in either of those cases. (Note that kepeken only means 'with' in the sense of 'using', not the sense of 'alongside'.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia permissions

Why does it tell me that you have mi IP address blocked from Wikipedia Nhoyas0369 (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nhoyas0369: I wouldn't be able to tell you that without knowing your IP address. You can see your IP here, but for privacy reasons you may not wish to disclose it. However, just speaking generally, if you haven't done anything wrong, then most likely you are seeing that I blocked the IP range you are on because others were editing disruptively. Sometimes I make blocks that only affect a single page, or prevent logged-out editing but allow account creation. If the block isn't preventing you from editing any pages, I wouldn't worry about it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Plurality and multiplicity

I read the FAQ. Is there a reliable source for more information you would recommend for someone who would like to learn more? For example a website or a book. I did google but google is getting worse and worse these days. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And for the record I don't think a scientific study is necessarily the most helpful when trying to understand something. Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: The Plural identity article has gotten a lot better since I wrote that FAQ. Still a ways to go, but I'd say it gives a pretty good explanation of the topic now, and links to some good scholarly sources. I also recall https://did-research.org/ having good resources, although I can't vouch for it entirely. The main advice I can give is don't trust the opinion of anyone who seems to approach the topic from the perspective of how they want the human mind to work, and reasons backward from there. This applies both to some people in the plural community and to some critics of the concept. That's not to say one needs to subscribe to the "all experiences are valid" paradigm, but a lot of perspectives on the topic are tellingly devoid of any grounding in people's experiences at all (or anyone's experiences but the speaker's).

Will also ping Lizthegrey in case she has any thoughts here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! That can keep me busy for a while.

don't trust the opinion of anyone who seems to approach the topic from the perspective of how they want the human mind to work, and reasons backward from there Gotta love the Zizians.

Google seems to think that if I use those search terms I must be interested in the work of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Polygnotus (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Unban Appeal

I’m requesting to you for reconsidering the Bangladesh-military topic ban you had placed on me earlier. I understand why the sanction was imposed, my comments created a clear conflict of interest. Since then, I’ve carefully reviewed several wikipedia policies. I fully accept the sanction’s legitimacy and have stayed strictly within its limits. If the ban is lifted, I will avoid any COI-adjacent behavior, edit only based on policy and reliable sourcing, and ensure my conduct remains neutral and non-intimidating. I’ve contributed constructively in Indian & Pakistani military related articles, and would like the opportunity to do the same for Bangladesh, with a clear understanding of the boundaries. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lt.gen.zephyr: I am not currently an admin, so am not able to consider this request. You may appeal at WP:AE or WP:AN. Please be specific about the details of the situation in your appeal, using your own words and not those of ChatGPT or another LLM. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin : As far as I can recall, you were the uninvolved administrator, ans you had told me that if I wanted to apply for an unban, I could do it directly to you in your talk page. I had notified you that I removed the notification of the ban from my talk page, hence I am unable to provide you a link to the message. I am copy pasting the message below, from my talk history, and you are free to verify it by checking my talk page's history. However, I am clueless about the fact why you mentioned the usage of ChatGPT or other LLM, as these are my own words. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Attaching the notification of the topic ban, extracted from the history of my talk page (As I had removed it from my tall earlier) :
You are indefinitely banned from military topics related to Bangladesh, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned due to long-term conflict-of interest editing, including edits that can be interpreted as using Wikipedia to censor your fellow-countrymen on behalf of your government. Recently, you have been removing information about Bangladeshi military units. While those edits might be defensible on the basis of WP:PROVEIT or WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, the troubling part is that both in your edit summaries and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh § Military Units you have explicitly said you will do this even where the material is sourced, in the interests of the Bangladeshi military's operational security. And at User talk:Mehedi Abedin § Units you have said that you have been directly related to the army since 2007 and then asked Mehedi to not reinstate such information about our military. Whether or not you intend it this way, this certainly can be read as an attempt at intimidation, with you being a representative of the state and implying that Mehedi's actions go against the interests of the state. Even if this was not your intention, this is at a minimum a conflict of interest in the most literal sense: Your interests as someone affiliated with the Bangladeshi military are in conflict with Wikipedia's interest in neutrally discussing the Bangladeshi military, and you have shown that this is able to cloud your editorial judgment.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. -- 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lt.gen.zephyr: Yes, when I topic-banned you you had the option to appeal to me as the sanctioning administrator. However, I am not currently an administrator, so I cannot unban you. Your remaining options are to appeal to WP:AE or WP:AN following the instructions at WP:CTOPAPPEALS. I mentioned ChatGPT because your message above appeared to be written using it, or at least relying on some template for block/ban appeals: It doesn't address any details of why you were banned, doesn't provide any details of what you've done since or what you would do differently, makes vague reference to "wikipedia policies", and mentions a policy that wasn't at issue (reliable sourcing). These are all hallmarks of an AI-written or AI-assisted ban appeal. The lowercasing of "wikipedia" and the use of an ampersand makes me think that this isn't fully AI-written, but overall the writing style is dissimilar to how you write in most talkpage comments, which also suggest AI use. I would suggest writing a more detailed, authentic unban request before filing at AE or AN. The main question reviewing administrators are likely to have is why, if your edits were (as you acknowledge) a COI issue in the past, they will not be a COI issue in the future; I would suggest going into more detail about that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin : Where should I submit a detailed unban appeal? Here or at AE/AN ? 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

AE or AN. Once again, I cannot unban you. I do not have the procedural authority to do so, even if I were inclined to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Email

Hi Tamzin, I sent you an email. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @IOHANNVSVERVS. Not trying to blow you off—I've left the email notification on unread as a reminder to myself to get to it—but fair warning, I don't have a huge amount of bandwidth for enwiki things at the moment and it might be a little bit. In the past when people have reached out to me with things when I was on hiatus from adminship, I've palmed them off on Valereee, who might be amenable in this case (or might have finally gotten fed up with how often I do this, who knows :P). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, Tamzin. Thank you for this reply. I think I will forward the email to Valereee and another admin as well just to get more eyes on it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries at all, tho it's not an area of particular expertise for me. Valereee (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I think

we are misapplying WP:U6. Go figure. YMMV. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Where in particular? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

( In my ((ex-)) Emperor Georgiou voice ) So happy you asked. User:Jei mathaajee/sandbox in no wise could be considered a potential article. It was, instead, some sort of "Letter to the Students". Jei mathaajee is some sort of school-- a university, I think. I did not realize WP:U7 was the correct rationale until I read the deletion notice I'd left for U6. Still learning, like a lot of people, then. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: U6 applies to any user subpage by a non-contributor that is more than 6 months old. Since the user never edited any page but that, you were definitely correct to apply U6 there. You may or may not have also been correct to delete under U7; it doesn't fall into the semi-arbitrary set of deleted revisions that I can currently see, so I don't know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It was the deletion notice that put me off. About retrieval. That was irretrievable. So, we have deletion rationale-deletion notice mismatch. Oh, well. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Can always hand-craft deletion notices instead. (shudder) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Well the idea is, same as with G13, if they're in the minority of cases where undeletion isn't an option, that'll be explained to them at REFUND. Better that way than confusing someone up-front with "Probably this can be undeleted but not if you were bad." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Editing restriction on User:Whyiseverythingalreadyused

Hi!

I see that, last month, you logged a topic ban for User:Whyiseverythingalreadyused from all administrative areas as an unblock request. As an ADE monitor, I'm asking (a wee bit late) as he made several comments and asked a question at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates/UtherSRG. Does that fall under the topic ban as you intended it, and, if so, what course of action do you advise me to take? Thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: You know, I saw that, and I considered saying something, but concluded it's a gray area since ADE is about adminship but isn't a venue where you go to talk to admins. The cause of the TBAN was bad noticeboard reports, and I think if his ADE comments had even slightly touched on that sort of thing, it would have been over the line, but as stands it's probably just barely clear? I can't say it was a good idea, and if you want to give him a warning to the effect of "This was close to the line and you should be careful in the future, as a similar edit could be viewed as a TBAN violation", I think that would make sense. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks! Should I also mention that editing pages about admin venues (like Wikipedia:Unblockables, diff) is something he should be careful with, or are those kind of edits okay? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it falls in the same category of like, perhaps not strictly a violation, but coming up right to the line, and if you come right up to the line enough times, sooner or later you stumble across it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Prostitution POV

Please refrain from inserting your own opinions into the prostitution article and undoing other user's edits.Thegivingtreeismyfavorite (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Thegivingtreeismyfavorite: Reverting edits when one objects is the standard practice on Wikipedia. And obviously this isn't just a matter of my personal point of view, since what I've reverted to is the stable status quo in the article. I've replied to you on the article's talk page. You're welcome to follow up there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Davidbena

Hi Tamzin. I'm particularly active on Israel-related topics. Since the ban of Davidbena, there is literally nobody there to offer knowledgeable material, explanations and opinions on Judaism-related issues. Nobody. The quality of the articles is substantially and noticeably suffering from this lack of expertise, and I hope you agree that the paramount purpose of the Wiki project is: offering good info to the user.

I've had my fair share of run-ins with David, who's got a very traditional religious approach to almost any topic, worlds away from mine, but he's not a troll, bully or stalker by any stretch of the imagination. One may despair while trying to find the right way of communicating, but that's life, people can be from Venus, Mars and anywhere in between - and here we need all of them to understand their particular worlds. As long as they're well-intended - and not aggressively going against balanced fellow editors, of course - and I am sure David checks all of these boxes. On a larger note, applying the more radical tools of cancel culture makes us poorer and offers no actual protection. I hope you can find a way to bring David back and allow him to contribute his knowledge. Countering more particular or extreme tendencies is part of the Wiki routine, we're all, as a community, part of balancing out the articles; what we can't do, even in a group effort, is to bring in expertise we don't have. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Arminden. I agree that David has brought a lot to Wikipedia, and have said as much to him. I gave him some advice here about how to appeal his unban—which as a community sanction can only be lifted by community appeal—and was pleased to see that he took it to heart. The resulting thread did not find consensus to unban, but I hope it can give him a roadmap for what the community is looking to see in a subsequent appeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm normally not at all interested in administrative and technical aspects, until they hit me directly, and I'm really happy to see that you've actively taken care of this problem. I wouldn't have known where to look for the reopened discussion. Thanks again! Arminden (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Kurdish Wikipedias

Before you move article you has to update name in article and Wikidata, otherwise don't move article. Eurohunter (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I didn't see changing the article's prose as necessary given there was no actual change in scope, but, sure,  Done. And no one is required to update a Wikidata label when they move a page, but easy enough, so also  Done. I've also added {{interwiki extra}} to the article to get a few interwiki sitelinks like bgwiki (which has an article on kuwiki, but not on ckbwiki or the combined wikis), lessening the impact of the "Bonnie and Clyde" issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks but moving article without its and Wikiata update is making a mess which has to be cleaned by someone later. Eurohunter (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

That is wikidata's problem, not ours. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Confused

Hi Tamzin. I have a gamingcheck related puzzle. I thought I would ask you before attempting to navigate the cloud services support IRC channel (never used it) or Telegram (not a user) just in case you already know the answer. The app.py now includes the following, because I wanted to make static URLs for .svg and .json output available (for 30 days) so that they could be linked in discussions etc.

