User talk:Tamzin/Archive/8

Hi, I noticed you blocked 104.153.242.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for evading a block and mass deleted a number of their pages. Another IP under the same /24 CIDR range (specifically 104.153.242.128/29 range), 104.153.242.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been mass creating pages, including re-creating some of the ones you've deleted. I came across this while data mining so I'm just letting you know that this user has apparently continued evading their block. Uhai (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Uhai! :) Gave the /24 a month off anon. only; the only others editing logged-out on it are vandals (assuming that's not the same person doing some CIR-hand/outright-bad-faith-hand). And nuked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey Tamzin, you said that I was using multiple accounts, or coordinating editing outside of Wikipedia. I am not using several accounts, but AG5263 is indeed my classmate. I was simply trying to be humorous since he is my friend, and my intent was not vandalism, and I am NOT collaborating with him on editing, and even if I was, what is the issue with that? I'm not trying to be rude, I am simply wondering what I did wrong, and if you could show me. I will not edit AG5263's user page or talk page again with the intent of being humorous anymore, but I may help add to it, but not with a vandalizing or humorous intent. Thank you, Matthew. MasterMatt12 (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MasterMatt12: Special:Diff/1125907784 certainly looks like vandalism to me. So there's what you did wrong: you called another user a bunch of mean nicknames and moved their talk page. As for User:AG5263, their block log has a big stinking notice to the effect of "the technical logs on this account prove that multiple accounts are being used by one IP/computer/person", and saying the user "is my friend" suggests that either your friend is doing something shady or you're doing something shady. Tamzin was just covering all her bases. casualdejekyll 22:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you casualdejekyl, I understand what I did that was wrong and was interpreted as vandalism and I won't do it again, I intended it to be making fun of him and didn't expect this to be as big of a deal as this, but I am wondering why he is blocked, and why they say that his IP address has several accounts?? He has one account, and so do I, the only time I or my friend did things on the same IP address is when we accidentally edited signed out, and why does he have an edit ban on his account? He understood that it was just a mean remark and put a bunch of wikilove on my talk page saying that, and that apparently was considered as using several accounts on an IP address? I'm a bit confused about what is going on right now. And he is my friend, that is why I put the mean messages on his talk page because he would know that it wasn't real and intentional vandalism since he is my friend, and I wouldn't do that if it was some random person because they would probably think I was being serious, and if anyone has an edit ban it should be me, not him. Once again, I am not trying to be rude, I am simply trying to find out what is happening, and how to resolve what is going on.

Thanks, Matthew. MasterMatt12 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@MasterMatt12: Your warning was for inappopriate behavior regarding accounts you're connected to, and it doesn't sound like you dispute that that's what happened, except inasmuch as you dispute that your actions were inappropriate. (They were, and if you do things like that again you will wind up blocked.) If your friend has questions about their block, they can follow the instructions in the block notice they were given. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright I understand, and I apoligize for my actions, it won't happen again and I hope I can continue contributing here. I have a question though not about my friend, I understand why he was banned, I am wondering why User: DA9523 is blocked since I he is not related to the 4 accounts User: AG5263 has. Thank you, and once again I apoligize. MasterMatt12 (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@MasterMatt12: That account too is welcome to appeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Well I guess this mess is over, and I don't think User:DA9523 is open to appeal, since he already asked to be unblocked, and the administrators said that he was confirmed to be connected to the other AG5263 accounts and that he can't explain what happened. Thank you anyways. MasterMatt12 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. I just closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Final(?) batch of mainspace archive subpage redirects and found that XFDcloser deleted all the talk pages of these redirects, which, of course, include talk page archives. I usually would take care of it myself, but I'm off back to work shortly and won't be able to look into it for the next few hours. If you're available, could you look into this and restore whatever talk page archive is necessary? I'll clean up everything else when I have the time to do so. ✗plicit 03:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Explicit: Think we just bumped into each other halfway through. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance! I usually take care of my own messes to not burden others, but the timing was bad since my lunch hour was almost up when I realized what happened. I have a little downtime now, so I'll try to finish this up. ✗plicit 06:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering what was going on here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Me Too. Talk:Desmond Tutu/Archive (2006) is populating Category:Redirects for discussion with talk page redirects, which I created and patrol. So I looked at Desmond Tutu/Archive (2006) and found it was part of a long-closed RfD. Expanding the four collapsed boxes, I see all red except for two of them: Desmond Tutu/Archive (2006) and Ramzi Yousef/Archive1. The logs for those show that they were deleted but then you restored them (restore G8-exempt per Special:Diff/1126212146) – which brings me here. I see Bot1058 incorrectly retargeted a talkpage archive you moved, confused by an existing mainspace redirect for that archive. Nice to know my bot helped surface this issue, which I only learned about when I read that RfD. I only log directly into my bots once every year or two, and I should probably do that again soon as I'm sure there will be a big bunch of notifications waiting for me! I occasionally patrol Talk-to-mainspace redirects, I should set up one for the reverse (main-to-talk) as well! My experience tells me that if it is possible for editors to do something that you don't expect they would ever do, they surely will. Murphy's law. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Ugh, yeah, looks like a pair of accidental undeletions while sorting out the preceding group of accidental deletions. Should be sorted now. Thanks for flagging this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

...and there's this. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Alright, we need to get Fuccbois and Fuccboi up for a double DYK! Drmies (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  (talk page stalker) Just stumbled across this with no context, but looks like fun! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 01:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  you have my bow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Hey, who you callin' a...
  Oh, right, the DAB.
  At the moment I'm trying to get Draft:Mi Shebeirach up to snuff, but I'll see if I can find room in my heart for Fuccboi or Fuccbois. Actually, hey, @Your Power, would the latter be up your alley? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't tempted to revert but I just saw it and was extremely confused. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: thanks for the invite - shrewd and correct observation to say that this is well within my field of interest as a gay Filipino! I'd love to work on it, but I've got a complex cocktail of big Wikipedia work and big, real life work to balance at the moment, so unfortunately I can't do much... to save you folks some trouble though I found some sources y'all can use to further flesh out the article  

  • https://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/2022/09/13/2205560/cinemalaya-widens-horizons-regional-filmmakers
  • https://www.pep.ph/guide/movies/148665/best-filipino-movies-2019-a759-20200116-lfrm2
  • https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/showbiz/chikaminute/768774/aswang-film-on-war-on-drugs-wins-big-at-2020-famas-awards/story/
  • https://pop.inquirer.net/78545/not-your-ordinary-fbois-3-gripping-things-about-the-film

  ‍ ‍ Elias 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
  _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 02:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm working on Fuccboi, so if someone wants to take Fuccbois, we could make this a thing :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'll add something to Fuccbois. But the first thing on the list is WP:GNG. Sarrail (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I’ll work on Fuccbois. Think I’ve found enough sources to address the GNG concerns. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 17:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just made an expansion into the Fuccbois article   It should be above 1.5k characters now! ‍ ‍ Elias 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
  _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 09:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Looks good now :-) Sarrail (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Welp, looks like we did it. Now the only question remaining is how to incorporate them both into a hook. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 18:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Drmies, Theleekycauldron, Your Power, and HelenDegenerate: Whoo! Alright, how about Did you know ... that Fuccbois won awards and Fuccboi's "bros" and "baes" received praise? (Also, not-it on the QPQs. :P) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, I'm not sure that works for Fuccboi, since as far as I can see, the "baes" were somewhat criticized by NYT. I'm gonna make the nomination with a placeholder hook, anyone who wants to add an article and/or a hook is more than welcome to :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Done: Template:Did you know nominations/Fuccbois :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what's going on, but it looks like Fuccbois' talk page just got vandalised... Sarrail (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Whoa, that's crazy. I can't believe the size of those articles. Here, you can have this one, Template:Did you know nominations/Volodymyr Kozhukhar. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Allow me, I've got way too many – next ones are on me, off my QPQ list. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

    I also reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Innokenty Fedenev. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 23:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RRREALLY? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

...is absolutely fascinating. I didn't know any of this. Your work is appreciated as always. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ezlev: Neither did I! Nor almost any Jew I've talked to since starting on this. Nor most of the Jews surveyed in the ethnographic study mentioned in the article, apparently. But you know what I noticed while writing it? We have a) no article on LGBT synagogues (and LGBT-affirming denominations in Judaism is a mess) and b) no top-level article on Judaism and LGBT topics! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: Made a shell for now at Draft:Judaism and LGBT topics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice work! Cullen328 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks. I'd had the thought to link to it when posting on your talkpage, and was surprised to see it was a redlink. I'd expected to write a few paragraphs, maybe just barely enough for a DYK, but got drawn in as I learned the whole history of Friedman's version and the queer Jewish community of San Francisco. So, thank you for having indirectly sent me down that fascinating journey. I hope all continues to improve for you and yours, baruch HaShem. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my bad regex! Forgot about partial matches. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi thank you for your work on Harry Amorim Costa. Please include inline citations. Have a nice day ahead!

✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 05:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003: Please see the page history for the actual creator. My involvement is purely technical. Thanks for the kitten though. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm getting the wrong warning from an automated filter "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. Disruptive behavior may result in being blocked from editing." when I try to revert.

Please revert the merge to the old version. That is Non-constructive and unreliable change. Please warn them "Have a consensus at talk page before you merge or change bigger". The edit changed the exact meaning of crush (Infatuation) to 360 degree. Also, add the "update" tag and remove "merge" tag. Thanks in advance! Ritushpress (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Tamzin. It's not entirely clear to me why you have blocked Saterserge and Epcotprimea indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopedia. Is there more there than meets the eye? Are they socks? Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Those are both sox of Gustin Kelly, who has a penchant for harassing female and nonbinary editors. See Special:PageHistory/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names for what made me so sure it was him. He tends to move at pretty high speed, and often resorts to violent harassment, so in these cases I just hit one of the Twinkle presets both for expedience and for WP:DENY. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Maybe adding "LTA" to the Twinkle verbiage in such cases would be clarifying for the likes of me, though. Bishonen | tålk 21:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC).

Hey @Tamzin. Could you please take a look at this template and let me know if all is well. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi: All looks good to me! Got the url-encoding right, which is usually the pitfall with these things. The only question that comes to mind is whether it would be better to have a "User wikipedia/Eliminator" template that takes a |wiki= parameter... But I haven't thought that through that much. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin, I was thinking of the same. We have {{User translation administrator|wcode=x}} where "x" is a specific wiki. I'm not much into template stuff so I don't know how to do this. I just wanted one for myself so I created it there. User group eliminator is on a number of Wikis so having a standard template as you suggest would be quite helpful ;) ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin - can I just check with you why you made this change? Maybe it's something I've missed - that SPI case is insanely long - but it looks like you're saying they're a sock of themselves. Let me know if I'm being a doofus. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Ugh. I'd meant to change "FobTown" to "FobTown2" in the SPIhelper dropdown before blocking and tagging, but then forgot to. Someone pointed out to me that I'd failed to block FobTown2, which I fixed, but it didn't occur to me that I also had a tag to clean up.   Reverted. Thanks. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for fixing. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 16:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If possible, would you be able to look at this ongoing discussion: Talk:Second Battle of Fallujah#Proposed changes by GalantFan. I would open up another AN/I thread, but that seemed inappropriate since I recently opened one that has been closed. Unfortunately GalantFan has since engaged in the same disruptive battleground editing as before. We were making some progress yesterday. However, today their behaviour has become significantly worse and it's becoming increasingly difficult. They even started to bring up old edits of Green547 and making very inappropriate comments about them, which was one of the main issues before. They made edits to the disputed section after Gusfriend opened an RfC, and again even after advised regarding this on their talk page. They're still not understanding Wikipedia's guideline's that multiple editors have made them aware about. While the discussion has made some progress, some of their behaviour has been unacceptable. I've tried my best to move the discussion along but their behavior has made it very unpleasant and difficult. GreenCows (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@GreenCows: What I'm seeing here, overall, is the messy process toward consensus on a fraught article. It's not always a pleasant thing, but it looks like y'all are moving in the direction of bettering the encyclopedia, and I'm hesitant to meddle in that process too much, especially given Drmies' no-action close at AN/I recently. I'm also not immediately seeing the issue with editing part of the article other than the part subject to the RfC, but maybe I'm missing something. That said, I'm also mindful of Girth Summit's warning about the Green547 comments. I'm inclined to give GalantFan a final warning on dredging up ancient history, but to otherwise leave things be. I've got a houseguest over, so I'll be focused on that for the next bit. If neither the Good Doctor nor the Good Teacher has objected in a reasonable amount of time, I'll go forward with that warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, thanks for looking into it. I know getting consensus is a messy process and while some progress has been made, it's just incredibly frustrating, and at times unpleasant, that since the closure of the recent AN/I, GalantFan is continuing much of the same behavior as before. For the record the most relevant diffs regarding the RfC issue I mentioned are:1, 2, and 3. Thanks again. GreenCows (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some of their behavior is unacceptable. I also find that their continued insistence on using YouTube really betrays a level of incompetence, and "THE DOCUMENTARY IS NOT THE CONTROVERSY. THE USE OF WP IS THE CONTROVERSY. THE DOCUMENTARY IS ONLY ONE OF THE SOURCES OF EVIDENCE" shows a confusion between article writing and reality. The documentary cannot be used as reliable secondary evidence, and while we could start an RfC to determine that, that is really a waste of time. I don't know why they bring up "old" edits/comments, I really don't. But it's very tiresome. I am somewhat loath to act in an administrative capacity because I edited (trimmed) one of the articles, and of course I closed that report--but I did so hoping they'd rein themselves in, and that was in vain. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: Good afternoon from Newark Liberty International Airport, home of the least trans-competent TSA agents I've yet encountered. Got like 6 hours to kill, so guess I'll try to write GalantFan something personalized. My success record at heartfelt warnings written while at an airport is, to date, 0 for 1; maybe second try's the charm.   Kinehore -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