# Used for temporary static URLs for plots and JSON output
app.config['OUTPUT_FILESYSTEM_PATH'] = os.path.join(app.root_path, 'static', 'output')
app.config['OUTPUT_BASE_URL'] = '/static/output/'

• It works fine both locally and in the deployed tool.
• The files are available and reachable via the URLs e.g. here and here.
• The logging says the following...exactly what I would expect to see.

INFO     2025-12-16 15:01:27.806 - gaming_check.py (line 1248) - saveplot() - Plot saved to '/workspace/static/output/plot_CherrySoda.svg'
INFO     2025-12-16 15:01:27.807 - app.py (line 102) - index() - json_filepath: /workspace/static/output/plot_data_CherrySoda.json
...
INFO     2025-12-16 15:01:27.896 - conversion_helpers.py (line 217) - to_json() - JSON exported to '/workspace/static/output/plot_data_CherrySoda.json'
INFO     2025-12-16 15:01:27.897 - app.py (line 110) - index() - plot_url: /static/output/plot_CherrySoda.svg
INFO     2025-12-16 15:01:27.897 - app.py (line 111) - index() - json_url: /static/output/plot_data_CherrySoda.json

• The puzzle is - where are the files actually located, on some file server presumably, but I don't know how to see it. Is there a mysterious symbolic link I'm not seeing?

seanhoyland@tools-bastion-15:~$ become gamingcheck
tools.gamingcheck@tools-bastion-15:~$ toolforge webservice shell
I have no name!@shell-1765896416:/workspace$ ls
Aptfile  Procfile  app.py  requirements.txt  src  static  templates
I have no name!@shell-1765896416:/workspace$ ls -lia ./static/output
total 8
6297839 drwxrwxrwx 2 heroku heroku 4096 Jan  1  1980 .
6297835 drwxrwxrwx 3 heroku heroku 4096 Jan  1  1980 ..
6297840 -rw-rw-rw- 1 heroku heroku    0 Jan  1  1980 .gitkeep

• My concern is that I need to make sure that the code that is supposed to delete them after n days actually does it.

Anyway, if you know, please let me know, but don't spend any time on it if you are busy or have better things to do. I'll have to figure out how to use the IRC support or Telegram at some point in any case. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: Huh. Yeah. The files are nowhere in the webservice' directory, and also nowhere in the tool itself's directory. Maybe there is some Toolforge caching magic or something happening here? #wikimedia-cloud ^connect may well be your best bet, sorry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Gta

The GTA 4 article has links that are no longer active. ~2025-41251-90 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have no familiarity with that article. If there's a specific edit you'd like to request, please do so at Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Seasons greetings!

	Wishing you and yours a fantastic Christmas (or holiday season for those who don’t celebrate) and all the best for 2026. 🎄 ❄️☃️ Here’s to a collaborative, constructive year ahead — with good faith, good edits, and just enough discussion to get things done! (and here's Sir Nils Olav inspecting his troops... one of my favourite POTDs) Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

A postcard

	Happy Holidays!
	Happy holidays and good luck on the Toki Pona wiki! Rjjiii (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol January–February 2026 Backlog drive

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

COICOI link

Congrats, you now have one COICOI link in the wild (which is how I know about it) not counting your previous one at AN. The essay fills a need; it should get picked up slowly but surely, I would think. Maybe I can get it up to two; perhaps there's an angle related to an indigenous nomadic South African people I can work on. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Ha! I was so fucking tempted to include a hatnote to that article, you have no idea. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

😉 Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I went and added another one. I'd found it earlier while randomly browsing your talk page. Graham87 (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Tamzin!

Happy New Year!

Tamzin,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Wishing you a positive outlook for the new year, 2026

Happy New Year!

Hello Tamzin: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Welcome to the 2026 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

ARM analysis

Hi again, felt the need to query one point you made about Lev regarding "not all admins are created equal" as I'm inclined to agree with it based on the point being made, and I don't see it as PvP orientated at all. In a similar situation, I would favour conflicting advise from admins based on their tenure, experience, recent activity, involvement, consensus to have tools, etc; it wouldn't be based on game mentality but more so common sense, based on who's most likely to have the best advise and most accurate opinion for the situation. I also think your point of 300+ votes is somewhat misplaced context based on the intended rationale, given your "consensus to lead" is lower than those who have opposed a ban for example; the point was exclusively a comparison not just a numerical qualifying threshold. So not just 300+ votes means an admin is right, but compared to another admin with much less support it's likely they are, so the opposite is probably true here based on your example. I can't be bothered to check the RfAs of arbs voting, but you get my point I think. Also an admins RfA from a decade ago probably bares little on their stature today, but there is still a relevant point lurking here. For example there are times I would definitely approach you for advise/assistance when it something I consider you well versed in (as I have done so), and there are other times I certainly wouldn't to put it simply. So if believing that admins aren't created equally is a bad thing (let's assume they are equal once created for good measure and ignore the dehumanising nature of the analysis), then treating their advise differently would presumably be worse? I also find it hard to believe that other editors don't do the same, even if only subconsciously. It's not so different than the usual influence of editors by social capital that exists already whether we like it or not. Maybe part of what I'm addressing wasn't the point you were making, so feel free to clarify, and I'm certainly not questioning the rest of your prudent analysis which seems on point; you just completely lost me on the PvP paragraph. Regards, CNC (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Saying any admin should be deferred to for any reason other than the merits of their arguments already strains at the meritocratic foundations of Wikipedia. Saying that it should be based on how many people thought they would make a good admin (before they actually became an admin) is just treating Wikipedia like some RPG with skill levels. There's a reason that, in 13 years on Wikipedia, I've only heard someone actually voice this opinion once, and that it was roundly called out by others at the time: The only way to get there is to be completely disconnected from the substance of why we debate anything, and focused only on who's winning and losing and how strong they are. (For what it's worth, the current arbs include both the #5 all-time RfA vote-getter [#3 for noncontroversial requests] and the 6th-lowest all-time percentagewise; the 4th- and 8th-lowest have also been arbs in recent years.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Granted in other situations, discussions and the like, then I'd always focus on the argument and not the editor. However that's not always possible when you lack knowledge and experience in certain admin areas. For reference I'm explicitly talking about advise from admins (the original context), which for a non-admin can be difficult to determine the accuracy of unless you have the experience yourself somehow (in which case you wouldn't be asking for advise in the fist place), or unless it's corroborated by others. Generally speaking anyone taking conflicting advise from those who lack experience are likely to be blindly led down a rabbit hole, regardless of if that advise comes from an admin or not; to disregard different levels of experience and such would simply be naive I find. All admins are fallible as we all know, that some are more fallible than others is also unfortunately true, and quite relevant at times. For me it's just about staying within the bounds of consensus and that means taking certain opinions with a pinch of salt when necessary, if I'm struggling to trust the opinion of another editor for example (doesn't mean I'd value it less necessarily either).

Reading more of that discussion I see how RfA votes is indeed a bad metric in hindsight, but also see that I'm not alone thinking it's logical to trust some comments more than others based on who made them, at least in certain contexts. The main difference is that I'd never lead an argument like Lev did based on this, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to form my own opinions, just that I wouldn't express them in such discussions because it wouldn't be helpful. But to me this doesn't mean the overall rationale was devoid of logic and thus based on PvP, that still seems like a leap. Overall treating admins equally doesn't mean I have to treat their opinions equally, I think I remain within WP pillars with this discussion probably being on the boundaries of that, given it wouldn't be welcome elsewhere in a hurry by sounds of it. CNC (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

'Twas an excellent analysis. Now, 95 edits and 15 arb/admins later, there might be added a seasonal flavour: 🎵 "On the 10th Day of Christmas, an arb eventually / answered me substantively" 🎶 HNY! —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of Template:uw-botuhblock

The account Aliceswolvesph (talk · contribs · logs · block log) doesn't have the word "bot" in the username, but was blocked for this incorrect reason (Template:uw-botuhblock). As far as I can tell, it was a misclick in Twinkle.

See also the corresponding search query. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you were desysopped. Feel free to ignore this section, then. I'll try to find another admin to correct the block reason. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Andrybak: While I can't see the deleted contents, given that I G11'd User:Aliceswolvesph/sandbox I'm assuming this was supposed to be a {{uw-uhblock}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I like your essay on plurality!

Hello!

I just found your User:Tamzin/Plurality_and_multiplicity_FAQ essay. I really like it! I'm glad to know I'm not the only system editing Wikipedia, and I'm glad there's something I can link to on my userpage.

That is all! Thank you, and please have a lovely day. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a category for em too! Category:Wikipedians with multiplicity/plurality - Flower (she/her) 16:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ooo!