So I was there twice. The first time I had ten hours to kill, and the second time they lost my passport. I have made sure to never go through Newark again. I wish you good luck in all your Newark-related ventures! Drmies (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I was at Newark airport a couple months ago. I figured it would save me money on my Boston-DC trip. The tickets were much cheaper, but the savings were swamped by all the $ I spent at the Newark airport. So many nice shops and restaurants! I will fly direct next time! Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd definitely take the Acela for that trip. Not as fast, but far more comfortable (and environmentally friendly). But I'm obviously biased. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Average speed 68 mph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't sound as bad when you realize no waiting in lines at the airport or TSA screenings, but yes, it's not the fastest. That said, 40+ inches of legroom and two free carry-ons plus two free personal items is nothing to scoff at, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Last time I flew (early August), I'm 99% sure I caught Covid at Reagan National Airport; the place was like a zoo. I can't imagine flying anywhere again anytime soon. I hope none of you have that happen to you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA at the get-go when blocking this rash of socks. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I've pulled TPA from a bunch that were reported at SPI, but there are probably more lurking about. firefly ( t · c ) 14:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't think any of these were my blocks, but if any were, I apologize. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

No need to apologize; it was just a heads up. I was being pinged like crazy on umpteen vulgar unblock requests.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey Tamzin! Hope you're doing well, wish I was on your talk page with better news but I just came across a Nazi who's been making racist, transphobic, and antisemitic edits for months and only today got a 3 month ban. And I say nazi because he literally calls being trans a jewish ideology and adds "14/88" and "HH" to articles. Not sure if this is the right place to ask but could you make it permanent? 3 months seems far too lenient and he should have been banned long ago. The IP is User:71.105.95.153 TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP addresses generally aren't blocked indefinitely unless it's an open proxy. 3 months is a decent amount of time, and if the disruption comes back, the address can be blocked again. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, also want to note that @Funcrunch brought up that they may be connected to User:2600:1017:B808:B1A0:FDF9:E827:CF16:7761 who isn't banned at all but should also be for adding "transgenderism is Jewish science. 14/88" to Gender binary.

Geolocate says 71.105.95.153 was in St. Louis, whois says Ashburn, and dp-ip.com says downtown manhattan by city hall.

Geolocate says 2600:1017:B808:B1A0:FDF9:E827:CF16:7761 was in Arlington, whois says Ashburn, and db-ip.com is said it came directly from NYC city hall... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist: Hi! (Relevant username! I was just playing an anarchism-themed boardgame with some other trans folk, as it happens. Or, trying to play. We decided it was more complicated than we were in the mood for.) So, per Maddy, we rarely indef IPs (not even most open proxies actually). The rule of thumb is to block for as long as the user in question appears to have been on a given IP, and that looks like exactly what PhilKnight did here, as disruption goes back to late September: 3 months of activity, 3-month block. As to the second IP, don't mind that geolocation. Cellular ranges often use landmarks like that; my mobile range in New Jersey geolocates to 30th Street Station in Philly (in fairness, this is occasionally correct). That edit was 2 weeks ago, so it's unlikely a block of the IP would actually impact the person who made the edit. If you see edits like these that are more recent, do please let me know. And, if disruption resumes from that first IP in 3 months, let Phil know; I imagine he'll block for 6 months to a year in that case. But I don't think there's any new blocks to be made at this time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for explaining! Sorry for getting back to you late, the past few days have been busy, back to back Hanukkah, Christmas Eve, and Christmas parties lol. Also thanks for letting me know about the game! Me, my gf, and her gf/my friend (lotta t4t goodness is a constant in my place lol) saw the message then got sidetracked looking up the game and making plans to get it and play together soon! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tamzin! I hope you are well. The user ZaniGiovanni, who you previously Tbanned for engaging in persistent battleground behavior, continues to display the same behavior a month after the expiration of their Tban.

On the 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, ZaniGiovanni repeatedly removed ([5], [6]) an article from JAMnews, a third-party source that employs journalists from all around the Caucasus and Central Asia. ZaniGiovanni asserts that the article is unreliable due to the fact that it was published in Baku and refers to it as a "Baku-based article". Aside from the problematic nature of the fact that ZaniGiovanni automatically assumes an article is unreliable if it is published in Azerbaijan (very similar to the reason they was originally Tbanned for), the red flag here is that ZaniGiovanni does not apply the same standards when it is advantageous to their position. Here is ZaniGiovanni using a similar article from the same JAMnews, this time published in Yerevan, 5 days before their reverts, to add a statement in wiki voice (something they were apparently very concerned about: Please find a non Baku article to support this statement, especially if you're going to say it in wiki voice.). ZaniGiovanni was also unconcerned about reliability when they restored incorrectly attributed information from a local Armenian news letter without even verifying (3rd point) the source or when they used a propagandistic website such as "panarmenian.net" to prove a point.

ZaniGiovanni was also recently engaged in edit wars on the same article and was reported by another user. The administrator who closed the report confirmed that ZaniGiovanni's edits (& reporting user's too) constituted an edit warrning and issued verbal warnings before closing the report as Stale. I think it's evident that ZaniGiovanni hasn't learned much from previous Tban. What do you think should be done here? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Abrvagl: This sounds like a matter to bring to AE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi and happy holidays. I noticed some serious misinterpretations here so I thought to comment regarding the points Abrvagls raised one by one. I hope you can take a look Tamzin.

1. On the 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, ZaniGiovanni repeatedly removed ([7], [8]) an article from JAMnews – The edit in question was making extraordinary claims that humanitarian aid passed through the blockaded corridor, which even to this day, is highly doubted and at the time, wasn't true. WP:RS clearly state that supplies are running low or either are entirely lost due to the blockade. HRW, referring to some media reports, says trucks allegedly containing humanitarian goods were allowed to pass. So to say something like this in Wikivoice no less using a source called "Jamnews" from a Baku based article needed additional third party to confirm per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:UNDUE, especially when multiple other sources didn't confirm this at all and stated that supplies are lost or running low, or another third party reported more than a week after blockade still with "alleged" wording (HRW).

2. Here is ZaniGiovanni using a similar article from the same JAMnews, this time published in Yerevan, 5 days before their reverts, to add a statement in wiki voice – Tbh I just noticed that it was a Yerevan edition article but nothing I added is extraordinary or undue anyway, so I don't see why are you comparing apples to oranges here. You can find these statements in 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article as well. In any case I replaced the source, but you could've told me about this on Lachin Corridor talk if you were so concerned about that source instead of bringing up content here. It's the first time of me learning about this issue you apparently had with my edit, from an admin talk page...

3. ZaniGiovanni was also unconcerned about reliability when they restored incorrectly attributed information from a local Armenian news letter without even verifying (3rd point) the source – The source was already cited in the article (not by me) and actually you added a source that's no better. But this is something that has been extensively discussed in here which you haven't replied to for a week now. So again, why are you bringing random content points from a discussion here? Also, a third party source for Az soldiers being involved in the blockade [7].

4. or when they used a propagandistic website such as "panarmenian.net" to prove a point. – This isn't even an edit and you're straight up posting random comments of mine from another article discussion where I was suggesting you a wording supported by third party WP:RS, [8], [9], to which you literally agree to in your next reply.

Tamzin if it's not too much to ask, please take a look at the context I provided. I believe there have been several misinterpretations here and omission of various important details/context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Long time no speak! Just wanted to clarify my position of bold, is that MOS:TEXT#Article title terms comments that this should be for the first usage of the term, not specifically if it just redirects to a section. Both terms appear in the lede (although I do see "muffing" isn't bolded), which would be my preference. Hope you are having a good holiday. Great article, btw. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and as an FYI, the #NOTE TO MOBILE EDITORS no longer applies, as you can see the information on the talk page, it's just a bit hidden on first viewing. I think it's something that was specifically fixed, if that's of any help to you. :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Yeah, sorry, got those rationales muddled. So, for Miranda Darling Bellwether, that's the first time her full name appears in the article; the name used in the lede is her much-better-known nickname, Mira. As to "muffing", I considered which usage to boldface, but concluded that the proper one was the first usage after the redirect's target. This seemed consistent with MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Boldfacing in the lede would be misleading since the redirect doesn't point there. If that train of thought doesn't make sense, happy to discuss further on the article's talk. Glad you liked the article. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Tamzin, I am contacting you because you have blocked TheCurrencyGuy as an AE action some time ago.

Personally, I think TCG's mass edits to currency names and notations are so pervasive and widespread that the swiftest way to deal with them is to declare them reversible on sight, unless there are consensus in favour of his changes. Would you say that it is wise to start a discussion - potentially at ANI - over this course of action, or would it be too draconian?

Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka: Not an AE block, actually, but anyways, don't I recall you starting some thread to this effect at AN a while ago? I would just say, if there's an edit that you think was not beneficial to the encyclopedia, go ahead and revert it. If someone disagrees with you, discuss. If there's edits you're not sure about, you could start a discussion at a suitable WikiProject. But I don't see a need for any special rule here, personally. (Of course, any edits made by sox postdating the siteblock are covered by WP:BANREVERT.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks! NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The thread you hatted was not actually a TBAN violation if you compare the timestamps. Paddykumar did violate their TBAN, but that edit was already reverted. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: Ah, my bad. Reverted. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, the talk page of Beira's Place, has some comments by multiple IP's, that the IP view tool says are from German and the UK, but I have a suspicion are the same user or closely related, and I would like your opinion on whether they are dynamic IP's or someone using multiple IP's. Hopefully you can take a look and see what's happening with the IP's. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: Both IPs geolocate to Berlin, and the latter acknowledges being the same as the former here. This is not in itself a policy violation. Whether the comment violates other policies or guidelines such as WP:NOTFORUM, I don't have an opinion on at the moment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi -- I saw that you are the admin who added a block to user Simoneleigharchive for their editing on the Simone Leigh article. I've never really seen a situation like this before and I'm on the newer side of editing, but I think that user may have created a sockpuppet account to continue editing the page. A new account was created earlier today (Special:Contributions/Gnaffy and immediately used to remove an image of the subject of the article that the blocked account had been consistently trying to remove. Honestly just wanted to alert you in case you have a way to tell if the new account is a sockpuppet. Have never really encountered someone seemingly trying to evade a block before. Thanks for any insight/direction on this! 19h00s (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@19h00s: The block is a "soft block", so the user is allowed to create a new account. Not sure if that's what's happening here or something else. The best course of action would probably be to just warn them for this removal ({{subst:uw-delete1}} or a custom warning) and see where things go. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a rangeblock you made possibly needs strengthening, someone is inserting deliberately false info [10]. I actually just spoke to Drmies yesterday about this same issue on a different ISP, very odd. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Balph Eubank: So, this isn't the same person I pblocked the range over, who was a CIR case rather than an ethnonationalist. For now I've gone ahead and blocked Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:11B9:6D51:B447:E0FF:FEAE:81CB/41 for 72 hours. /41 isn't an officially assigned range here, that I can see, but all the disruptive IPs so far are within it, so time will tell whether a wider block is needed. (The narrowest assigned range here is a /32, which is 512 times larger than a /41, hence my hesitance.) The return leg of my ambiguous travelnotice kicks in today, so if you have further questions about this range and I don't respond promptly, you may be better off asking someone else. (I know Firefly has some familiarity here.) Any admin has my blessing to modify or undo that block as needed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, safe travels! - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not have hard evidence, but it seems that User:CorwenAv may be the same person as blocked editor User:TheCurrencyGuy. It may be an innocent coincidence that they have similar interests and that User:CorwenAv appears to be more experienced than a typical newbie editor. If you have a way of checking, it may be worth looking into. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I certainly see the similarities, but also some differences. Gonna sleep on it. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Tamzin,

You blocked Special:Contributions/2601:601:D02:2120:0:0:0:0/64 from editing an article that the IP identifies as about themselves. Well, it's now been nominated for deletion and they have been very active in the deletion discussion and a few hours ago demanded that either the article be immediately deleted or the AFD tag removed or they would contact their attorney. I am not very familiar with range blocks so I don't know whether or not this should go into a total block and, if so, how long it should last. I worry about possible collateral damage to other IP editors so I'm hoping you could follow this up with your knowledge you gained working on SPI cases. Thanks, in advance, for taking a look at this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for the heads-up. Blocked the /64 1 year. FYI, a /64 can almost always be blocked without fear of collateral damage (beyond people on the same connection). This is especially true for a Comcast residential connection, as Mr. Hamilton is on. FWIW, there's an abandoned account that is presumably him, Judd hamilton, but no edits in 8 years so I'll leave that be unless you see a benefit in blocking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Liz A /64 is usually just one person/household, and sometimes one connection can have multiple /64's. The activity of that specific range is entirely Judd Hamilton-related, and WHOIS suggests that it's just a bog-standard internet connection from a normal ISP. The range is almost definitely a single user and would have minimal-to-none collateral damage. An indef is a bad idea because it can be re-assigned, but something on the order of multiple months to maybe a year would be totally fine, depending on what length the situation calls for. (Tamzin would probably know more about this than I.) casualdejekyll 03:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I was beaten to it. Curses! casualdejekyll 03:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. If you could please take a look, the disruptive editing has resumed[11]. Contacting you because the recent edit is very similar to User:Okemmabrown1132's edits, who you blocked for the previous behavior. Thanks. --DB1729^talk 16:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@DB1729: How strange. Indeffed. Let me know if you see more of them. (Nice taxicab number, by the way!) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you! DB1729^talk 17:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me like there's a third person, a painter. Sorry, dead tired after a nice long day out, can't investigate further. Tomorrow is the last day to do something about Lothar Blumhagen, - please understand the priority. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, I had a question. I noticed that you closed this discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 18#Tau(artist) as speedy delete. I was intrigued by the G6. Usually I'd think about this in terms of R3 but one of the last times I did so it was contested so I started an RfD [12]. So I guess what I'm saying is should I not start an RfD everytime I see a malformed redirect like this that's an obvious error? Is it better to go with R3 or G6? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Before I became an admin, I used {{db-error}} many times on redirects like this one, and never had one declined (at least not on that basis). I think R3 is a bit more borderline for a redirect like this, because it begs the question of whether omitting the space is a plausible typo or not. But G6 covers pages unambiguously created in error, and as long as I can recall, that's been interpreted to include pagemove cleanup from titles with obvious formatting errors—not just things like this, but also like User/Tamzin:sandbox or such. Another way to look at this is that an admin or pagemover would have been allowed to suppress this redirect under WP:PMRC#3, and there's no practical difference between moving without a redirect and moving with redirect and then deleting the redirect. On that note, I've given you page mover access, which should help avoid this kind of bureaucracy in the future. Please read through the whole policy before making use of the permission (or let me know if you don't want the perm). Happy editing. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll read the instructions and I'm fine with the perm. Thank you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't gotten a perm in forever... my hair's fine the way it is, though :P theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Tamzin! Having in mind some (relatively) recent ANI discussions, and clear anti-extremist views that you espoused in them, I must ask you to consider endorsing WP:NOCONFED, as an essay aimed at eradicating neo-Confederate extremism on Wikipedia. You may also want to inform other users, who might be interested in doing so as well. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This essay appears to be basically just WP:NONAZIS but again. In which case, you might want to read Tamzin's already existing and in my personal opinion very good take on NONAZIS at WP:HID, which I feel kind of negates the need for NOCONFED. casualdejekyll 05:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I fully understand and respect yours (and Tamzin's) opinion of this, while I obviously may disagree with it. IMHO, the issue of neo-Confederates needed a separate, more detailed essay to be properly dealt with, while WP:NONAZIS may be too general and vague when it comes to this subject. That may be especially true, when one recalls how common and "accepted" neo-Confederate views were around here at one point, while that surely can't be said for neo-Nazism; it was basically always recognized as problematic and rejected by the community, even before the creation of WP:NONAZIS. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You made your points better than any way I could have possibly phrased it.