I made a plurality userbox, maybe I could update it to automatically include users in that user category? I know some userboxes are able to do that. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 19:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I think that you may want this after taking a shower to get the dirt off that was thrown by a blocked user digging a deeper hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2025

		The Bot award
		For all the work done at NPP. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Tamzin, please forward to 'zinbot. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Trans Barnstar
		For your in-depth work on Mira Bellwether, her zine Fucking Trans Women, and Terminology of transgender anatomy. Thank you! -Kravk (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

links on wikipedia

How do you restore links that no longer show up? ~2026-68711-4 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello again

I hope all has been well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:AE

Thankyou for your comment and invoking WP:NOTSUICIDEPACT. You said it better than I could have. TarnishedPath^talk 00:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Trying to regain access to my original Wikipedia account

Hi, @Tamzin I'm sorry for your loss and to disturb you during this time. I have another Wikipedia acccount that I am trying to regain access to but every time I log in it doesn't send me a verification code and then when I click "try to regain access" it tells me that my IP has been blocked by this account. I haven't done a tone of edits on Wikipedia but I'm fairly certain I'm not the person you're trying to block (there were a bunch of Tom Brady edits on the IP and I couldn't care less about Tom Brady). I'm wondering if there is any way to get the block removed or if there is another way to access my original account. To be honest, I don't have a ton of experience with talk pages so I'm a little out of my depth here--sorry if I break any protocols here. Hcmaruyama19 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Tamzin, but its very difficult for people to do much without actually knowing the IP, Hcmaruyama19. You can figure out your IP with Wikipedia:Get my IP address. mw:Help:Reset password may be of use. From some testing, the reset password screen says that only one password reset email will be sent per valid account every 24 hours. That is likely why you are not getting more emails. I didn't see any try to regain access button, and I am sent a temporary password rather than a verification code when resetting password. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this. Should I share my IP publicly? My impression was that accounts help to avoid the issue of sharing our IPs publicly (I won't pretend to understand the dangers of that--it was just an impression I had). I'd rather send it to you in a private message if that's an option. Would you be able to lift it if I send it to you in a message or would I need to wait for Tamzin to respond? Hcmaruyama19 (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't received any password reset emails from Wikipedia even after 24 hours but I'm also not sure which email I linked my account to and it's possible my work email is filtering out the emails as spam--normally they pass them through but occasionally it seems to just disappear emails altogether... Hcmaruyama19 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hcmaruyama19, I should have clarified that I am not an admin, and can't do anything directly about a block. Tamzin is also currently not an admin, having requested for de-adminship in November of last year. My note about the 24 hours is that I'm fairly confident the foundation will only send one password reset email per every 24 hours, meaning requesting more than once in a 24 hour period isn't going to result in anything. I'd recommend trying again to see if it works this time, and possibly trying again after another 24 hours pass. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs tagging you because I realized I forgot to tag you in my first reply and I'm not sure whether you're notified if I don't--apologies if I'm bombarding you with notifications. Thanks again! Hcmaruyama19 (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hcmaruyama19! I was asked by 45dogs to take a look at this discussion and provide you with any assistance that I can. I, of course, was more than happy to oblige and I'll be happy to try and assist you. :-) From what I'm gathering from the information that you provided in your request for help, it sounds like you're able to actually log in to the other account that you need assistance with (meaning that you know the password to the account for 100% certain, and the password to log into the account is not the issue). However, after using the login page to enter the account's username and password, and while you are being logged into the account, you're then prompted to submit a multi-factor authentication verification code in order to authenticate you. Is this correct?

If so, then you're looking in the wrong place in order to locate your multi-factor authentication codes. As of the time of this writing, we do not offer an option to have MFA or 2FA verification codes sent to you via email. The only options available when setting up MFA (or 2FA) are to use an authenticator app (such as Google Authenticator), a security key (an external device that you connect in order to verify your login), or use a passkey (passkeys get stored on your device and then enable you to complete verification using a fingerprint, face scan, or PIN code). However, since your initial request for help talks about submitting "a verification code", this tells me that you likely enabled MFA on your account by using an authentication app. Can you check your mobile devices and see if a verification app is installed onto one or more of them? It's possible to have more than one authentication app installed onto one device, so keep that in mind as well. If you find an authenticator app, open it, and see if there's an entry there for your Wikimedia login. If so, then you found it! The six digits that are currently being displayed in the entry will be what you'll enter as your verification code. If not, or if you don't find any authentication apps installed, you'll need to navigate to this troubleshooting page and follow the information provided there for further assistance.

If I am not correct, and if you're not being prompted to enter a verification code for MFA authentication, or if I read the information from your message incorrectly, please do accept my apologies! Just respond and let me know this, and feel free to elaborate, provide any links, screenshots, or other information that I can use to try and help you further, and I'll be more than happy to try and help! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, thank you so much! I'm sorry for the delay--it's the week before spring break and things are a bit hectic here. I'm a little confused. I believe I know my password (I don't think I've changed it recently. But when I try to log in, I get a message that reads "You need to verify your login. A verification code has been sent to your email address (h***@***.***), please enter that code here." Is this message not from Wikipedia? I took a screenshot but I don't believe there is a place to share that here. (Also I'm wondering if this might be better moved over to my talk page so that Tamzin doesn't keep getting notifications about this account while ze is grieving. I'm not sure of the protocol for this though--maybe we're supposed to keep things in the original location?) Thank you in advance for any insight you can provide. Hcmaruyama19 (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hcmaruyama19 - I just reviewed your response. Sure; let's move this discussion to your talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Hcmaruyama19 § Accessing your original account

 – ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 March newsletter

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Mustafizur Rahman

Hello, Tamzin. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Mustafizur Rahman".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Wishing you well, and wishing you love...

Hi Tamzin. While I was responding to a request on my user talk page to review a discussion from someone asking for assistance (it was one that someone left here), I noticed your banner and the fact that you experienced a significant loss of someone close to you recently. I'm sure that this message is likely one of many others that you've received about this, and that you've probably heard this about 100+ times by now - but I wanted to express my sincere condolences for your loss.

I hope that you take care of yourself, and take whatever time it is that you require in order to:

• fully and completely grieve your loss in a healthy way,
• receive proper counseling, help, and support - if, wherever, and whenever that may be needed
• calm any thoughts that troubling,
• heal any wounds that are causing you pain,
• gain any closure that you seek, and
• find any answers that you're looking for.

We'll still be here when you're ready to return. :-) Sincere well wishes, my friend - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• I just saw your notice @Tamzin. Sorry for your loss. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• I just saw it too. I'd been wondering where you'd gone to. Be seein' ya! EEng 20:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Be well Tamzin! You're a lovely soul and I've always enjoyed interacting with you. I hope you take the time you need <3 Heyallkatehere (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Your mother seems to have been truly remarkable. I am so sorry for your loss, and wish you all the best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• there's nothing i feel i could say that would alleviate the pain of such a loss, but i hope you're doing OK and you're in my thoughts. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 22:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, tamzin, I'm so sorry. Blessed memories. -- asilvering (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• I want to say I wish you the best Tamzin and take as much time as you need. I agree with Oshwah and everyone else here wholeheartedly. I also want to say that you'll be in my thoughts. I'm the Katie on Discord who likes talking about Wikipedia and the one with the kitten avatar. ~2026-16420-54 (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
• I'm so sorry to hear of your loss, this must be a really difficult time for you so I just wanted to wish you well. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• I'm so sorry, Tamzin. Best to you and yours. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• I am so sorry for your loss, I wish you well. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

sona ona o pona lon tenpo ali pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 08:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• We don't know each other, but I've seen your work. It's thoughtful and amazing to summarize. I hope you take as much time to yourself as needed without worrying about enwiki at all, ever if you want. And I might've broken your amazing blog by sending a massive comment, so I'm super sorry about that as well. It's a really good blog. Realtent (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

"Jean Val Jean (actor)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jean Val Jean (actor) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 29 § Jean Val Jean (actor) until a consensus is reached. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 13:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't count as templating a regular. Also, I am very sorry to have interrupted a sad time in your life for something this minor. I posted before reading. It seems that your mother and father were immensely talented and honorable people. I just read a bit of your father's writing; my love of words certainly lent joy to reading his phrase "blackjacked lightly upside the head" just now. Given what I always knew as the hamsa up there, I thought you might like this poem May your mother's memory be a blessing. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 13:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hai

Do you receive notifications for mentioning tok:? Just a curiosity. Skemous (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Ha, that'd be nifty. There actually is a way to do that on phab:, but not in MediaWiki. I just happened to be reading that page and saw it mentioned. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Nice. I also wondered if I created a page and someone mentioned crosswikily if I would get notification Skemous (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

It depends on two things: the pinged editor's prefs (e.g., in Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-input-wpecho-cross-wiki-notifications-global) and whether the pinged editor has ever visited that particular wiki before (as seen in Special:CentralAuth). Years ago, there was a user script that would visit a couple hundred of the wikis automatically, but I believe it was declared a security risk and removed about eight or ten years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 May newsletter

The second round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 April. As a reminder for contestants who just joined or are unaware of recent changes to our round-points system, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 2 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; nine scored over 500; and fourteen scored over 300. The top seven contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, waterways, and Gu Yanwu
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,149 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, and featured lists about figure skating, along with many article reviews and two good topics
• Olliefant (submissions) with 830 points, mainly from good and featured articles about television shows, episodes and media, along with nearly four dozen good and featured article reviews
• Gommeh (submissions) with 827 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to Genshin Impact and Honkai: Star Rail

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 13 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 106 good articles, 22 good-topic articles and more than 40 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 3 In the News articles, and they have conducted over 200 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of my request below

I'm sorry for your loss :-(. Buffs (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You've always been fair...

...despite our differences in opinions. Your feedback regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Buffs would be appreciated. My take is that it is a content dispute, CTOP notification wasn't made, and the remedies being advocated far outstrip the alleged wrongdoing (not to mention the convoluted rules). Buffs (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Buffs: Regarding the email you sent requesting a response to this: I hate to kick someone when they're down, but come on, man. You read the notice at the top of the page. The condolences you left, while appreciated, are optional. Respecting the explicit disclaimer that I may not respond to messages while in this period of mourning, on the other hand, is a basic norm of human decency. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:State v. Demesme

Hello, Tamzin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:State v. Demesme, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

TfD nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 May 12 § Expired contentious topic editnotices

Templates you have created have been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration: Michael Jackson

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Michael Jackson and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, BilledMammal (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I am informing you of this request as in it I reference a sanction you imposed in 2023, declaring TruthGuardians and TheWikiholic to be meatpuppets. There is absolutely no need for your participation; I'm informing you merely as a courtesy.

I'm sorry to read about the passing of your mother, and wish you the best in this difficult time. BilledMammal (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello Tamzin,

New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 1, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 22:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election

I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Solidarity Barnstar
	Your contributions in the discussions around Wiki Workers United and the current redundancies deserve a special shout out. When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run, There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun; Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one, But the union makes us strong. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Ditto, I came here to say the same. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 01:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Condolences

May your mother's memory be a blessing. Meadowlark (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I've been less engaged with the project recently but still not sure how I missed this. I'm so sorry to hear about your loss, Tamzin. I hope things are on a positive trajectory (it sounds that way from BN), and I hope you find the peace you need, however that may come. Take care, Giraffer (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Resysop request

Hi! I've given you the administrator flag per your request at WP:BN (and the 24 hour hold). You have a lot of other flags and I think at least one of them are bundled into the main privileges (IPBE). Let me know if you need them in addition to the sysop flag or if they can be safely removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Lee. Glad to be back. All but autopatrolled were redundant so I've trimmed them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Welcome back. I handled this ticket last week which I guess you'll want to keep an eye on. Cabayi (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Thanks for letting me know. More I'd like to say because their complaint is kind of hilarious if you know the context, but I don't think there's a way to sufficiently redact information to satisfy VRT privacy. I'll send you something on Discord though, just for a laugh. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: VPW

Re this comment: In addition to what I said there, I apologize if anything I have said could be considered a personal attack; it was not my intention to imply malice. I'm thinking the best course of action for myself is to remove my signature and walk away.

I also want to say that I really appreciate your leadership throughout these events; I hope that this situation can get resolved. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167: Thanks. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to people quoting that line due to some more blatantly deliberate misreadings. I recognize that what you said didn't explicitly impute that reading, just implied the concept could be applied to you, and it was an assumption of bad faith on my part to treat that as a personal attack. I hope you can see the circumstances that led to that ABF, but it was an ABF nonetheless and I do apologize. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Solidarity

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.

---

Is there a slightly more detailed account of the terminations? What I have read is the preamble to the petition, linked to from the signatures of two admins, and that has me persuaded that I should probably sign. So I will either sign in a few days if I don't see anything that appears to be explanatory, or sign as soon as I read a slightly more detailed, but not too long, explanation. In particular, did the Foundation state what the causes for the terminations were? Also, is it thought that the terminations have anything to do with artificial intelligence? (I know that I have homework to do about artificial intelligence, which is to read what Pope Leo XIV has written.)

By the way, my condolences. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2026 (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.

No concerns

Just fyi: I don't have any concerns, and see no need for any public statements. isaacl (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Have a Pangolin!

Have a Pangolin!

For your remarkable efforts in regards to the ongoing discussion of WMF's recent actions. I understand you've been chatting with lots of affected staffers, and have taken up responsibilities not to disclose some things that such staffers have told you in private. Editors might need to place confidence in your judgement without having the full picture. Thankfully, I feel very comfortable doing so with you! It must be a lot to handle, so please know how much I appreciate you being the editor we all can trust to guide us through this. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 20:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I second this. This is a complex situation, and it is important for us as a community to navigate it well. I always gain something from reading your comments, and I also appreciate the leadership role you have taken on. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Self-inflicted wound

Hello, Tamzin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Self-inflicted wound, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Concerns

Hi! I was looking through the contribution histories of these blocked accounts: User:Maxaxax, User:Pseudopolybius, User:IronMike6, and noticed some similarities that made me wonder if they might be related. Some of the articles they have edited include:

Empire, Universal monarchy, Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires, just to name a few. There also seem to be similarities in their editing interests and overall editing patterns.

Since you were the admin who blocked User:Maxaxax, I thought I'd bring this to your attention. I'm not saying they're definitely the same person—the other two (User:Pseudopolybius and User:IronMike6) were blocked for sockpuppetry issues, while User:Maxaxax was blocked by you—but the similarities stood out to me and seemed worth noting. Thanks. ~2026-32137-11 (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, dead to rights on edit summaries alone, let alone article overlap and similar weird sex stuff. I'll go ahead and tag; good to have a papertail if they've avoided detection twice now. Courtesy ping Ponyo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I pinged too soon, there's a new account too. One sec... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maxaxax. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

What do I put as a name?

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

Cetacean given. I would have done this on April Fools, but I always miss days like that in UTC. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c-Tamzin-20260531180900-A_reader_tried_to_cancel_his_recurring_donation_"with_immediate_effect"._The_WMF

FYI you've misgendered Sheetal there in and anyone in the chain of command above him responsible for this message. Per her userpage Sheetal uses she/her pronouns. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 18:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Good catch! My bad. Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Just catching up

Catching up on the latest admin-newsletter events, I saw . Condolences on your loss, and congratulations on your gain. I'm pleasantly surprised that Z''l actually works as a redirect without the double-apostrophe causing the parser to catch fire. DMacks (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thank you in both regards. And I agree, sometimes the absence of a bug is stranger than the presence. It still really weirds me out that / works. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit

• Here

I was really confused when I saw the USAF being referenced at the start of the article but nowhere else! I actually assumed based on that stuff, that PTSD or his military service was going to play into his motivation... so I was shocked to find that we (wiki) didn't mention it again.

Anyway, thank you! JordyGrey _talk🧸 23:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Median rank

I'm confused by your reversion here. I know that a median literally means in the middle of the distribution, i.e. at the 50%. That didn't seem to be what you were going for in your discussion with ScrubbedFalcon here. IIUC, the number you obtained is the median position (rank) of an admin who signed the petition within the list of all enwiki admins sorted by (admin) activity. That is, the "typical" admin signatory of the petition sits at the 150.5th position in the list of 817 admins. How is that different from saying they (the median one) are in the top 18.4% of admins by activity? I must be missing something. Waldyrious (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Waldyrious: Sorry if my edit summary was a bit curt. Framed that way I don't disagree. Grammatically, in the edit you made, the parenthetical would be be attributing an activity level to the rank itself, which wouldn't make sense. If you want to reword to talk about the percentile ranking of the median admin signatory, I don't have any objection to that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, so please feel free to suggest whatever wording feels natural to you. I do believe a clarification of some sort is required, as that sentence left me confused for quite a bit and honestly I only understood its meaning after reading your exchange with ScrubbedFalcon. Waldyrious (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

suli pi wile lape mi la mi... I mean... I'm sleepy enough that I might as well not be a native speaker myself. Will try to come up with better wording in the morning. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:State v. Demesme

Hello, Tamzin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "State v. Demesme".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

If this is inappropriate

Please forgive me and ignore the message. But I invite you to ask me to clarify anything else you found concerning in my comments. Tiamut (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Webb

Hi @Tamzin: Why are you updating this archive. The whole purpose of the archive is to preserve a historical record not to enable the addition after the fact. It is complete out of process. I've not seen such a think in more than 4500 Afd that I've taken part in, nor in any other part of WP:AFD that I've looked at. Your allowing sentiment to break process in something that is completely outside consensus. scope_creep^Talk 13:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Three things:

1. Because of your user page, I now know about the pipe trick.
2. Because of your user page, I now know about the diëresis.
3. tan lipu sina la mi sona e toki pona.

Thank you! toby ^{in solidarity} 17:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

I've said before that if you have a problem with me, you're welcome to discuss it with me on my user talk page. You've never taken me up on that offer. Instead, you've been publicly attacking me in various discussions, which is not an acceptable alternative to normal dispute resolution. I've been trying to ignore it, but that approach hasn't been working, and it's continued for almost a year now, so I'm asking you directly: come talk to me about whatever your problem with me is, or if you don't want to do that, file a formal complaint somewhere, and if you don't want to do either, then please leave me alone. Repeatedly publicly disparaging me without making effort to resolve the dispute is not cool. Levivich (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Levivich: If you feel that my comments explaining how your comments are engineered to sow disruption are personal attacks, you're welcome to take the matter to AN/I. I already have my response written. If you concede that they're not personal attacks, then they're valid rebuttals to various instances of you making things up, deliberately misreading others' comments, and stonewalling consensus-building, and you're welcome to dislike those rebuttals, but you can't very well pretend they haven't been pertinent. If you'd like to stop being called out for doing those things, stop doing those things. WP:NPA is not an immunity idol for people disrupting discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not doing any of that stuff, and I don't think you have any diffs of me doing any of those things. I think you have diffs of me saying things you disagree with, but just because I say something you disagree with doesn't mean I'm sowing disruption, making things up, deliberately misreading others' comments, stonewalling consensus-building, or any of the other things you've accused me of this past year. Tamzin, I'm not your enemy, and I don't know why you persist in treating me as if I am. Levivich (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

If you don't like the mirror being held up to your behavior, change your behavior. That would definitely be the easiest way to make me look like a paranoid idiot here. Just start matching the behavioral norms of your peers in debates, like admitting when you're wrong and not bludgeoning discussions till you wear everyone else out, and soon enough I'll look crazy for having thought this was one big social experiment by you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Serious accusation by User:Tamzin against User:Levivich. I would appreciate it if you could provide the evidence you referred to in this comment there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

AN/I comment from me

I know it's winter sunrise shortly where you are; I hope my comment wasn't jarring. I tried to be fair, while making what seems to be an obvious point. I welcome rebuttals, and hope you don't find this unnecessarily burdensome. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 22:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a fair summary of things. I'm not even sure I disagree with the part that criticizes me. I guess really my only rebuttal is that I was caught in between a rock and a hard place on word count versus comprehensiveness, while of course being bound to stick to the rhetorical framework I'd said I could make the case for. But that's not a rebuttal I care to make in-thread; if people feel I should have decided in favor of comprehensiveness, or of abandoning my original claim to argue for something less subjective, fair enough. I don't think I've ever tried to argue in a thread like this that I'm without fault, and I certainly don't plan to start now.

The sun is indeed coming up, you're right on that (although it's spring here, or in climate terms monsoon season, not winter). It's nice watching the city wake up out of my living room window. I've been staying up chasing down some sleeper UPEs. We'll see if I can keep my eyes open long enough to block the second. If not, something to do "tomorrow". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you Tamzin for your amazing work with the WWUS movement. You have been amazingly helpful and very friendly. Thank you. In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 03:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:YES AND NOO

Hi, I wasn't sure how to tag this for speedy deletion. Obviously it will never be accepted, but that's not the reason I was asking for it to be deleted; the same user has another draft, Draft:Yes and no, so I figured this was a duplicate. Is that valid criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 15:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@JohnLaurens333: If someone makes two duplicate drafts, I usually just redirect one to the other, or just leave it be if they're destined for G13 regardless. In this case I'd probably leave it be, but you're welcome to redirect if you'd like. Then, when one gets G13'd, the other will get G8'd. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks! ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 15:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Title speaks for itself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Unsalting

Hi Tamzin, I hope you're doing well! You mentioned unsalting pages with not-uncommon names of people, and making a list like that is something I would quite enjoy doing. Could you tell me if there's a particular format such a list ought to take? Like just a list of names, or redlinks, or something else? I don't know what the magic unsalting machine looks like behind the scenes, and if the list can be created in a way that it can just be plugged into the unsalter then I'd like to try to do that. Meadowlark (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark: What I would recommend is creating a simple plaintext list, one name per line; then when you're done, use the following regex-replace (if you're unfamiliar with that, that means using the source or visual editor's ctrl+f dialog with the (.*) button selected): ^(.+)$ → {{pagelinks|$1}}. That'll wrap every single line in {{pagelinks}}, which is what's used at WP:RFUP.