Wikipedia:In the news suffers from some of the same resistance to U.S.-centric news that 2022 does. I actually wrote an essay about that phenomenon with WP:ITNGLOBAL. It's kind of interesting how some of the same arguments being made there are applicable to the 2022 article. I agree that we need to fight systemic bias, but I don't think that being needlessly exclusionary is the answer to that. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ITN is a dump if you ask me. I've never participated and probably never will because I have the audacity to write about topics that are in the region where I live (New England) so anything I could ever propose would be shot down. The people there love nothing more than to gatekeep. I honestly think ITN should be scrapped entirely and something more worthwhile put in its place (I've long wanted a way to feature GAs on the main page) but alas, Wikipedians hate change and ITN is here to stay, massive flaws and all. The sheer persistence people are showing at that talk page over a single entry on a giant list is beyond absurd. This is why I stick to my little corner of the encyclopedia and essentially avoid all ds contentious topics areas. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@WaltCip: Yeah... Sometimes I wonder if some people actually look at international news. I have quite a bit in my life, both while living in the U.S. and while living abroad. There is no major national-level political story in the U.S. that is relevant to just the U.S. If the U.S. cannot pass laws, that is a global story. If a new head of state is sworn in in the U.S., that is a global story. That's not just my position; it's the position of basically every news publication in the world. Now, if we were better at looking at truly global publications—i.e. not just from the core Anglosphere and/or Europe—this might also apply to France and the UK, due to those countries' enduring totally-not-an-empires.

Overall, ITN strikes me as some people's attempt to create a novel news aggregator that mostly ignores the existence of large countries' politics. Is that actually what the community want? I don't think so. But ITN is so toxic to newcomers, and so full of "Because I said so" rhetoric—which as we're seeing can spill over to related pages too—that everyone finds better things to do with their time. Like WP:DYK, a venue that, for all its faults, has a strong shared value of actually putting good and interesting content on the Main Page.

If I cared enough to start an RfC, it would be a proposal for something like:

1. Create a (procedure to establish a) list of "significance-conferring sources".
2. If an event is prominently covered in sources on that list from X countries, it is presumed fit for inclusion.
3. Other events may still be fit for inclusion if reliable sources comment on their international and/or long-term significance, either through dedicated news analysis or RS opinion pieces, or lines like "In an unprecedented action ..." or "A historic law was passed today ..." (or "This is the only fucking time someone ever slapped someone onstage at the Oscars how did we not mainpage this‽").
4. All comments based on an editor personally feeling something to be significant are ignored, even if they say magic words like "clearly" or "blatantly".

And then options of "just ITN", "just year pages", "both", or "neither".

Feel free to steal that if you're braver than me. :P I'll stick to some fun drafts I'm working on. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! About your signature, it ends with "(she|they|xe)". I am taking that to mean that your preferred pronouns are either feminine or gender-neutral. Do I have that right? I want to respect everyone's pronoun preferences and I haven't seen that one before. (I also like "cetacean needed", but that's a different story.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, see User:Tamzin/Gender for more info.   ––FormalDude (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Very good, thank you. "P.S." Here is a two-part technical tip, in case anyone reading this cares about such things and does not already know it. (1) If you go to Preferences --> User profile, there's a section called "gender used in messages", and you can set it to unspecified (which is the default), feminine, or masculine. (2) You can use the {{they}}, {{them}}, and {{theirs}} templates when referring to other editors on talk pages -- those use the pronoun preferences in their settings. For example, "I thought FormalDude's post was helpful, so I thanked {{them|FormalDude}} for it." would be displayed as "I thought FormalDude's post was helpful, so I thanked him for it." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mudwater: I actually wrote the essay on this! Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns is worth a read. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Whoa, nice work.   — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I have seen your comments on the talk page. Rather than blowing up the talk page discussion with respect to whether deleting my on-topic comment was acceptable, I would like to comment here on your talk page regarding your [13] I understand that the user (and you) believe that deleting my comment was de-escalatory, but I do not understand your reasoning that deleting a comment with which one disagrees is de-escalatory relative to the default position—namely offering a civil response of the comment's substance (or not responding altogether). If omitted the part about the listed exceptions because I thought it wholly implausible that any exception within WP:TPO would apply; if you can point to a part of WP:TPO that commands removing my comment, I will humbly go back and strike my response, but I do not appreciate the notion that restoring my very own good-faith comment to that discussion is somehow uncivil or contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia absent a good reason backing that notion up. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I think you may be losing the forest for the trees here. Of course Davey's comment was deëscalatory. You can tell from how he said

I hope it's okay but I've chosen to remove our replies as this isn't me, creating a war between nationalities isn't me, Think I've made enough enemies this year without adding all Americans to that list too :)

I hope it's okay, this isn't me, I've made enough enemies this year, :)—this isn't someone trying to "win" a dispute by covering up your argument. This is someone realizing he's gone too far and trying to right the ship. And I would imagine—I can't be sure, but I'd imagine—that if you'd responded, "I appreciate that, but I think my reply was important to the conversation at large", he'd have agreed to restoring the comments or been able to reach some compromise. (I'm still not sure how your comment, a six-word recapitulation of your !vote, was important, but that would be between y'all in this hypothetical.) But instead you rather bluntly restored it and cited a wall of guidelines that, I am reasonably confident, Davey is well aware of.