If you do this, before you post it somewhere publicly, feel free to drop it here, and if I've got time I can take a look through with admin-goggles and see if there's any ones where there's special circumstances that might justify continued salting. Oh also, if you're digging deep into ProtectedTitles, you might occasionally run into something that really shouldn't have been salted, because it preserves a title that should be log-deleted like "So-and-so is a pedophile". If you see any of those, you can send them to WP:RFO. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! And apologies for the delayed reply - I didn't get a notification for some odd reason, even though I'm subscribed and you pinged me. Darned notif system.

I seem to have ended up in the 2007-ish depths of Protected, which seems like a good place to start since hopefully people will have given up frenzied spamming in the past 19-odd years, and there are some really wild titles. I'll make a note of log-deletions; there's been a few like that. At this stage I'm thinking it'd be best to do this in batches, since otherwise I will probably spend the rest of Wikipedia's existence/my lifetime (whichever is shorter) listing... Meadowlark (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Last note - I assume we don't especially care about "Wikipedia is a [INSERT SLUR HERE]" for log-deletion, only if it's an attack on a word(s) that reads as vaguely-likely-to-be-a-person? There's a lot of grumbling - things change, but they stay the same! Meadowlark (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark: Yeah. Honestly like, if it were now, there are at least some slurs you could insert there that I probably would log-delete. But when dredging through ancient history, it's probably not worth bothering an admin unless it's about a specific person and/or meets the oversight criteria. You might even run into a case where an admin has logdelled the protection summary, thinking that that will keep the offensive name from showing up in ProtectedTitles, but as you can see here , that doesn't work; the only solution is to unsalt the page and then logdel both the salting and unsalting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about recent sanction

Hi,

About a week ago an AE consensus you were a part of topic-banned me from the Arab-Israeli conflict. I've been meaning to improve an article to GA, and have been eyeing Jewish history for this purpose. Part of it is in PIA, so if I do end up committing to it, someone will have to help me and edit these parts. The question is will I be allowed to reach out to the relevant Wikiproject (or individual editors I know) and ask for help with it or is it forbidden since it'd be discussing PIA? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds: Strictly speaking I don't think it would violate anything to make an WP:APPNOTE asking someone to handle the PIA side of the article, as long as you give zero direction as to what they should do. Asking a specific person would be an issue because you'd still be influencing the content by virtue of choosing the editor. That said, this really seems like playing with fire, and just speaking as an occasional GA reviewer here, I think I'd have trouble passing an article where the nominator isn't allowed to discuss some portions of it. Our usual advice to topic-banned editors is to start out far afield from the TBAN area. Dancing around which parts of Jewish history do and don't count as ARBPIA is pretty much the exact opposite of that. Basically any claim about the history of Jews in the Holy Land might be in-scope for ARBPIA depending on context. So would many claims about Jewish ethnography, especially pertaining to Ashkenazim. Perhaps you include a statement that you think is innocuous, like "Falafel is popular in Levantine Jewish cuisine", only for someone to argue that this is a TBAN violation because of the politicized discourse around falafel. I honestly can't predict what an AE consensus would say in that case, but it's possible the result would be a block. So the direct answer to your question is yes, you may neutrally and publicly request non-specific help from WikiProjects; but my strong advice is to reconsider and find one of our other 7,198,585 articles to write about. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

What an odd article.

In my previous topic ban I have mostly sourced articles in WP:UAR, which will never get me in trouble but is also not something you'd get the kind of experience I'm looking for right now. Mostly PIA and its adjacent topics are my topics interest (other than things related to me, which I will never edit in volume) so I will probably end up editing something else in the area. If I do end up accidentally "taking sides" in such bizarre disputes and someone decides to block me for it, perhaps it'd be a good sign that Wikipedia is not where I should spend my free time... I do edit for enjoyment at the end of the day.

That said, I will drop Jewish history (except perhaps for sections I've already edited). Thanks for the advice! NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson, has been now closed. The final decision is available at the link above.

The following remedies have been passed regarding this case:

• TruthGuardians (talk · contribs), TheWikiholic (talk · contribs), Guitarjunkie22 (talk · contribs), Jimcastor (talk · contribs), and MraClean (talk · contribs) are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

• TruthGuardians (talk · contribs), TheWikiholic (talk · contribs), Israell (talk · contribs), Episteme Aletheia (talk · contribs), Guitarjunkie22 (talk · contribs), Jimcastor (talk · contribs), Mr Boar1 (talk · contribs), MraClean (talk · contribs), Never17 (talk · contribs), and PinkSlippers (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

• NE0mAn7o! (talk · contribs) is warned that future misconduct in the Michael Jackson topic area will result in restrictions under the Michael Jackson community contentious topic.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 21:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson closed

LGBTQ rights in Indonesia

Please give appropiate information and help me improve the page. Great achievement (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

user:Tamzin 3

Please confirm that this is your account. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: That'll be Pebble620 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI), who is probably BuickCenturyDriver (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

GOD'S COUNTRY

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 9 § GOD'S COUNTRY

Would a local consensus at requested moves be sufficient (if that was the outcome)? Forcing title case may have merit outside of disambiguated cases but I would be interested in seeing what the community might think in regard to different capitalization cases. Hence, I was thinking about listing it at RM if that would be appropriate. Any advice (maybe such a circumstance is not so unique and discussions on the matter of which I am unaware have been hashed out at length etc.)? Warmest regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can't say I share Tamzin's view; I like sentence case. But I somewhat doubt you could get consensus at RM to capitalize something that none of the top 74 Google results capitalize (yes, the 75th result did capitalize it). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Godsy: Procedurally, yes, a local consensus in an RM can choose to ignore a guideline for a good reason. If I were closing an RM where there were consensus to ignore TITLECAPS for the sake of WP:CONCISION through WP:DIFFCAPS, I think I'd see that as a reasonable argument to ignore the letter of one guideline for the sake of the spirit of another. Whether you'd get that consensus, though, is a very different question. To be clear, @CaptainEek, I don't want to do away with sentence-case titles in general; I just think there should be a rule in TITLECAPS along the lines of "If a work has deliberately nonstandard capitalization, and most reliable sources use this capitalization, Wikipedia should as well". (Have you ever been woken up by a partner, who isn't even a Wikipedian, needing to rant to you about a Wikipedia MoS rule? Because I have and it was capitalization of song titles. :P So it's an issue close to my heart.) Anyways, @Godsy, per Eek, even if my proposed standard were the rule, I'm not sure you'd win on it. I don't get quite as bleak a set of Google results as Eek does—I do see all-caps here—but most other Google News hits lowercase it. If you want to change consensus on this, I'd try to find more of a slam-dunk case. Now, Not Yet's track titles are the thing my partner was annoyed about; but I haven't looked deeply at what the sources do regarding those. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Been a while, Tamzin. So a Barnstar for you!

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For your continued innovation on End Poem | Been a while since we've crossed paths, so I wanted to share this token of appreciation BarntToust 04:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Just had the chance to look back at our GA from a year and a half ago (can't believe it's been that long!), End Poem, and I have to thank you for your attention to detail to the visualisation of the ending in the Use in Minecraft section, fixing up the MOS:ACCESS standards and making it, illustratively, even more evocative of the ending crawl. Can't think of many other editors who would have such a sustained dedication to an article. It's a good thing that the article for a work as beautiful as that enjoys such attention. On another more solemn note, I would extend my condolences for the loss of your mother, may her memory be a blessing. Grief is a, well, it's an experience that brings feelings I don't think any words ever uttered have truly described, though I would invoke the words you are stronger than you know to remind you when you're feeling the weight of the harder days.

With warmest regards, BarntToust 04:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Self-inflicted wound

Hello, Tamzin. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Self-inflicted wound".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks and social consequences

Your conduct recently, specifically in relation to those who oppose your stance on WWU, has been problematic.

Of the most concern to me is your support for "social consequences" for those who don't comply with any strike that is called. This is a collaborative project and proposing that editors should refuse to collaborate as a consequence of taking a different stance on a single issue is destructive to that. I asked you to remove that line, in the hope we could avoid this discussion, but you refused.

You have also repeatedly issued personal attacks against editors who disagree with your position on these matters, most significantly Levivich who you accused of intentionally sabotaging the project - a personal attack you failed to substantiate but only partially retracted.

I'm opening this discussion because I'm considering opening a recall petition, but I don't want to; before these recent incidents I considered you to be an excellent admin, but that does not justify personal attacks or attacking the collaborative nature of the project. Would you be willing to retract all the personal attacks you have made recently, as well as commit to not imposing social consequences on those who don't support the strike? BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Would you be willing to stop beating your partner? Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: As I said to you a month ago, I'm not doing this. As then, by "this" I mean, I'm not dignifying your insistence on reading malice into this self-explanatory paragraph:

The strike would be strictly voluntary. No one would be blocked or otherwise administratively sanctioned merely for not participating. However, nothing prevents striking editors from lobbying other editors to join, even in strongly-worded terms, so long as they are civil and do not harass people. Furthermore, nothing prevents striking editors from imposing social consequences against those who cross the picket line, for instance by saying that upon the end of the strike they will not review good article nominations or featured article nominations by former strikebreakers.

You might notice that, over the past month, very few other people have had much interest in your interpretation either. The fact that you're actually saying the quiet part out loud here—that you are threatening a recall first and foremost because I refused your request to remove an observation you dislike from an essay I wrote—is bone-chilling. I suppose I should be glad that you're being honest that your desire to censor a straightforward interpretation of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is what primarily motivates you, and that personal attacks are an "also".