Which gets us to the TPO question. Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. TPO is part of TPG, a guideline. Not just any guideline, in fact, but one of our most loosely-enforced guidelines, with TPO having additional "eh mostly"-style hedging. Experienced users knowingly violate TPG in general, and TPO in particular, all the time. This is consistent with what WP:GUIDES (an actual policy) says: Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Does any TPO criterion apply? I dunno. I haven't read all of TPO in a decade. But this—if you can point to a part of WP:TPO that commands removing my comment—if there's one thing I've been trying to get across to you for months in our occasional friendly differences of opinion, it's that (and oh look, here I'll violate a different part of TPG) THIS ISN'T HOW WIKIPEDIA WORKS! We are not a bureaucracy, nor a court of law. We are governed by common sense. None of our rules are absolute. The defining question in any context is how any act benefits the encyclopedia, not "Show where policy allows this". (And if you do want to cite PAGs, two of those five pages are pillar-level policies.) Someone has taken an action that was clearly, on its face, an attempt to cool down a hot situation. You reïgnited that. The burden is not on me to show which particular part of a softly-worded guideline allows Davey's removal. I don't actually think Davey's removal was a particularly good idea, but I at least see how he thought it would make the encyclopedia better. I do not see how reverting it, particularly in the way you did, made the encyclopedia better. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I understand that WP:IAR is a thing (and I'm more tolerant of its invocation as it pertains to content disputes than the average person; see BilledMammal's comment at 15:11, 4 February 2023 in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:BeanieFan11_and_WP:BATTLEGROUND_at_NFL_AFDs), and I'm aware that the message was polite. There are alternatives (such as striking) that would not have deleted my comment, and would have served the same purpose of saying that one's comment was not warranted. That being said, merely because something is polite and done in good faith does not somehow render it de-escalatory (especially when there wasn't really any particular "escalation" to begin with...), and IAR needs a good reason when there are viable alternatives. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I'm going to be more blunt, since I'm not acting in an admin capacity here: Someone was polite to you and you were a jerk in return. This is generally not a good thing to do. Particularly when absolutely nothing depends on the matter at hand. And trying to litigate the bounds of "Wikipedia has no firm rules" doesn't fix that. That's my opinion. You can ask around; maybe others feel differently. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin,

Would you mind undoing this revdel? The page are being alluded to in a global ban discussion, and I'm interested in viewing its content and references. I imagine that it might be useful to others in the discussion to see, and it's plausible to me that the article's subject is notable as an ethnic subgroup of Crimeans (or that it might warrant being merged into the main article on the Crimean Tatars). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Sorry, I'm not seeing the comment(s) at the GBAN discussion about that page. Could you point me to them? More generally, I'm happy to send you the deleted version or, if you're planning on restoring the artcle, happy to restore those revisions to draftspace or your userspace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This comment; it's one of the pages that Planespotter attempted to canvass (albeit with no success). I think restoring the history underneath the redirect would be fine here; I don't want to commit to restoring the article without reading it first. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I'm not really seeing the case to reverse a G5-based deletion there, for something that is a quite small part of the overall picture, that no one has expressed any desire to look at, and that no one has argued has any bearing on the outcome of the discussion. Again, I am happy to send you the deleted version directly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sending it directly would be nice. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sent -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #69317 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

About 12 hours ago, Platapuspie went on their rampage. Behaviorally, they're a precise match for FaraHelp. Is it even worthwhile noting this with regards to socking since both are indeffed? I think yes, but I know you have more experience in this sort of thing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: No, it's not really necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Tamzin! I saw a person, once you blocked for vandalism in the page Zubeen Garg, is again doing unreasonable edits in the articles (1) List of songs recorded by Zubeen Garg and (2) Zubeen Garg, reverting another editor's edits by (1) re adding information that is cited with unreliable source & (2) re adding information that is not mentioned in a cited source, respectively. Please keep an eye on his edits and those 2 article pages. Thanks! --Haoreima (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

He's doing edit warring, by adding information not mentioned in the sources as well as adding non reliable sources. I don't want to involve in the edit war. The point is very clear, to mention only those items (here, name of languages) that are mentioned in the sources and not additional. But he's not agreeing with this. In fact, he's spamming by reverting my edits. Haoreima (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Haoreima: I would recommend starting discussions on the article talk pages to avoid further edit-warring. If Discographymen continues to edit-war, this is probably best suited to WP:ANEW. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok to grant VANISH? With the recent contretemps, I thought I would ask. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: If they understand that vanishing means no editing on any account, no objection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, that absolutely flew past my head. Apologies! Wouldn't mind if you deleted the shortcut too. Silikonz💬 16:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Silikonz: No worries! I'd actually had the thought at one point myself, then realized what it spelled, and was then surprised there'd been no issue before. Usually creating FOOBAR shortcuts to match FOO/BAR ones is a good service to navigation, so I certainly don't fault you here! :) I've deleted the redir at your request; hopefully the past deletion will make anyone in the future pause before recreating. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that should help for sure. Thanks for the reminder, that was a good lesson to learn. Sorry again :) Silikonz💬 16:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Concerning your comment here, I did not argue that the post in question was a reliable source because it upheld anarchist values. I argued that it was different from a random tweet because it was authored by a recognised collective known to espouse those values. These claims are not at all equivalent - and while I know it was wrong for me to BLUDGEON, at the time I made that argument I was not attempting to restore that content into article space, which I think ought to make a difference. My idiosyncratic views about anarchist journals, which have come up before, would not really mandate a GENSE X ban unless I were to advocate on behalf of such sources in the future, which I will not. Newimpartial (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, when I first got some threatening mails from a user, I emailed them to stewards' group and they lead me to a function called mute. It's on Special:Mute/AAA. For example, if you do not want to get any notification from AAA on all projects, such as pinging, reply or something like that, you can just mute them. This will also disable their emails to you.