I'm less thrilled with the sentence after that "also", where you say I only partially retracted my claim that Levivich was intentionally sabotaging the project, while linking to a statement where I fully retract that claim. (Yes, it's a partial retraction overall, because I revised my assessment to Levivich became focused exclusively on getting the upper hand in arguments—in other words, not deliberately sabotaging discussions, but indifferent to them—a view shared with quite a few other people in that thread.) Between that and your repeated mischaracterization of the "social consequences" line, I have to ask: You do realize that when you quote something or link to a comment, people do actually often go check if it says what you claim it says, right?

So yes, nothing stops editors from imposing social consequences on those who don't join in a potential strike. Much like nothing stops you from imposing social consequences on me for saying that. There are two precedents you might set in recalling me: One is that an admin does not have the luxury of saying it is permissible to deny voluntary labor to other editors for any reason or no reason; the other is that when an admin starts a petition that 1,000 people sign, and approximately three people who cannot drop the stick repeatedly distort their words and the underlying facts of the dispute, never bothering to retract their own false statements or insinuations of bad faith, that admin isn't allowed to get fed up with the nonsense and call people out for it. I think either of those would be a bad precedent to set. But if you do accomplish that, you know what you will have shown? That actions taken in a collaborative project carry social consequences. And I'll never have a problem with helping to illustrate that basic principle of human interaction. If I could sum up my life's work in internal Wikipedia matters in a single sentence, it would be this: Our mission of building an encyclopedia together should strengthen, not erase, what we owe to one another as humans. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that I've referred the "attacking the collaborative nature of the project" question here to the Administrators' Noticeboard. I'm still happy to use this thread to discuss other concerns, but would ask that follow-up on that specific point be at AN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems I missed the discussion; thank you for being open to rewording the sentence. Unfortunately while it is a step in the right direction it is not sufficient, and it is not what you promised when you opened that discussion. The consensus was clear that the issue is with pressuring editors to participate, especially through the application of social consequences, and while the new wording isn't as alarmist the underlying meaning and intent remains unchanged.

This unchanged meaning and intent is especially clear when the essay is read alongside the other comments you have recently made to The Kip, to Nil Einne, to Alanscottwalker, and to Nil Einne again, where you support pressuring editors to join the strike and consider social consequences an acceptable part of this pressure - see your response to Alanscottwalker, where you say you consider social pressure to be a defining feature of strikes, and your responses to Nil Einne where you say that you support [strikers] right to impose social consequences and where you make it clear that imposing social consequences based on preferred sports team or based on baseless assumption of willful strikebreaking could result in a site ban if they don't back down when confronted, but make an exception for those imposing consequences based on willful strikebreaking.

This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue, as you are making it "us (strikers) against them ("strikebreakers")", a WP:NOTHERE issue, because pressuring editors to not build an encyclopedia is by definition not here to build an encyclopedia, and ironically a WP:CHOICE issue, because just as it is unacceptable to pressure editors to edit more, it is unacceptable to pressure unproblematic editors to edit less.

Regarding the personal attacks, I say that you only partially retracted the accusation because my reading is that you have gone from saying that they are intentionally sabotaging the encyclopedia to that they are inadvertently sabotaging the encyclopedia. Your retraction should also be seen in the context of this comment, where you essentially admit to using a motte-and-bailey argument; you alleged deliberate sabotage, but over a day before retracting that allegation say that in further dispute resolution you intend to focus primarily on [the] weaker claim of inadvertent sabotage. This also isn't my only concern about personal attacks and aspersions in relation to WWU, some of which I listed here, none of which you have retracted. Even in these discussions you continue issuing personal attacks, including suggesting my desire is to censor a straightforward interpretation of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, saying that editors are engaged in concern-trolling, heckler's vetoes, or threats, and accusing me of an explicit threat to weaponize an administrative process.

Tamzin, twice now in two weeks you have gone to the administrator's noticeboards only to be told you are wrong, and twice now you have reacted by only partially addressing the community's concerns. With Levivich you only partially retracted the accusations, and with the essay you altered the wording but preserved the problematic meaning despite a clear commitment to fully addressing it if consensus was against you.

This is becoming a pattern of you engaging in disruptive editing and then being insufficiently responsive to community feedback and I encourage you to step back and consider carefully how you want to proceed. Please, retract the personal attacks and commit to participation in the strike being entirely voluntary, free from coercion and pressure. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're saying it's a personal attack to say you made an explicit threat to weaponize an administrative proces, one comment after you wrote I asked you to remove that line, in the hope we could avoid this discussion, but you refused. ... I'm opening this discussion because I'm considering opening a recall petition, and in the same comment that you ask consider carefully how you want to proceed before repeating your request that I commit to your preferred position on something? I have no doubt you feel entirely justified in your crusade, BilledMammal, but you've already been very clear about what this is: You disagree with my stance on the strike matter, and you think I should be recalled if I don't recant it. There is, I hope you'll concede, some level of irony to that. And I hope you'll see why I would call that weaponizing an administrative process on the basis of my viewpoint, again even if you feel justified in doing so.

You are right that the meaning of my essay is unchanged. That is because the meaning of my essay has at no point been anything other than an analysis of one way a strike might work, and that includes acknowledging the basic realities of how social pressure works in a strike or any other divisive matter. I cannot recant any proposal for social consequences because I never made one. My previous wording apparently made some people think I was making a specific proposal—which is ironic, because the only reason I gave an example at all was to clarify I wasn't defending any form of social pressure that would go against policy—and so I've reworded it. There's no obligation for a userspace essay's contents to be popular, liked, or even entirely in agreement with policy (although I don't think there's anything in this essay that does go against policy). There's an obligation to not violate user conduct policies in a user essay, and I have fixed the part that some people misinterpreted as violating user conduct policies; for anything else you're welcome to take the essay to MfD.

Speaking of things I can't recant because I didn't say them, there's no such thing as inadvertent sabotage. Inadvertent sabotage would be regular disruptive editing, which I'm far from unique in thinking Levivich was engaged in.

So with all that said, if you would like to open a recall petition because I will not commit to your preferred approach to how a strike should work, then go ahead. I am not going to endorse a wikipolitical position I do not hold in order to avoid recall, and I wouldn't trust anyone as an admin who would do that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

First, yes, it is a personal attack. You are suggesting that anyone following the recall process - which includes informing the admin that they are considering a recall and giving them a genuine opportunity to address the concerns - is weaponizing the process. You might think that your actions don't warrant recall, but that doesn't mean that editors who do think that are weaponizing the process or acting in bad faith.

Second, maybe you don't think you have proposed "social consequences" or "social pressure" but you have indisputably repeatedly endorsed it, as can be seen in the quotes I provided above. This is what I am asking you to recant, and to make clear in your essay that applying either "social pressure" or "social consequences" is unacceptable; the wording proposed by NebY would be suitable for this.

Tamzin, you've seen the response in the AN thread; very few editors defended you there. Perhaps now is the time to consider you might be in the wrong here? I genuinely want to work with you on this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Let's work together. You've actually asked me four things here, and the answers are different:

• retract all personal attacks → I've apologized for jumping to the worst conclusion about Levivich, and am happy to apologize for it again if needed. I'd also like to apologize for using the word "concern-trolling" to describe your comments. I was frustrated by what felt like you repeatedly raising the same objection about the sentence in my essay. You've since explained why it didn't fully address your concerns for me to clarify that your reading was not my intended meaning; I don't know if it was poor listening on my part, poor communication on your part, or some combination of the two that made that previously unclear, but one way or the other, my impression was of you ignoring my explanation, hence the frustration. None of that, however, excuses the word choice: "Concern-trolling" implies not just bringing something up repetitively, but also doing so in bad faith. I don't think your concern is held in bad faith, and didn't think that at the time I said "concern-trolling"; it was hyperbolic word choice and I apologize.
  As much as I'd like to put all of this bit to bed, since it's the easier half of your concerns to address, it would render meaningless my real apology above to combine it with a false one. I used the phrase "heckler's veto"—a situation in which a party who disagrees with a speaker's message is able to unilaterally trigger events that result in the speaker being silenced—in reference to you repeatedly objecting to something and then asking that I remove it because it's controversial. My intention was to criticize that approach, but by no means to insult you as a person: I don't actually think a heckler's veto is always a bad thing; sometimes it's an effective rhetorical strategy to shut down inappropriate speech. If there was any confusion, though, let me say this clearly: I do not think you are a heckler. You are not always the easiest person to disagree with, but again, I've never questioned your good faith.
  If there's anything else I've said that you feel is a personal attack that I haven't yet addressed, then please let me know and I'm happy to think it over and get back to you on it.
• commit to not imposing social consequences on those who don't support the strike → I mean, me personally? Sure, I can commit to that. Like I said at AN, keeping track of who was on what side of an issue sounds tiring, and I don't like bringing that kind of negativity into my life. I learned that lesson years ago after my RfA; of the 468 voters, there's maybe 10 whose votes I remember, and I've never treated any of them any better or worse on the basis of that.
• commit to participation in the strike being entirely voluntary, free from coercion and pressure → If you're objecting to this, I can only assume we are defining "coercion and pressure" in different ways. I try to speak about these things in realistic terms because I think it's important to be honest about social dynamics on Wikipedia. When you start one of your big notability RfCs, there is coercion and pressure. Your opening statement and every single !vote after it applies a level of pressure on people to agree. Every sidebar on a usertalk page applies a level of coercion. Every person who chooses not to !vote because someone they frequently collaborate with has already !voted the other way, has been passively socially pressured. Active social pressure, which I'd treat as synonymous with social consequences, also happens: I'm sure you've also seen people trot out others' past !votes in inclusionist/deletionist debates to delegitimize their views. I don't really like that. It's nasty; but it's also something the community's historically tolerated to a degree.
  I'm not going to commit to these things not happening during a strike, for the same reasons you wouldn't commit to them not happening during a notability RfC: 1) some of them are literally unavoidable, and 2) even for the avoidable ones, I'm not in any position to stop people from doing them. But if you want me to say that in the event of a strike, any kind of social pressure should be no greater than that which is considered acceptable in existing wiki disputes (inclusionism vs. deletionism, contentious RfAs, etc.), I'm happy to say that. That's what I was going for with the word "normal" but I'm fine with elaborating.
• make clear in your essay that applying either 'social pressure' or 'social consequences' is unacceptable → Continuing on the above, I'm also happy to clarify that people shouldn't do anything against policy, and that I personally don't think it's healthy to take a "Well you did X that one time" attitude toward things on Wikipedia in general. For better or for worse, that usually doesn't rise to the level of something the community is willing to sanction over, but overall it's not good for the community, no.
  I'm also happy to commit here, to you, that in the event of a strike, if I see people applying pressure in either direction that exceeds community norms—for instance, continuing to lobby someone to (not) strike after they've made clear their mind is made up, insulting people for (not) striking, or vowing revenge on people—that I will try to mediate the dispute (admin hat off, obvi) and/or will refer it to an uninvolved admin. I feel exhausted just saying that, because it can get really tiresome to police your own side in a dispute; one of those ~10 RfA votes I do remember is someone who (I think?) neutral'd because I'd complained about two of my supporters badgering opposes, which I think is emblematic of what tends to happen when one tries to do that. But still, I think the general spirit of WP:MESS applies, and if I start a movement and some people following my lead then break policies, I have an obligation to do something about that to the extent that I'm able to.