Happy editing. -Lemonaka‎ 03:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, I'd like to report yet another NeuroSex sockpuppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Figvostok1enchanting. I believe that this is her 81st sockpuppet thus far (counting only those that are publicly known). Please consider removing the content too, as it appears to mischaracterize the paper it references. Thanks for your help.Keyhound (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. You added a 72-hour 1RR restriction to Aaron Maté back in November and said that it was valid until December. Since it's now expired, would you like to remove that from the edit notice and the talk page notice? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Rémovéd. Thx. -- Tamzin^{[cétacéan néédéd]} (shé|théy|xé) 04:37, 25 Fébruary 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has now been archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive350#Procedural quirk in WP:GS/CASTE without having received any objections. Unless you think a formal close is desirable (in which case unarchive it with a request for one) I'd say that you can go ahead and make the changes you proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Thanks for the notification. :) I have updated GS/CASTE in a manner that seems reasonable to me. Feel free to wordsmith, or let me know if you have any concerns. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That all looks good to me. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey Tamzin. Hope you are doing well. Hate to be a bother but there is an account that is raising a few eyebrows from similarities to the socks that had been blocked under this review Moksha and was wondering if you had a few mins to maybe eyeball. Getting a strong gut feeling but maybe I am wrong. Engaged in some discussion with this users edits on this talk page Baps Charities and seeing a few standout similarities with the banned socks. The account was started a few months after the socks were banned and around the same time the last user in the group Apollo's final appeal attempt. The talk page for the Baps Charity page had a few users before the sock investigation get consensus stacked by the socks as it was made to be a running journal of the branches detailed activities with specific metrics rather then encyclopedic in nature. I had tried to trim the page a little to make it less of a marketing brochure style page and removed some of Mokshas metrics here that I could not find in the source used at the time 1 This new user is trying to bring back some of those metrics and is citing a pdf document for those same metrics Moksha. Metrics that are hard to find without some association to the organization. The users history shows they've created new pages for newer temples since the socks were banned so picking up where they left off in that regard. User fits the mold of Skubydoo and Moksha with a pseudo-interest in medicine and pharmacy related articles but with circle backs to content for the socks preferred Swaminarayan branch The Baps. On the groups charitable organization page, the new user has a point that other charities use their annual report as a citation but the other charities explain what the charity is and an overview of their kinds of work as opposed to dedicating 75% of the page to very granular metrics. So likely no policy violation on that front so I maybe wrong but they went ahead and reverted the changes prior to consensus so figured maybe you see something on the backend or the similarities without a lot of work on your end. Maybe I am off my rocker haha. Thanks as always for your time and all that you do. Every time I peak...you inherit more responsibilities. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Kbhatt22. My initial lack of response here was, as noted below, due to a general unavailability on complex administrative matters. That unavailability largely persists, but more by choice than by necessity—so, while, I'm currently restricting most of my efforts to content, I do have some brainpower to spare to look at this. And look at this I did, a few days ago, and have then been putting off replying to you, because I hate giving someone a noncommital answer on sockpuppetry. The truth is, the evidence we accumulated against Moksha only worked because of the clearly suspect !voting patterns. The shared POV, writing style, etc., weren't enough on their own. Is this a Moksha sock, or someone who independently shares Moksha's POV, or somewhere in between? I don't think it's currently possible to say. After all this delay I wish I could give you a better answer; the best I can say is to keep me posted if strange !voting patterns start to emerge. Thank you for your continued work in this topic area. Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Tamzin. Totally understand you are busy and juggle so many hats on wiki so any time by you into this is greatly appreciated. I see where you are coming from. The resurfacing of a very specific piece of content that Moksha had added and I had removed post ban for sourcing conflict being brought back was probably what led me to feel there was an association and then seeing the creation of specific temple pages for the branch and interest in pharma/medical are all probably a bit inconclusive as you indicated. Would probably need an IP/Geo match to be more conclusive or evidence of vote stacking. I'll keep a look out if anything more concrete comes up. Thanks :) Kbhatt22 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Keyhound and Kbhatt22: I occasionally drift into mental states where I can't do much complex admin work, and y'all happen to have caught me during one. I'm fine, just scatterbrained, and should be back to normal in a few days (  Kinehore), but if either of you needs sock help urgently you should probably talk to another SPI clerk or file an SPI. But otherwise, I will definitely look at your respective queries as soon as I get the chance. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: No rush at all. Take as long as you need to circle back. Glad to hear you are fine. I made the mistake of ignoring mental health for a few years to many and have nothing but regrets so can appreciate and respect someone who knows how to balance. I would prefer that you be the one to eyeball it since what I have noticed is behavioral trends in nature that you had previously reviewed and uncovered. Again no rush at all. We can circle back when you are available. btw never knew what the blue evil eye wards were. I've had one floating around my desk for years from a flea market find. Now I know. Thanks for the time :) Kbhatt22 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: hey hey. Just wanted to ping this one back on your radar. Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being a voice of sanity at AN/I. 99.196.131.218 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Since it seems you are converting it to an RfC you might also need to modify the opening statement to comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. BilledMammal (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal:   Done FWIW, I'm not 100% convinced this needed to be an RfC, since the scope of the proposed rule doesn't exceed AN(I) and the actions authorized are already within discretion (just without a presumption of correctness), but I didn't feel like wikilawyering that. So this works too. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; I think for something like this, which would change how ANI and AE operate in a way that I believe is unprecedented, it is better to have input from the broader community. BilledMammal (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I don't know what to do about this-- or if anything can be done about it-- but it just doesn't feel right, re 7&6's topic ban from all things Doug Coldwell. When I put up the GA review, I thought it was the usual WP:DCGAR. Later I realized the reason it was missed on the original Coldwell GA list; the Coldwell GAN was withdrawn, and re-submitted later by 7&6. So it's really 7&6's GA, although it looks to be a collaboration with DC. And the biggest issues are in the DC parts. So ... that leaves 7&6 in a position to not be able to improve their own GA. Not sure there is a solution to that ... maybe leave well enough alone, but it doesn't feel just that 7&6 can't defend or improve a GA that is mostly theirs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: if 7&6 would like to request an exception for that GAR or any other edge case, I would be open to granting one, seeing as the consensus at AN was pretty open-ended and I see that as giving me a fair bit of leeway. However, having just told him to stop talking about Coldwell, probably best I not prod him on this. But if you know him to be interested in participating in this particular GAR, you're welcome to point him my way. (I imagine an exception here would look something like "may partcipate in the GAR, including by helping to verify content that would otherwise be subject to presumptive deletion, but may not in any way attempt to hinder the removal of content that could not be verified"). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Further thought: Another way to do this would be the GAR proceeds under the restriction, but 7&6 is allowed to renominate the article, with a restriction on restoring Coldwell content but otherwise exempt. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, I am hesitant to prod or rock that boat. What would you think about posting a note at the GAR itself, and then if 7&6 has it watched, they will get the message. Or just leave well enough alone unless they inquire ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, shoot, the WP:GAR instructions say I should notify 7&6. But that will probably feel like a poke to them at this stage. This is a dilemma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Notified 7&6, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you offer an opinion on a pronoun dispute for Bella Ramsey? She has not stated a pronoun preference beyond "she/her;they/them." That is to say, she does not care which.

There are, of course, two camps-- she/her vs they/them. I find both sets of arguments weak.

The she/her people say as she does not care, stick with she/her for consistency.

The they/them people say she's binary, they/them is the only way. They support this position with the ad hominem fallacy, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks. I protected the page in the version I think is wrong. I just want peace in the family. If you could light our way out of this profound pronoun darkness, I would be glad.

Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: There is no global consensus on how to handle such cases. My view is to assume that pronouns are listed in order of preference unless stated otherwise. If someone explicitly states that they have equal preference, I think it generally makes sense to use binary pronouns, primarily for the sake of non-native English speakers who may be confused by "they", but also because it's a bit harder to write cleanly around they/them pronouns. (Neither of those considerations is, of course, enough of a reason to avoid they/them pronouns when it's someone's preference, but when we're talking about marginal difference...)

I can't say how profoundly I reject the notion that nonbinary means we should use they/them. I see it all the time, primarily from cis or binary trans people who are trying to be allies but not actually listening to nonbinary voices. Not all nonbinary people prefer they/them pronouns. In fact, I'm not even sure most nonbinary people do; I'm not sure if there's clear data to that effect. Just use the first pronoun listed absent evidence of preference to the contrary. That's my opinion at least. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I see. Could you opine on the article talk? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Since when is linking to a redirect (which is your way to avoid linking directly to an unreliable site) preferred over a direct link to an internal enwiki page which supports the content of the link? Is there anything actually wrong with my internal link? Fram (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Yours is a dupelink; further, it's not the link that was agreed upon at GAN by 3 editors. Now a) please discuss article issues on talk and b) please discuss general issues (like an objection to redirects to Wikivoyage or links thereto) at an RfC. You've been here longer than I have. You know how this works. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Dupelink"? The GA discussion had one editor who was unhappy with the link, and you who defended it. And yes, I know how this works. You apparently don't. You haven't explained why that external link to a low-quality page is in any way more acceptable than an internal link which explains the content of the link text adequately. Fram (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't lie in edit summaries. "no stated reason for revert"? You know very well why I reverted. You may disagree, but no need to act as if I didn't give my reasons. Fram (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fram: Yes, a dupelink. Capri is already linked in that sentence, as explained in the edit that you reverted without addressing that. (No, "someone else didn't like this"—which is a lie, as Guerillero disliked the previous approach and said he liked the current one in an RfD comment you replied to—is not a reason to revert.) Now, I don't know how much clearer to make this: Links. To. Wiktionary. Are. Allowed. You know this, because you have been citing WP:SISTER, which says only links to Wikinews are (almost)-categorically forbidden in articles. And your opinion is a valid one! You are welcome to do what someone did for Wikinews and start an RfC to (almost) forbid Wikivoyage links' inline usage. That is a totally acceptable thing to do. But as long these links are allowed, you cannot remove them simply because you dislike the general idea. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