That's the best I've got. That is me taking your concerns on board; trying to work around the parts that, at face value, seem to be asking me to say something I don't believe; arriving at the best AGF interpretation I can; and giving you the most honest answer I can. All I can ask is that you apply the same AGF to what I've written: I keep saying that I didn't mean what you think I meant, and keep getting the feeling that you don't believe me. Hopefully what I've written above can clarify that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC), ed. 18:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Just noting for transparency that I've revised the first bullet of the above comment. In my initial response I'd incorrectly said that I'd already addressed all alleged personal attacks, overlooking the two that are now discussed above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: It would be silly, in a discussion revolving around NOTCOMPULSORY, to complain about your lack of response here, which I'm sure just comes from being busy IRL, but I'll confess you've put me between a rock and a hard place. Usually, if I run into a conflict on-wiki, I step back for a few days or weeks to clear my head and mull things over, and I had resolved to do that a few days ago, only to wake up to your new reply in this thread. I take ADMINACCT inquiries very seriously, so I've felt unable to take that break without a response from you here. But I don't think it would be good for me or the community to force myself to delay that break when I've now given, I think, about the best answer I can give.

So here's what I'm going to do: I've made these changes to the essay. I believe they go beyond what I said I'd do in the previous comment. They represent the same views I've sought to express all along, with more of an emphasis on what kinds of social pressure the community views as more or less acceptable; an explicit discouragement of "more active forms"; and an explanation that the acknowledgment of these more active forms occurring is meant as realism, not encouragement, and if anything is a reason to be cautious in supporting a strike. I've also added a paragraph on how strikes are not a good thing, which is a point I've made consistently throughout this but hadn't put in the essay till now. So:

• If the changes to the essay do not resolve your concerns, I really can't see any way to make it any clearer what I'm not saying there, so I would advise you to take the essay to MfD.
• If you feel that even my clarified sentiment is incompatible with adminship, and/or my apology above does not resolve your concerns on personal attacks, I suppose it's up to you whether to start a recall now or to reply further here and understand I might not reply for a few days/weeks. Either approach is fair.
• If neither of the above is the case, then I'm hoping we can move on from here and both focus on what we enjoy doing on Wikipedia, which in my case and I assume also your case is not this.

I'm going to go take my time to think about whether I've let my healthily cynical view on Wikipedia turn into an unhealthily cynical one, or (more likely I think) at least become something I'm so accustomed to that I forget how to communicate it well. And then I'll be back, and, with or without admin hat, will get back to the same work I've been doing on building an encyclopedia. Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, this deserved a far prompter reply than I was able to give it - thank you for being open to work with me on this.

To address your most recent reply:

• The changes to the essay do resolve my concerns
• The clarified sentiment does also resolve my concerns; thank you for correcting my misinterpretation of what I saw as you endorsing the application of social sanctions
• Agreed

Sorry again for the delayed reply, your responses and openness to working with me deserved better. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Notes

WikiCup 2026 July newsletter

The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, while peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
• Reconrabbit (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
• A.Cython (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
• Generalissima (submissions) with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Starting over with our discussion on an editing strike

You said something to me that I think gets to our core disagreement: I'm happy to talk about labor solidarity strategies. The reason we haven't been able to talk about this on the same wavelength is because I don't believe this should have ever been framed as a labor solidarity issue, for multiple reasons. Without commenting on their respective merits, we are in entirely different realities here. If I saw it as a labor issue, and I were an employee of the WMF, I would be singing an entirely different tune—one directed at the WMF. I was ready to criticize the WMF on this, had the discussion continued on the path of Novem's initial comment at WP:COMMTECHGATE. The changes were harmful to community productivity, and it was uncool to let valuable people go like this. And I did assert this in a few places.

I fear—and I contend this is a rational fear—that the union and labor rhetoric has swept up the community and created a movement based solely on the principle of being pro-union (to which I'm sympathetic even though Wikipedia isn't the place to express that) and that this is a clear-cut battle of WMF vs. the concept of unionizing (which I'm saying it isn't). This is the prevailing theme of the signatures, especially among the hundreds of signatories who do not have a significant history of following Wikipedia's inner processes and are simply going off a rough impression of what's happening. Even if this were the nature of the issue, labor strikes simply do not translate to whatever we're trying to do here. My gripe is that I believe your framing of the issue led to you, and others who have strong inclination toward labor activism, heavily invoking the law of the instrument because the word "union" was already being referenced when a response was being planned.

I simply don't believe that the "union-busting hypothesis" that you wrote is strong enough to warrant drastic action. And if it were strong enough, it would not be the community who would carry out this action. And if it were for the community to carry out this action, it would not be through a blank check to WWU or any other group (whether they be editors or non-editors), with the threat of what I see as a nuclear option. The other thing tripping me up more generally is that many editors are saying this is merely an exercise of WP:VOLUNTEER and if things go downhill on Wikipedia, we're not required to fix them. That is technically true. But the intent is to stop Wikipedia's normal maintenance from happening, or in other words, to disrupt it. Maybe that's the right course of action, maybe it's not. But people playing coy about this fact comes across to me as dishonest and disrespectful, to put it mildly.

I have not made it a secret that I am incredibly upset about this whole affair. I'm angry, I'm saddened, and I'm afraid for the project. As I've said, I consider the strike a greater danger than the lay-offs by several orders of magnitude, and I believe harm has already been done by setting the precedent through what I believe is a proposal people have signed on to without clear direction or a common goal beyond a vaguely-defined principle as I said above. I believe that you're acting in good faith. I hope you can say the same for me. We want the same things: I would be happy to see WMF employees in a healthy union, whether that be an idealized WWU or another group, and I assume you also support fixing the wishlist and other community input issues.

The fundamental issue here is that we have different opinions on what constitutes a danger to the project, and any opinion on "danger to the project" by its nature solicits a strong response. In such a case as this, my frustration is primarily going to be directed toward the person who initially framed it as a union issue, and at the person who launched the strike initiative. And in this case, both of those people were you, one of the handful of editors I've held in the highest regard. And several more of these editors I admired, not to mention other editors with significant sway, have signed on based on the same union framing that I see as misguided. So if you wanted to hear where I'm coming from in our interactions with the rhetoric lowered, this is that, and I hope it isn't too much of a wall of text. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m not Tamzin, but respectfully speaking, I’ve been watching for the past few weeks now, and I don’t think anything productive is coming out of this. It is acceptable and valid to state that you believe that a strike isn’t a solution that would come without issues. It is fine to comment on an essay. What I didn’t like was when (this isn’t directed at you specifically, but in general) resorting to “tactics” to voice disapproval.

You can say you’re not signing. I don’t think I, Tamzin, or any of the other 1100+ signers will stop you there. But what really crossed the line were comments like this...

You can get media attention without threatening to destroy Wikipedia

..and the whole AN shenanigans. I’m not particularly impressed with how the thread erupted, to say the least. The thread opened with genuine questions.

Yet soon, it erupted into a mess, with people misquoting NOTHERE, to accusations of disruptive editing. I agree that the wording on the essay isn’t the best, but in my eyes, the minute toxic-adjacent behaviour starts, actual legitimate concerns are overshadowed. That thread is a massive time sink to say the least.

And then the comments like the one I gave above. When did we threaten to destroy Wikipedia? We said that we might stop editing. We didn’t say we would deliberately pour shit into articles. We said we would stop editing. We are volunteers and we can choose to stop. But quite literally casting aspersions helps no one (as I noted in my reply to that comment).

I am not mad at you, Alien. I know this message looks like that. As you think of Tamzin, I think you, BM, et al are acting in good faith. But please, reread your comments. I can understand how they felt when they read those comments. Yes, maybe we need to revise the process and the essay. But please, consider how others see your words. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 03:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The other thing tripping me up more generally is that many editors are saying this is merely an exercise of WP:VOLUNTEER and if things go downhill on Wikipedia, we're not required to fix them. That is technically true. But the intent is to stop Wikipedia's normal maintenance from happening, or in other words, to disrupt it. Maybe that's the right course of action, maybe it's not. But people playing coy about this fact comes across to me as dishonest and disrespectful, to put it mildly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I read that in the AN thread, and I don’t agree in the slightest. So an editor taking a Wikibreak is disruptive now? I get that you’re trying to make a point, but quoting what I’ve already seen isn’t the way to do it. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 03:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

This was Tamzin's idea, let's let them settle the question: are strikes meant to be disruptive? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

A strike is meant to disrupt the normal operations of an enterprise in order to avoid a worse outcome. Just like the SOPA/PIPA blackout did. Just like, more banally, the servers going down for maintenance twice a year does. So yes, a strike's absolutely disruptive in that sense. In some cases, an individual editor going on wikibreak might be disruptive too, if there's some process that relies on them; when I stepped back from projectspace in 2024, a small change to a template broke 'zinbot and it went down for 6 months till I found the energy to fix it. So that was objectively disruptive. I don't think any of these things, though, are disruptive in the sense of disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia, the standard at WP:Disruptive editing. I genuinely believe that, in the situation where WWU were to call for a strike, not striking would be worse for Wikipedia than striking. You're welcome to disagree with that, but that's how I see it. I wouldn't have done any of this if I didn't believe that were the case.

Regardingy our whole post above, Alien, I think you make a good case for why reasonable minds can differ on the propriety of a strike. Which has been my attitude this whole time. I think there's enough evidence of union-busting to justify signalling a willingness to strike; you don't; that's fine. Where we disagree, and where we're always going to disagree, is over any sentiment that takes away people's agency to deny their labor. I understand that it's very upsetting to you to imagine a situation where Wikipedia becomes greatly under-maintained due to an editorial strike. It's upsetting to me too. But this isn't some technicality in NOTCOMPULSORY. This is the core of that policy. Wikipedia is a volunteer service, with all the pros and cons that that entails. One part of that is that if people aren't willing to voluntarily do the work, the work does not get done. If 1,100+ people are threatening to not work, I think that more constructive than going after the people who've committed to that is looking at why we have. Again, you don't need to agree with us. But respecting that people have in good faith reached a conclusion about the WMF's behavior based on the evidence available, and then in good faith signaled willingness to not give voluntary labor to an organization they believe has done something unsconscionable, would be a good place to start. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

So should we sanction the admins who stepped down during Fram-gate or voluntarily, because they were being disruptive by choosing to not volunteer in a higher role? --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 03:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I think we should desysop Tamzin for not standing for Arbcom. --GRuban (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks and support

Thanks for listening to editors. It does help. I've signed the petition, because I always supported it in principle, just not some of the divisive wording (which is now sorted).

I thought about the "up to" and I think I found the sweet spot. In case of a strike/collective action, one can limit their editing to their own User space. Since we cannot link from User space to article space (and vice-versa), nor can we add User pages to Mainspace categories, it would effectively be the same. It achieves what the strike aims while still allowing one to work on content, write essays, do research and store links for later. And if someone moves a draft from Userspace to Mainspace, or copies content, which is technically allowed per P&G, but frowned upon and never done, well then you've got a "strikebreaker", someone who is interfering with an editor engaged in collective action.

I think this is something even those who don't want to stop editing could get behind. And that's also something. A lot of the editors who are like "yup, full strike! no problem!" are ones that have been editing for a long time, have tens or hundreds of thousands of edits and have different feelings about Wikipedia than those who are relatively new. I am speaking about myself too. I am still in the "honeymoon phase" and it is still exciting and interesting for me, so that's why my first reaction was "stop editing?! but it's so fun!" And perhaps I'm not the only one who thinks that way.

Again, just a thought. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Turbo. FWIW, User:Tamzin/What would an editorial strike look like? is intentionally agnostic to draft-work; working on drafts would fall under the general proscription of "any on-wiki activity that does not in some way further the goals of the strike" but not any of the more specific items that are called out "in particular" and that I expect would be the things people are actively lobbied not to do, and that was intentional because I think the rest of the strike idea would work just about the same whether or not draft-work were allowed. Personally I don't think I would do it, but I think a well-structured strike document could draw a clear distinction between "Here's the general principle of the strike, which we ask people to follow in the way that makes sense to them" and "Here's the few specific things we specifically call upon people to refrain from". So basically the Conservative Jewish attitude toward halakha lol. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

When I first wrote the message, I wrote "Draft space", but then I changed it to User space because Draft space is still a shared space and anyone can improve a Draft: and move it to Article space. That isn't frowned upon and I think it's even encouraged cause AfC backlog never stops growing.

But working on drafts in User space is different, cause we have the understanding that we leave each others' User spaces alone.

(I use capital-D Draft to mean Draft:Article_name, a Wikipedia Draft, but lowercase-d draft for colloquial draft.)

If I work on, e.g. User:TurboSuperA+/Drafts/Some_potential_article, then I would also have the expectation that no one moves it or copies it, until I am ready to, i.e. when the strike ends. Sure they can copy it and attribute, which is fine per P&G and CC-BY-SA, but it would be a dick move in the context of collective action and I'd consider it to be strikebreaking.

I see the essay says and any page in the User namespace being used to draft any of the above. in a footnote. I'm wondering if that could be an exception, so as to appeal to some of the holdouts. Any page in Userspace can be requested to be deleted by the editor whose space it is. (I even found out that an editor who wrote content in their own Userspace, who wants it deleted, can prohibit it from being copied by others and, in case an editor copies it, even request deletion in the other editor's Userspace. This was confirmed to me by Administrators and the WMF.)

I think Userspace editing should be fine, because at any point the editor whose Userspace it is can just request a WP:TNT of all the pages. In the case that the strike doesn't achieve what it means to and/or the WMF turns out to really be a bunch of top-hat-wearing moustache-twirling villains, for example. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about DisamAssist

I noticed you used DisamAssist for resolving the relinking to 1988 Écône consecrations (thanks, I was going to get to that this evening!) but found that it failed to capture links in {{main|Écône consecrations}}. Is that something that I should maybe bring up somewhere or is it a known thing? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Hmm! I think the script may only look for things in square brackets? Just because I can't recall ever running into any other kind of link using it, and according to XTools I've made 718 edits with it. If non-square-bracket links indeed are ignored, my guess is that it's because it's much harder to find them. For instance, the script can know that there's a link to Écône consecrations somewhere on a page, but how can it now whether {{main|Écône consecrations}} or {{some other template|Écône consecrations}} is the link? Some templates might create a link in a very unintuitive way (from a script's perspective), like the dynamic creation of links by {{ship}}. The only solution I can think of is running every template on the page through a parser, then seeing if its output links to the ambiguous term, and then giving the script-user the whole template call through a dialog and asking them to change whatever's needed.

Still, at a minimum I'd think the script should have a note at the end like "There are still X pages linking to this, including Y in the main namespace." That in particular might be worth proposing somewhere. I recall that someone was planning on forking DisamAssist to fix a few suboptimal features, but I'm sleepy right now and all that's in my brain is that it was someone Russian.

Oh, stray thought I've been meaning to do something about for ages: There should really be some way on a SIA to indicate "This page probably shouldn't be linked to and should probably be treated like a DAB". Because like I've written some SIAs like Year of three prime ministers where it might make sense to link to that as a general concept. But there's others like H.R. 1 where, sure, occasionally it might be a general concept, but usually it's probably someone thinking of a specific H.R. 1. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2026 Écône consecrations

On 3 July 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2026 Écône consecrations, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Curbon7 (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #114610 (Bmona12)

Courtesy notification. Bmona12 (talk · contribs). Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Set index articles on law

A tag has been placed on Category:Set index articles on law indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Tamzin:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

User:YourUsername/Sandbox

Hey, I found this page you re-created per this CSD U6 Bot thread I started that you've participated in. Could you (or anyone who can do this who sees this message) create the account YourUsername? I would but I can't due to the antispoof; any admin or above or an accountcreator can do it. That'd protect the page from being deleted under CSD U2 and I think it'd be a good idea anyway for WP:BEANS reasons. Would it then be worth making the sandbox page in to a regular redirect? If so, it wouldn't need to be added to CSD U6 bot's ignore list ... but another way of achieving that would be to get the YourUsername account to make an edit outside of its userspace. Graham87 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok you were right

It was 100% union busting from the beginning. I thought you were exaggerating but you weren't. Didn't realize it until today. Now I'm sorry I doubted it. Levivich (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Levivich: There's nothing for you to be sorry for. I struggled from the beginning of this with the information asymmetry. I was hearing things from people in the WMF that made me very hesitant to AGF from the outset, but I was limited in what I could say, and at the same time I had some hesitations myself; these were all people I trusted to not be lying, but how could I be sure their perceptions were right? I said "blatant union-busting" early on but then vacillated myself on that point, as I found myself in the awkward position of asking the community to take my word for it that something was happening based on second-hand accounts.

A few weeks into this, I was forwarded an email that Bernadette sent the staff, which I was told was very similar to what she had said in an all-hands meeting the day prior. In it, she said

The unionization decision and process belongs to all eligible employees.

I remain committed to ensuring that any process related to union conversations respects the rights and perspectives of all staff. We aren’t only doing this because the law requires it; I insist the Foundation operates this way because I think it’s the right approach.

Employees eligible for the union have the right to express their opinions, whether they support unionization, oppose it, or are still deciding. Staff should also have the opportunity to ask their own questions, do research, and get the facts about how unions work in the United States. One of my responsibilities as CEO is to the rights of all staff. That means making sure that the quiet voices have the same right to be heard as the loud voices - on this or any issue. The decision to unionize doesn’t belong to management, and it doesn’t belong to our volunteers. The decision belongs to all eligible employees.

This is something that I believe personally. I was a union member for 13 years. In March of this year, in my personal capacity, I co-hosted a fundraiser for my former union, even though I left the job and the union 9 years ago.

What does this mean for our organization? The sun will rise, and the sun will set each day, and in between we will keep doing the great work we do. Eligible staff may choose to unionize. Eligible staff may vote and say that they don’t want to unionize. We will move forward either way and it will all be okay. We are not against each other. We are in this together.

This isn't as blatantly anti-union rhetoric as some of Bernadette's more recent comments, but it was still clearly meant to plant seeds of doubt, and was enough for me to recognize that very different narratives were being sold to the community and the staff, and to evaporate any lingering doubts I had about characterizations of the Foundation as having been spreading anti-union messaging. I suppose this is where I started to get frustrated with the standstill we were reaching on-wiki. It wasn't clear to me that quoting that email, at that point in time, would do more good than harm, and yet it put me on a very different footing from you and others to have lost any reason to AGF, while y'all were following our movement's norms and trying to keep an open mind that, when the Foundation said it wasn't anti-union, it was telling the truth.

On a personal note, I've spent the week since Wikimania in a sweltering apartment in Paris, sleeping a lot and meditating on the past few months, now mostly disconnected from Wikimedia and instead grounded in reality by the three people crazy enough to spend their lives with me. I was thinking just today about how so much of my conduct throughout June was born of frustration over that information asymmetry, and how that wasn't fair to others who had no way to know what they didn't know. I had cut short my informal bereavement leave at a time when I knew I wasn't really ready, because I wasn't sure anyone else had both the information I had and the inclination to do something about it. I don't regret that, in the end, but it clearly took its toll on me, and on some of the people around me, and I do apologize for that. I've been feeling progressively more level-headed over the past month, but have also been trying to remember that my judgment isn't going to get back to 100% overnight, and to pace myself accordingly. I appreciate everyone who's borne with me. I'll have some more thoughts about the latest WMF developments in the coming days, but am making sure to run ideas by people for sanity checks, and am hopeful that I'll manage to leave any arguing to people who are better at it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)