For the umpteenth, time, I don't need to start an RfC as policy already suppprts me and not you. WP:SISTER: "Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section, or where appropriate in citations. Two exceptions are links to Wiktionary and Wikisource that may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed)." As Wikivoyage is not included in the two exceptions, it follows the general rule. So, your link to Wikivoyage is allowable in external links or in citations, not in the text. Fram (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the umpteen-less-one times you've made that point before? It's incorrect regardless of how many times you've made it, but let's get on the same page about what we've already discussed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:SSRT is part of WP:SISTER, no? Anyway, please explain how my reading and quoting of the actual policy text is "incorrect". You may well very emphatically claim "Now, I don't know how much clearer to make this: Links. To. Wiktionary. Are. Allowed.", with added points for emphasis, but a) we aren't discussing Wiktionary, but Wikivoyage, and b) links to Wikivoyage in the article text are not allowed, per my quote of the actual policy. The policy gives a general rule, and gives two exceptions which are allowed inline. If you want to expand that to three exceptions, including Wikivoyage, then you should start an RfC. Fram (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for misspeaking. I meant Wikivoyage, not Wiktionary, of course. I will elaborate further on the article's talk page... still not sure why we're discussing this on my talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, in your opinion, is "I support the rights of attack helicopters" a dog whistle, and if so, like how obvious of a dog whistle is it? Levivich (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: Well it's a dog whistle if intentional—and that sort of thing is usually intentional, but I'm sure the occasional exception arises. As to obviousness... Well that's a strange question to ask about a dog-whistle. Dog-whistles are, by definition, obvious to some audiences and non-obvious to others. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Levivich (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: Oh, to add, as pointed out by my partner to me just now: Depending on context, there is always the possibility of this being meant as some sort of cheeky pro–trans rights point ("You wanna compare trans people to attack helicopters? Fine, I support attack helicopters"). So yeah, context matters. But trolling 95 times out of 100 probably. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh tell your partner thanks for pointing that out. That's sort of what I was worried about. I will email you the deets so you can look at the specific thing I'm worried about and tell me if I'm misreading it. Levivich (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty obviously trolling. More of one of those training clickers than a whistle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If you maintain a tickler list of socks/quiescent vandals/misbehaving vanished users to watch out for, could you please add the user logged here to your list? They are responsible for this edit and this one at the recently closed Rfc at Talk:Gender identity. (These two edits were later removed from the Rfc post-closure by a third party; the intact, closed Rfc with the vandal's screed still visible in context can be viewed here.) In response to their second edit at the Rfc, I left this uw-v4 on their UTP, skipping straight to level four. Their vanish request must have come shortly thereafter. If you don't feel you are the right person to take this on, please lmk and I'll find someone else; I don't want them crawling through the woodwork and surfacing with no eyeballs on them. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you delete the photo from Jeremy Dewitte and cite the above guideline, so I had a read. It seems to suggest mughots are OK if the crime associated it well cited, which seems to be the case here.

Have I misunderstood? CT55555(talk) 04:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. Obviously this image is disparaging. I don't see how it could ever be fair to someone for the only image in their article to be a mugshot. In the case of say, a serial killer, the benefit to the reader may offset that, but a small-time crook best-known for some viral videos of him yelling at cars? I think having an article on him at all is pushing it, let alone having the only image be a mugshot. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I would agree with CT55555 in this case. The person's notability comes from the many criminal incidents he was tried for and convicted of. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That assumes he's notable. As I've explained here, he isn't. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Just curious why you didn't nominate instead of just removing the image. Within your right of course but seems pointy. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing MUG, it occurred to me that the balancing test there relies on an assumption of notability. I thought, "Well obviously it's inappropriate to have a mugshot here, so perhaps I should look closer at notability", and then did, and found that there's no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That actually makes perfect sense. Sorry for assuming and making the "pointy" comment. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

While obviously we are disagreeing at the deletion discussion, I did just want to acknowledge that clearly your deletion arguments are driven by principles of dignity, which I respect. And while I also thought the mugshot was OK (I don't like using them, I did not add it) I found an alternative photo as hopefully a compromise solution there. Peace. CT55555(talk) 03:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin,

The sockpuppeteer I keep reporting appears to be at it again. This could be at least her, or her agent's, 82nd sock puppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Guardsmanmario

Can you please take the necessary actions, and if necessary delete the suspect (false/misleading) content? Many thanks. Keyhound (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Keyhound. I'm mostly on leave from admin work at the moment. While I'm keeping an eye on past affairs and occasionally making straightforward blocks where appropriate, this seems like a marginal case. It could just as well be some other person with a similar POV to NeuroSex. You can file an SPI asking for CheckUser investigation of the IP address, but honestly, if the only comment is a talkpage post directed at an editor who already edits the page in question, it might be better to just ignore it for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey Tamzin, could you please remove my AWB perms? I thought I'd need it but I think I touched it for a few days and didn't return to it, so there's no use for me to still be there. Thanks. SWinxy (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, SWinxy, I'm mostly on leave from admin work, and while this is a really simple thing, I'm trying to limit exceptions I make from my leave lest it creep into being not-a-leave. You can see recently active admins at [14], or ask at WP:AN. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Damn. Must've been to late for your one admin action of the day. 😔 SWinxy (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

SWinxy, (talk page stalker)   Done—  Salvio ^giuliano 22:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank u Salvio! <3 SWinxy (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking here because you gave me the userright and I'm slightly worried that maybe I messed up? I moved a draft to Racial segregation in Canada to avoid making an unnessecary G6. But I didn't remove the redirect in the page first and I'm worried that somewhere there's a redirect to draft space that I created? Looking at my contributions doesn't seem to indicate this is the case but it's possible I'm just not looking in the right places to see if I messed up. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Clovermoss: the redirect at that location was moved to draft space by the script you used and is now at Draft:Racial segregation in Canada. Generally fine to keep said redirect there (though you should update it to target the correct page). There's no remaining redirect from article-space. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Elli, I'll update that! I also appreciate the confirmation that there's no redirects from article space to draft because that was my main concern. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Every now and then if a pageswap really confounds me (either it's more complex than the normal round-robin, or my brain just isn't braining at that moment), I'll do it step-by-step manually rather than with the script. Then I check my contribs to make sure I didn't miss anything like syncing talkpages or retargeting the redirect. That way I understand every step of the process. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)